Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


frankfurt school

- Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:09:16 EST ypqGZf3j No.207836
File: 1488758956835.jpg -(76895B / 75.09KB, 776x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. frankfurt school
is it safe to say that no one who believes in "cultural marxism" and points to the frankfurt school as some spooky bohemian grove type of thing where a bunch of jews gathered to decide the fate of the world has actually read this thing?
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 05:24:27 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207837 Reply
1488795867741.gif -(58223B / 56.86KB, 340x169) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
It's pretty clear that everyone who believes in cultural marxism has never read anything.
Cedric Binkinson - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 10:34:08 EST 54PBc7Id No.207838 Reply
There's actually quite a few authors on the subject of cultural marxism and why it's a good thing these days.

That being said, as a philosopher, I know they're all wrong, and I've read some of their work first-hand, and I can clearly see that it's wrong. It's reading material for people who don't know history or facts, that's for sure.
Graham Fonnerfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 12:10:56 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207843 Reply
I meant to say that everyone who believes that cultural marxism "infecting the world" is a real thing has never read anything and is a fucking retarded braindead schizophrenic.
Hugh Smalldock - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 15:08:59 EST ypqGZf3j No.207856 Reply
>There's actually quite a few authors on the subject of cultural marxism and why it's a good thing these days

No one who isn't a conspiracy theorist uses the term "cultural marxism" to describe anything

>That being said, as a philosopher, I know they're all wrong, and I've read some of their work first-hand, and I can clearly see that it's wrong. It's reading material for people who don't know history or facts, that's for sure.

Augustus Blonderchodge - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:14:50 EST jYcEvk8u No.207857 Reply

Once you realize it's X8es from /pol/ the unfounded hubris and assumption that he knows more than everyone when he actually knows less makes sense
Augustus Blonderchodge - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:15:44 EST jYcEvk8u No.207858 Reply
another clue is "as a philosopher" (LOL)
Reuben Daffinglock - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:22:06 EST Ya59RsKY No.207859 Reply
>>it's X8es from /pol
mind = blown. That's a pretty damning accusation if true, Cedric?
Sophie Turveywater - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:02:52 EST 54PBc7Id No.207861 Reply
I'm glad to see some of my fans know me so well they can spot me even on other boards hahaha. I'm really flattered.

But how is that accusation damning in any way?
Edward Hingerdale - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:56:30 EST XOqZWzTC No.207862 Reply
Well, from a non-biased-even-ignorant 3rd party standpoint, if they sussed out your identity simply from the nature of your posts, that proves you are not arguing from a position of objective logos. If you were bringing solid arguments, they could be raised by anyone, being fairly substantiated with evidence-based reasoning.
Sophie Turveywater - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:24:00 EST 54PBc7Id No.207863 Reply
I like your answer, but I can't agree with it.
>if they sussed out your identity simply from the nature of your posts, that proves you are not arguing from a position of objective logos.
Not true. Identifying someone is in no way a disproof of any of their arguments. They identified me through my choice of words and how I phrase things, not based on anything philosophical. Specifically, we on /pss/ don't talk about any of the same things we on /pol/ talk about, therefore it's highly unlikely that anyone here identified me through my political/philosophical stances.

I bring solid arguments to the table that can be raised by anyone, and I've seen many other people beside champion my facts and statements in the face of disagreeing parties.

Case and point; I could reference books about Cultural Marxism right now, something I've never done on /pol/, which would also disprove the statements of my arguers here, whom argue that nobody talks about Cultural Marxism, which in my opinion is a crazy statement since the entire thread is proof in and of itself that Cultural Marxism is a topic people discuss in this day and age. I mean, here's an entire list of 36 books, plenty of which are recent, that discuss cultural marxism.
Sophie Turveywater - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:27:11 EST 54PBc7Id No.207864 Reply
Besides, in my opinion it's obvious that we all dislike the philosophy of Cultural Marxism, yet people here attack my statement and my character simply for pointing out that it is a subject of conversation in this day and age. While some of us (myself and OP) are trying to converse, others jump in merely to make fun of the conversers. Where's the philosophy or maturity in that?
Reuben Daffinglock - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:43:22 EST Ya59RsKY No.207865 Reply
Because on /pol/ you are almost as famous as a tripfag for the insanity of your posts. I will say now that the X8es = 54PB cat is out of the bag, I will probably take your posts on /pol/ more seriously just based on the good stuff I've seen you post here...and probably take your posts here less seriously, based on what I've seen you post there... :/

>>lets actually talk about Cultural Marxism
This is a garbage thread, there's no reason to not derail it. You realize that list of books you posted is made by people who are harping about the existence of Cultural Marxism as an anti-left boogeyman, which of course exists because that's the whole reason the term got started, as a boogeyman. What is being asserted is that there are no books defending Cultural Marxism from it's own perspective, because it's not a real perspective, but a boogeyman.
Martin Nandlefield - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:35:04 EST jYcEvk8u No.207867 Reply

>How to Survive the Apocalypse: Zombies, Cylons, Faith, and Politics at the End of the World (Paperback)
by Robert Joustra (shelved 1 time as cultural-marxism)

>Old School: Life in the Sane Lane (Kindle Edition)
by Bill O'Reilly

>The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military (Hardcover)
by Michael Savage (shelved 1 time as cultural-marxism)

>Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything (Hardcover)
by Robert R. Reilly (shelved 1 time as cultural-marxism)

>¡Adios, America!: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (Kindle Edition)
by Ann Coulter (shelved 1 time as cultural-marxism)

The reason people in this thread are laughing is because the people who talk about "cultural marxism" generally don't have a fucking clue and are peddling an ideology, which is very different from seeking out truth. A lot of it rests on conspiracy theory that makes little sense.

But why don't you lay it all out? Why does this need to be discussed, what is actually happening that can be described as "cultural marxism" that's a problem? For bonus points, can you define "cultural marxism?"
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 06:58:57 EST 3OceFGwp No.207870 Reply
Good book, even if H&A are dirty revisionists. The great irony of course is that Marx has been completely ousted from the American academy, and what an undergrad learns in a typical critical theory or gender studies class does not resemble Marxist materialism even slightly.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Sun, 12 Mar 2017 19:04:54 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207872 Reply
1489359894634.png -(56847B / 55.51KB, 312x271) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This whole thread is why I am bipartisan.

You have people on the right trying to talk about real issues, but sounding like they take the short bus, and you have people on the left ignorantly denying the issue is even real, while citing the right's stupidity like it somehow proves they hold the ball.

In my book Cultural Marxism is slang for the Postmodernist Agenda, and here is what I think about all that... http://pastebin.com/PeQdURsv not that I haven't already posted this a few times now...
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:26:30 EST 3OceFGwp No.207873 Reply
1489400790307.jpg -(35007B / 34.19KB, 466x419) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>and here is what I think about that: www.timecube.txt.rar
Are you Ignatius Reilly?
Nigel Gimbleshaw - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:48:54 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207874 Reply
1489409334815.gif -(729542B / 712.44KB, 600x525) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>the fool

Oh, you almost fooled me into taking you serious!
Fuck Pockville - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 10:10:28 EST jYcEvk8u No.207875 Reply

I still refuse to read your bloated shit

Get off your ego trip and learn to fucking write
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 01:07:21 EST vano1wpA No.207877 Reply
1489554441931.jpg -(55169B / 53.88KB, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Have you ever taken a composition class in high school or university? Honest question. They teach you useful things like how to avoid making 5000 word unreadable screeds. They don't teach you how not to be a crank though, no easy fix for that.
Barnaby Cheddlepadge - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:20:24 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207879 Reply
1489584024584.jpg -(109468B / 106.90KB, 500x375) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>posts regularly on /tinfoil/
>expects to be taken seriously
Nigel Blettingdale - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:32:37 EST 54PBc7Id No.207880 Reply
>Be the Flicker (tripfag).
>Be upset that someone went on a rant.
>Be acting superior.

You know, Flicker, I've seen Fool get into quite a lot of philosophical conversation with quite a lot to say and strings of logic clearly written out for us all to understand, where as I don't think I've ever seen you talk about anything of substance. You just seem to haunt this board to bitch and moan about all the people who actually take part in it.
Barnaby Cheddlepadge - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:35:27 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207881 Reply
Diarrheaing /tinfoil/ bullshit with zero depth all over 420chan does not count as philosophical conversation.

Might as well count Alex Jones, David Icke and Ayn Rand as philosophers if that counts.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:39:23 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207882 Reply
I don't go to /tinfoil/, now you're just making shit up.

If you actually read my posts you would know that it has nothing to do with anything conspiracy related.

The really sad thing is that retards like these who use ad-hominem attacks probably don't even know what ad-hominem is.
Sidney Brommlewat - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 05:54:33 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207883 Reply
Oh I know what an ad-hominem argument is. And you know what? I don't give a fuck. Because as long as fucking retards like you keep posting here, I don't need to stick to any kind of formal logic rules, because ya'll posting bollocks anyway. I'm not going to follow the rules of logic when you are so far up lalaland that you wouldn't even recognize logic if it smacks its big fat dick in your face.

I strictly post by the "you get what you deserve" rule. And The Fool !oj3475yHBQ is only gonna get low-effort posts.
Polly Hurryfield - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 07:54:31 EST CMVbW7K1 No.207884 Reply
cultural marxism is a concept invented by the nazis, it has no relevance, it's a facet of (far-) right propaganda.

I read a bit of Marcuse (Frankfurt school) in university and was taught a bit about their theories. It was in a class called critical studies, which was mainly about critical theory. Tbh I didnt find it particularly enlightening, its all pretty sensible. Mainly what the frankfurt school represents is the shift from orthodox marxism ( leninism etc.) to a marxism that is more compatible with social democracy and the growth of the middle class in the mid 20th century. They are still revolutionaries but think the revolution will come about via very different processes and corrected marxism to be in line with the actual history of the 20th century. All their ideas mirrored social processes that were happening on the ground in post war societies; hippies basically. It's a thing of its time, but everything is.
I might be remembering wrongly but I believe Adorno and others also had a thread about the downside of enlightenment values, how rationalism or the supremacy of science enforces negative processes such as sexism and racism. That was what I found particularly interesting but it's more fleshed out by people like Foucault. See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic_of_Enlightenment
Polly Hurryfield - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 08:20:33 EST CMVbW7K1 No.207885 Reply
>One of the most obvious forms of rhetoric within postmodernism, is that of the agenda to eradicate racism, and this goal was actualized just like a tyrant, a power monger, wanting to dominate a situation by virtue of manipulating the logical context of it. In this case, attempting to abolish racism by attempting to deny that the word “race” has any reality in our scientific, reasonable understanding of reality, by rhetorically asserting that the term “Race” has been mistaken for an understanding of species.

If youre going to write about postmodernism you should at least find a decent working definition of postmodernism, instead of boiling it down to 'they deny the concept of race' which you have done. You also claim it's an ideology, which isnt true and is a tactic of lots of reactionaries; islamophobes claim islam is an ideology, anti feminists claim feminism is an ideology. You've just got hold of a tinfoil definition and run with it. For all your talk about rationalism you should follow it yourself and try to better understand postmodernism itself. Your whole text is shit so far because it has no bearing on reality. Logic is only worth something in tandem with empiricism.
Sophie Dindleworth - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:21:12 EST 54PBc7Id No.207886 Reply
1489677672417.jpg -(181517B / 177.26KB, 800x533) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>I disagree with you
>Therefore you don't understand logic.
Cry harder, bitch nigga.
Sophie Dindleworth - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:22:45 EST 54PBc7Id No.207887 Reply
Ayn Rand would whoop your ass in a debate. A woman acknowleged as one of the greatest minds in modern economics, the Artistotle of capitalism, is worth way more than a little bitch crying.
Sidney Brommlewat - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:30:16 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207890 Reply
Oh wow, so The Fool isn't just a fucking retarded braindead /tinfoil/ cunt, he's also a 4chan 8chan circlejerk racist cunt. Good to know.
Angus Dockleshaw - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 21:03:54 EST CMVbW7K1 No.207891 Reply
he's a conservative shitlord who uses pretentious pseudo-philosophy to insulate himself from things he doesnt like in/about the modern world. I dont think he's a stormstallion tho.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:54 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207892 Reply
1489723254893.jpg -(15844B / 15.47KB, 292x279) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I'm bipartisan with left leaning tendencies...
Archie Cellywater - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:42:55 EST 54PBc7Id No.207894 Reply
Excuse me while I, one of the only philosophers on this board, literally destroy your nonsense with this next statement.
Can you offer proof of any of these claims? Or do you work in nothing but assumptions based on wishful thinking?

This thread is the epitome of why we can't have good threads on /pss/.
So, let's try to re-rail this a little.

>I'm a bipartisan with left leaning tendencies
What does that mean? I'm a centrist, and I believe in balance.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:54:57 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207895 Reply
I'm bipartisan in that I refuse to support one party over the other, as I think they both have pros and cons.

I'm left leaning in that I believe in socialized health care, the rights of anyone to love anyone in any form, abortion, high CEO salary taxes..etc. I'm only right in the sense of believing in low corporate taxes and the right to carry firearms.
Angus Drongerfoot - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:57:20 EST V2xMGSRV No.207896 Reply
>I, one of the only philosophers on this board,
talk about unqualified statements.
What i said in 891 was based on the fools own writing which he posted via a pastebin link above in this thread. He demonstrates no real working knowledge of what postmodernism is and it reads like the blogpost of an awm looking for something to blame for a modern world he just doesnt like. Besides it wouldnt surprise me if hes plagiarised stefan molyneux or joseph peterson.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:05:47 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207897 Reply
Except you choose to ignore the part where I identify postmodernism as viewing everything as a product of power dynamics, and only post the part where I mention an agenda so it could seem like it was /tinfoil/.

Samuel Picklehall - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:18:41 EST Ya59RsKY No.207898 Reply
Well I don't want to get snarled into this debate between you and your detractors You're both right/wrong, yeah, you could stand to take a writing course to learn how to edit for brevity and clarity, but also these dicks are dismissing you out of hand simply because they don't want to look past your style, and/or are misunderstanding your content because of your style. On the other hand, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding and it actually is BS, who knows

But I do want to ask you a question about your take on post-modernism. I'll admit I didn't read the whole pastebin so if you explain this somewhere just copypasta me. But why do you think post-modernism is exclusively a world view shaped by beliefs in power dynamics? That sounds more like structuralism to me. Post-modernism as a blanket term for a stage in our cultural evolution includes structuralism, for sure, but as only one possible aspect which you can take or leave, since the actual defining characteristic of post-modernism is critical theory (in the general sense) and abstract relativism. A view of the world that denies the existance of power dynamics whatsoever is just as post-modern as one that asserts there are ONLY power dynamics, so I think 'post-modernism' isn't quite the term you're looking for.
The Fool !oj3475yHBQ - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 17:05:00 EST drDI4Zd2 No.207899 Reply
>why do you think post-modernism is exclusively a world view shaped by beliefs in power dynamics?

It's what I was told in my basic sociology courses by professors and textbooks.
Emma Blackridge - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 22:05:35 EST Ya59RsKY No.207901 Reply
Oh I see, well then you should probably re-examine those beliefs, might as well start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
>> encompassing a broad range of ideas, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony or distrust toward grand narratives, ideologies and various tenets of Enlightenment rationality, including notions of human nature, social progress, objective reality and morality, absolute truth, and reason.[4] Instead, it asserts that claims to knowledge and truth are products of unique social, historical or political discourses and interpretations, and are therefore contextual and constructed to varying degrees. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, irreverence and self-referentiality.

As I suggested, the defining feature of post-modernism is a rejection of the value systems of modernism by the use of specific critical methodologies, the most key of which is the concept of relativism. The role power dynamics play in society is the subject of study in a lot of fields, and especially structuralism is a post-modern school concerned strongly with it, but they are separate things, and if your professors somehow led you to think they were the same thing (can't imagine a textbook would...) then they were simply in error, or applying a colloquial understanding of what post-modernism stands for.
Matilda Wicklepene - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 23:03:02 EST CMVbW7K1 No.207902 Reply
>a product of power-agents acting upon society to promote their own agenda, and that by understanding how these influences of power operate, one may see how a thing actually is. Over the course of the last century, this attempt to understand power has lead to the promotion of equality of minorities

yeah, those tinfoily and non-tinfoily parts didn't really read as seperate....
Walter Conkinnit - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:21:01 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207903 Reply
Let me guess. You are a poor poor American grown on philosophically poor soil. Read some real books brother!
Walter Conkinnit - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 18:56:00 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207905 Reply
Basic introductions to philosophy are always good places to start. Even if it's stuff you already know, it's always good to have refreshers. Also, intro books are also excellent references when you're having a discussion.
Oliver Dirrywidge - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 23:53:25 EST jYcEvk8u No.207906 Reply

I meant more things that would be relevant in a discussion about post-modernism and the like
Nicholas Worthingridge - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 10:14:51 EST CMVbW7K1 No.207908 Reply
postmodernism is a broad umbrella term for various theories.
One place to start is Ferdinand de Saussur, his semiotic triangle and structuralism. Its important to remember that postmodern philosophy, or perhaps better said, philosophy in the postmodern era proceeds from the point that we are unable to ever really know or really contact anything truly, which is a departure from modernism which held that truth was attainable through modern methods (rationality, science etc).
But there are many other starting points. You could even start with Marx or Nietzsche or looking at Art. Also you could start getting a basic grasp of some of the concepts used within postmodernist philosophy such as deconstruction (Derrida) which is more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation (Deleuze). People can spend years studying this stuff, its not something you learn fully by reading one book or another, even with a basic understanding alot of the stuff can seem confusing.

you could also look for a lecture on youtube, fe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we6cwmzhbBE.
Charles Cranninghall - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 19:18:45 EST o0cEH16h No.208030 Reply
hi just passing through hate to pick you out but i noticed a few things you said

a) some "philosophy in the postmodern era proceeds from the point that we are unable to ever really..." etc., but much of it does no such thing. you should know better than to let such metanarratives slip ;) the best postmodernism (imo) opens us to our communion with truth, which is to say, existence. the very idea of 'contact' stems from a modern model of truth and implies a separation, a separation only assumed by modernist rationalism (and its ideological antecedents, ie Christianity) in the first place.

b) while you're right to mention the 'Enlightenment' definition of truth integral to modernism, postmodern philosophy largely consists of the expansion of the horizon of truth, creating and elaborating a variety of kinds of truth/power/virtue.

c) deconstruction is not more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation. it's an interesting thing to claim though

d) there're lots of good things you wrote in that post like how you capitalized Art and suggested Nietzsche as an in. also that people who study this stuff can get confused. good lectures on youtube, etc.

i think postmodernism as a concept, much like existentialism, is an arbitrary category that allows people to think they understand more than they do. how very modern of us.
Charlotte Brillydeck - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 07:54:39 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208035 Reply
Your points are not wrong but i'm confused as they seem to come from a postmodernist perspective and at the end you say its an ' arbitrary category'.
I was previously explaining postmodernism as it is usually explained: as constrasting to modernism.

>deconstruction is not more or less the same thing as deterritorialisation. it's an interesting thing to claim though
I understand both terms to mean decoupling elements of a system or organisation. Deconstructing a whole or taking something out of the territory it is located in.
George Trotman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:13:51 EST hvs4h/ox No.208050 Reply
the way you could wed your two posts, is through understanding both while completing different as statement, achieve the same affect.

A new definition of truth in charles post, that is understood from our position as humans. And your statement of never truly being able to know.

One is positing that after that position, we find what truth really is, and one is suggesting we come to grips that we never really know so that opens us up to what we actually are expressing after that.

But it's to allieve the same anxiety in time.

Ironically nietzche also once said something about every statement eating itself. So he plays into those thoughts as well.

And philosophers are recursive like ancient budhists so they go over a category in perpetuity
George Trotman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:44:08 EST hvs4h/ox No.208051 Reply
that is deconstruction, but also it involves the idea of making an authorless text, and taking aboutness out for a literal ride, in a text.

For instance and example, you are able to abstract something without having to see or know it by confines that would be restraining, but in removing those constraints or what has been built that would logically suggest a next step. You take that "aboutness" into the deconstruction.

So kind of like how you were able to define post modernism in contrast to modernism.

You can deconstruct something, like poetry by taking it into free verse. Without the natural confines, or restraints that meter the form, through inhibition, give it it's creativity and atom like collisions that result in the matter. You can do that as if you were free from it, or you can do this as if in the act every step of that "aboutness" every step of where that "aboutness" would be there is a reflection on this. Or the actual expression of that meter or form, in a state of history itself. Or history as understood as "aging", "acclerated."

Think of captain beefheart as a deconstruction on american music, both blues and pop in the sixties. He started as someone very good at singing music in a blues style. He was very good at rhythem, and what people are accustomed to hearing.

Then he made songs that at every expectation of the ear(of that "aboutness"), and what it is and has previously heard, at that step seems to defy it and elude expectation and elude form.

Yet when studied the rhythm is completly there and is highly advanced. So then you see in his body of work from when he was traditional to when he moved out of that bounding, an accelration or changing of the the thing that was deconstructed. As if it was doing the changing.

Kind of like rorshach in watchmen. Another deconstruction, but on comic books.

It's not simply a deconstruction on what batman would be removed from the myth of batman or what a hero would be outside of comics, but it's seeing that object itself and it's attached baggage, react. Decoupled from where it was secure, predictable, and understood. But now reacting with that insecurity from it's past, in it's displacement. While the comic book is free to play in it's new form before it becomes a form (pre-form?)
William Snodway - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:42:51 EST hvs4h/ox No.208059 Reply
does anybody listen to alex jones and think he's not that right winged. He's actually a dissillusioned guy slowly dealing with emotions. Which if we were raised to be rational and not intuitive we have a potential intellectual trap encouraging us to ignore what dissillusionment, symbol, and ideal actually are.

If you here his speeches it often sounds like he's picked up on whatever it is to believe a zeal and be dissillusioned by it, but slowly find difficulty in letting it go because it communicates the idea of abandoning loyalty to the people you knew while underneath that concept.

I also experienced dissillusionment in belief. But readily in my education there was nothing much on the topic of belief, or philosophy. So when passion does what it does, and most western philosophy that is analytic and not continental doesn't communicate much at least in america it doesn't seem that we pick up on our lexicon or quirks.

But have these titles read in my current state that i would describe as predatory of fear and paranoia. Now seem to actually underneath there horribly bigoted surface communicate an interest of a hysteria or a consumer zeal to like homosexuality, young people talking about zombies, and desire to learn spanish.

But it's almost like done under a fear of a regime or cultural stereotype that isn't as literal, but would be in our "ancestors voices" like the fear of not being allowed to wear a dress or become a dancer if you are male, or the fear of not being too good at athletics if you were a female.

Or the fear of never getting laid. I would say it in probability is fanning the flames of real homophobia, racism, and other things. But since it is done by performers wearing the same persona over the course of ten years, and "peddle" it gives it a flair for that being what is dramatic in life. Which sort of communicates the desire to experience life as the object you or your "culture"(perhaps some of our culture) has made threatening to your way of life.

Like it is some taboo-ing of spirit to such a degree it becomes hard to deny this in everyone of these books is being communicated as the actual desire.

Whether or not they say it's the desire of another group, it's always communicating it as the desire, and the future.

like this the reaction of a part of life that has been made taboo so long, that people pretend to hate it just to talk about it.

The hardest part of being a taboo. Like how people go to see nude human beings yet despite getting what they want can turn violent and display agression or control because it is the taboo.
Augustus Gimblefuck - Tue, 25 Apr 2017 06:19:21 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208060 Reply
if you're under the impression that anyone can make sense of your posts you are wrong. Try formulating a normal paragraph or fuck off. nb.
Esther Grimwill - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:39:56 EST Ya59RsKY No.208065 Reply
I'll admit I have a hard time following your posts. At the same time however, I think you're doing a good thing. Analytical philosophy has basically eaten the entire soul of philosophy, to the point that people on this, the philosophy board, can only process a statement if it's grounded in analytical, formal logical terms. With the abandonment of the continental method we have lost a large part of what historically was the role of the philosopher; the seeking out of the human soul in it's own interiority, the hunt for numinous meaning not by calculating out inter-relationships between logical absolutes and endlessly debating them, but by querying the sleeping depths of the unwoken id and superego.
By abdicating this position, and with 'God is dead' already on the books and thus the clergy no longer able to fulfill the role, philosophers left western culture without leading-edge guiding-spirits, interlocutors of the ineffable and the mundane. By doubling down solely on the analytic procedure -- which was perhaps natural in the grips of modernism -- philosophers set the stage for the 'aperspectival madness' of post-modernism, and the subsequent death of meaning that the current global drama is an unfolding of.

Philosophers need to return to our historical responsibility. It's not simply enough to analyze propositions or debate the mathematical relationships between logical signifiers. Where else can society look for people willing to tie all the confused, disparate, overwhelming data of the modern world into coherent information that can help us guide our lives? Philosophers only stopped fulfilling this role in the last century, and we can partially see what it got us.

So I say, for as quaint as your method may seem on the surface, it is actually ahead of everyone else here who are mostly stuck in a purely analytical mode. Keep fighting the continental good fight hvs4.
Lydia Sennernatch - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 16:14:42 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208069 Reply
Get this fucking retarded /tinfoil/ poster off /pss/ please.
Matilda Wallyspear - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 21:19:02 EST e1KNs7jo No.208071 Reply
Yes there is a school of thought that idiots disagree with. No there isn't a combined effort to undermine society by every label you don't like.
Hamilton Pirringlitch - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:03:12 EST Ya59RsKY No.208072 Reply
1493344992793.png -(223488B / 218.25KB, 368x475) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Pic related.

How is what hvs4 posts /tinfoil/? It might be hard to read, it might be a mode of philosophical discourse people (Americans, really) are unfamiliar with, but he never posts conspiracy theories or insane anything really. So anybody who doesn't practice philosophy exactly the way you think they should is /tinfoil/?
Priscilla Budgeforth - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 06:15:43 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208073 Reply
No one is calling anyone a stallion.
h/ox is not using a continental style, he is just writing poorly. I feel quite comfortable reading actual continental philosophy, his posts just blatantly disregard the reader. As I said before, use paragraphs or fuck off.
Phyllis Toothood - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 11:07:45 EST hvs4h/ox No.208074 Reply
You can use format to cummnicate. Poems, prose, comments, tweets, abbreviations. If you look at the post it's broken among patterns of word length.
Hamilton Pirringlitch - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:37:33 EST Ya59RsKY No.208075 Reply
I wasn't going for the stallion angle, just the 'everyone who I disagree with is the same/wrong' which is what was suggested with 'you two are one in the same.'

Again, I won't argue that hvs4 probably should learn to constrain his posts more, and ask more actionable questions rather than make nebulous statements, and sure continental philosophy casts a wide net, but I'm not willing to go around and say that people who don't follow the trend of how most people post on this board aren't allowed to post here.
Doris Channerkut - Tue, 02 May 2017 05:27:44 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208085 Reply
It was such a fucking mess of gibberish, I just assumed that some deliriant /tinfoil/ freak had posted that. Whatever that post is, it is not English. Not the kind of English I was taught in secondary education.
Reuben Bunman - Tue, 02 May 2017 16:59:37 EST c8ZteX1C No.208089 Reply
It's secretly the kind of thought that allows people to infer this thought is extreme satire
Reuben Bunman - Tue, 02 May 2017 16:59:37 EST c8ZteX1C No.208090 Reply
It's secretly the kind of thought that allows people to infer this thought is extreme satire
Archie Changersore - Wed, 03 May 2017 18:30:08 EST c8ZteX1C No.208099 Reply
It's the kind of writing that would infer why you might state that in meaning and not be trapped by that. Where analytical writing would try to state categorically why this is this. This is the kind of writing for you if you are ever philosophically wounded you will get to to understand how philosophers sometimes weren't just artists that consistently used shock value they were actually people in shock. Continental eastern will explain how people can't stop literally stepping out of bounds.
Archie Changersore - Wed, 03 May 2017 18:32:26 EST c8ZteX1C No.208100 Reply
Also I wish. Although I know netjester is with me in spirit
Polly Gungernot - Wed, 03 May 2017 21:04:36 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208101 Reply
> Continental eastern
what are you talking about? thats not a term people use in interaction. I cant understand what you mean by inventing new terms for things without you defining them. But that's not your biggest problem:

>Also I wish.
Also, I wish.
Nuff said?

Pretending it's continental vs. analytic philosphy is bullshit.
Phyllis Blibberbanks - Thu, 04 May 2017 01:41:59 EST c8ZteX1C No.208102 Reply
You think grammar is universal when it's made of syntax. Did you define or even decide what "it" was, I think not. But yet we continued to speak. Speaking in this way the way that makes no sense is going to eventually reveal why a pattern of speech can be considered confrontational in the first place. You don't really get how it would make sense if the categorical literal criticism is "I do not understand" because you are somewhat invoking a pattern under the pretense that your criticism is what asserts your merit as a necessary concept. The only reason that's a thing is because of anylitcal philosophy's thought of the principle of non contradiction. You can't really assert you can't understand something and do understand it in order to criticize it without ontologies in place we literally don't justify. Thus making your rhetorical device seem like an effusive familiarity against effusive familiarity that is meant to explain schools of thought that explicate practices as qualifiers of thought by putting them in the abstract. However philosophy in particular and social sciences as well detail how it can't be the case. Because you technically believe a normative thought and your argument hinges on the idea nobody does understand it, in a normative thought. Outside of what philosophy and social science ask and question of a ontology, putting the thought in a normative narrative, in a thought justifying that nobody could understand you outside of that norm, in a thread about people outside of the norm, hurts the categorical mind. You need something outside of consensus retort, because it's technically confronting how or why people assert you can't move outside of a standard almost as if to be obnoxious as if that standard is always here when in reality it's in one category.
Hedda Blizzleperk - Thu, 04 May 2017 11:54:57 EST V2xMGSRV No.208104 Reply
I dont know what youre talking about. Pls just stop.
Phyllis Blibberbanks - Thu, 04 May 2017 14:39:19 EST c8ZteX1C No.208105 Reply
It's the kind of writing you do when you deal with a published fugue confusion as an implied categorization of your self or your thought, with the implied spirit of infinite jest that you can only get to through thought when you are in Socratic thought because it's anti passion and secretly makes emotion polarizing rather than let's say Martin Buber where we actually think both act and dc and when we encounter the polarized divide we experience the narrative of return and the experience of rediscovery or reattachment.
Hamilton Wondlebire - Thu, 04 May 2017 18:06:46 EST Ya59RsKY No.208109 Reply
It's really not that hard to understand what he's saying if you would just get your head out of your ass V2x. If I may try to paraphrase your post c8Z, which I think contains a pretty interesting idea, you're saying:

'Your assertion that you didn't know what I meant by 'it' is false, and reveals a confrontational agenda in your argument. Analytical philosophy is rooted in a principle of non-contradiction, but this is self-contradictory when you use it in this case, because you cannot assert that you can't understand it without 'understanding' it in the context of unjustified ontological assumptions (adhering to a consensus argument style.) This desire to keep philosophical discourse constrained to a normative narrative hurts the breadth of our thinking. Arguments and thinking outside of consensus parameters are what is necessary to move beyond standard thinking, so shutting down extra-consensus thought breeds stagnation.'

It's an interesting idea and I think a valid point, and the fact that you're not even willing to talk about it but just want to keep shutting him down over style is evidence in favor of the very post you're arguing against.
Lillian Duckham - Fri, 05 May 2017 07:28:03 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208111 Reply
that doesnt make anything clearer. I dont know why you keep bringing up analytical philosophy as if I or anyone in the thread had declared to be of that school of thought. The Frankfurt school definitely was continental and not analytical, and they made a goddamn bit more sense than the Netjester impersonator. They employed critical methods of investigation, the guy in this thread just seems to be rambling off stoned nonsense.
RedPiller - Fri, 05 May 2017 09:34:58 EST pvzTt7LE No.208112 Reply
the frankfurt school made me want to racemix with muzzies

down with the frankfurt school
William Greendock - Fri, 05 May 2017 17:04:06 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208113 Reply
It's kind of the kind of thought that explains they made a god damn bit more sense as validating. And a god damn bit more sense vs quite a bit of god damn sense.

Continental philosophy would show what poster previous pointed out that analytical can do with the assumptions we change to make a non contradiction or argument, but we know those assumptions have roots and thoughts quite literally we don't explain without contradicting prolegmas or conundrums seemingly stemming from that and chains of associations.

So if I assert something as a law from those assertions made from that practice things will get quite principalled. And I'll probably communicate high academic vocabulary as respectful working class ecumenical demand simple when I mean complex difficult and hard when I mean ease. But I won't be able to appreciate any of that without continental because I'm more literally asserting a standard and that standard doesn't admit anything outside of it in it's deepest mist painfully human categories of solipsism, cartesian, and dualism that's almost like a thought that I can't get out of that reinforces itself despite causing you pain to invalidate the ontology of the thing causing you pain outside of thought. You can't understand the square from the circle, or the circle from the square without being able to recognize it's doing those normative things to keep out pain. But it's continental that can help you understand understanding, what you get out of a book, sussing, teasing, interpretating. It's the same way how earlier in the thread we discussed how deconstruction can help you understand construct, how the "deat of the author" can teach you more about authorial intent, and more.
Lillian Duckham - Fri, 05 May 2017 18:27:19 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208114 Reply
>deconstruction can help you understand construct
what youre doing is not deconstruction if are under that illusion.
William Greendock - Fri, 05 May 2017 19:38:41 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208115 Reply
That's categorical that's analytical. That thought as definition can only be born by analytical philosophy without continental. Because of what was put in the metaphor as sophists you never don't respond as if you aren't being sold a bill of goods or being given a critical responsibility. Which leads to more of arguing who is more right, when it's there for dealing with when you as an individual encounter something that does overwhelm you with expertise.
Simon Huffingkit - Sun, 07 May 2017 19:01:59 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208123 Reply
I often am showing how know structure can't be perfectly unified because of the thought of a perfect structure. Something like plato's perfect circle
William Murdwill - Mon, 08 May 2017 01:15:22 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208124 Reply
No, you're not, even if that's a valid argument. You're typing incoherrantly like a fucking retard and thus showing nothing.
learn English or something.
Nell Neckleford - Mon, 08 May 2017 12:54:09 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208127 Reply
This post as in implication is necessarily incoherent. It's the same as thinking that Russell doesn't clarify mathematical relations by showing the edifice in mathematics. Derrida actually is interested in showing languages structuring effects through establishing how it can't be reduced and cannot fit into a "perfect" unified structure.
William Murdwill - Mon, 08 May 2017 14:17:53 EST CMVbW7K1 No.208128 Reply
structure should not be privileged over chaos - is the point your failing to make?
Graham Fanman - Wed, 10 May 2017 16:47:17 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208131 Reply
No. Structure cannot be chaos is the analytical thought. A chaotic structure is the continental.
Eliza Pickstone - Thu, 11 May 2017 23:34:10 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208135 Reply
It's kind of like how you didn't call yourself on "your" but you called me on "know"

You have to deal with yourself the same way as others or you experience deception from deflecting "not a" or corrupt into society when in reality it's something like your own reflection.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.