Is French theory just a self-referential pile of pretentious drivel...

Schizophrenia isn't even an "ailment". It's literally what indigenous shamans induce upon themselves and their patients. It's more akin to having a spiritual breakthrough. Of course, Western society would know nothing about this phenomenon and have butchered the concept so much that people who would have been called to shamanism in primitive cultures are now doped up and called "mentally ill" or "broken"- schizophrenic. A fucking shame really.

How dare you post interesting content on this website?

What notable things has Jock Dorito done that would impress someone who isnt working in a X-studies or Y-theory department?

Schizophrenia is you literally making connections where none exist

so yes, based on that principle, French theory is a pile of pretentious drivel. It is based on the principle of finding spurious connections, imagine praising that shit "I see things where none see any, I am so brilliant! I can predict the future!" -every schizo ever

>making connections where none exist

So I'm guessing your are unfamiliar with Buddhism and the Illusion of Separation? Everything is connected. When you do it easier, like in a shamanic/"schizophrenic" state, you can find greater connection of yourself to the world and everything in it. Ergo, a spiritual breakthrough state. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

That’s just an anti-scientific romanization of mental illness. Schizophrenia is a genetic disease that causes lots of discomfort to both the ill and the healthy around them.

>your are unfamiliar with Buddhism and the Illusion of Separation

No I work in mental health.Being fucking crazy does not help you do a goddamn thing.

If you want to 'break down barriers of seperation' try doing some psychedelic or hallucinogenic drugs like lsd, mushrooms, weed etc

>Jock Dorito
my sides

That's because their spiritual awakening is being blocked and stunted, especially by whatever meds they receive and the fact that schizophrenics are told their brains are "broken". It's a vicious cycle that only liberation from the various shackles of the spiritually-retarded society of the West.

>If you want to 'break down barriers of seperation' try doing some psychedelic or hallucinogenic drugs like lsd, mushrooms, weed etc

Which is exactly how some "schizophrenics" are made, psychedelics are known to be triggers for it. Point in case, psychedelics are some of the most potent tools of shamans and shamanic peoples. How do you think they are unrelated? Shamanism, psychedelics, and schizophrenia are all the same phenomenon basically, the only caveat being that "schizophrenics" are, like I said, warped and stunted in their spiritual growth by Western practices.

>"schizophrenics" are, like I said, warped and stunted in their spiritual growth by Western practices.

Because being psychotic doesn't help you or anyone in any conceivable way.

You are misunderstanding my main point: the way the West deals with their "awakening" is what fucks them up and makes them "psychotic". If you gave these fuckers some serious dosage psychedelics, allowed them a comforting set and setting, and had an experienced trip sitter or an actual shaman guide them through it, I can almost guarantee you wouldn't have any cases of psychotic level schizophrenics.

quick, somebody pass the anti-psychotics, this guy is fucking retarded

Great non-argument you have there guy. It was really convincing.

Actual schizophrenic here. What the other annon's said is correct. Schizophrenia is the old way of thinking and it has connections to esoteric forms of "spiritualism". Rather than having a clear sense of self there are fragments and you don't feel like there is a hard distinction between yourself and the rest of the universe.

I think it has potential to be very powerful thinking: Nietzsche, Jung, and Heraclitus all suffered from some private type of what we would now call a mental illness. The thing is it's an unstable type of thinking; I think the original purpose of religion was to try to facilitate the various forms and states in a person. I find religious thinking to be highly useful for myself and the various images and voices that come to me often choose to speak or represent them-self mythological.

>There is but one moral imperative, and that is to enrich the White Woman's womb
What did he mean by this?

>Won't it disprove itself?
No.

>when user peepees on your Baudrillard-fu

Is there a way to transform my bipolar disorder into schizophrenia?

yeah dude Derrida is so profound.

>Le nothing has concrete meaning and can be deconstructed and repurposed with semantic tricks

All he's done for civilization is lead it into the fog, fuck him

t. petersonfag that has never read Heidegger

I've actually read Heidegger and haven't read Peterson, nice judge of character though

What is French theory anyways?

ITT: people who can't understand Deleuze

Jewish theory but in French instead of English or German.

You are absolutely right. My best friend turned schizophrenic in high school, and as much as his illness is painful and unbearable for him and his relatives, he has incredible insights into every possible matters. Most of these insights come out as completely chaotic and nonsensical, but through time, effort, a natural inclination towards such states and long hours learning about it, I can fairly make sense of his ramblings. Schizophrenics are plugged to the source, completely electricized by it. But never should one romanticize schizophrenia. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I wouldn't say Jung 'suffered' from mental illness as he successfully integrated his unconscious content. He simply is a mystic. And an incredibly great one as he did it all himself, which one might argue that it puts him closer to prophet status than a banal mystic. Also, Deleuze's definition of schizophrenia is idealistic and not really relevant to its comprehension.

I have no basis for this. But here's my theory on how you'd do it. You'd want to, as much as you can, not think of your two bipolar states as opposites. You can think of them as parts on a sliding scale or if you can: the same thing. The word for this: Enantiodromia.

Fragmenting your mind isn't a game though. All the skeletons you have will come out of the closet, including stuff you've forgotten for decades. I once had a moment where in a flash I understood something from my childhood and I saw how it affected me for decades. Than I collapsed into tears on the spot and had to cover for the fact that I was crying.

Jung nearly went insane. He kept a secret: it's all in the Red Book that's the documentation of his schizoid phase, it's also where he learned all the big ideas. Mystics and Schizoids keep it a secret, Jung kept it secret. I wouldn't be saying anything if I wasn't annonymous. You don't even need practical reasons to keep it a secret: that's your first instinct, to do otherwise is to betray them. And you don't want to fuck with the gods inside you.

I have not red Deleuize's thoughts on the subject can you reccomend some reading? Also it would be very useful if you could speak about mystical things in plain english. I don't know if anyone wrote how to do it but that would be damn useful. The best I can do is translate it into Jungian psycho-babble.

That's a stupid question desu. Or is it a shitpost?

>I once had a moment where in a flash I understood something from my childhood and I saw how it affected me for decades.

How did you manage to dig into that?
I'm neither schizophrenic, nor bipolar, but I'm sure I have some sort of childhood trauma which still affects me.

t. teenager who watches Joe Rogan and has at least three new age books on spirituality on his shelf

>t. has never seen a schizophrenic in his life

Like I know what you're trying to get at but the schizophrenia you're talking about is just the result of careful intake of psychodysleptics for the sake of "expanding your mind" in contrast to the actual disease of schizophrenia that will literally drive you to insanity and dementia

If you fail to understand this crucial difference you're welcome to go back to /r/psychonauts or whatever the fuck it's called

I feel like when I get hardcore into metaphysical questioning I have to keep a very close eye on my thoughts to make sure I don't slip into schizo.

>How did you manage to dig into that?

You can think of the various parts of the mind as contients drifting on a planet's watery surface. For most people the contients stay still so certain geographic areas never interact. The land mass that has all your darkest secrets, stuff that would cripple you if you found out, never reaches the more conscious parts of your mind.

Schizoids and bi-polar people have the contients shift around. Than a piece that has not ever talked to other meets and BAM. You have an ephinay and 10 years worth of information gets learned all at once. Depending on the information it's either like a thunder bolt from heaven or it's the most horrifying thing you ever experienced.

Ideally the various parts of your mind would drift around in an orderly way. You wouldn't learn the your own dark secrets until you were emotionally ready.

Sounds like my experience with psychedelics

>real world
No such thing exists. Fuck off, Platonist.

psychedelics by themselves don't do much. They let you integrate stuff but you have to actively choose what it is want to connect and if you don't have the intellectual base it's impossible. You also have to be careful not to do them to the point where you destroy your functional ego, since this is necessary to survive in modern society.

lol

>none exist
becuz i sed so
Fuck off, Last Man.
Science is cancer. kys
You're a quack. kys
MUH WHITE CIIVLIZASHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN WE WUZ ROW-MANZ

>We got a call from La Borde saying that a guy had set fire to the chateau chapel and run off into the woods. Gilles blanched, I froze, and Felix called for help to find this guy. At that point, Gilles said to me, ‘how can you stand those schizos’?”

Cmon guys I want to have visions tell me what to do.

Go to sleep you fucking idiot. You have dreams for that.

>I can almost guarantee
schizophrenia right there

>Deleuze's definition of schizophrenia is idealistic and not really relevant to its comprehension
it is also exploitative

>mental health """"experts""""

You still must realize that if those psychotic cases of schizophrenia were to take psychedelics in a guided, comfortable set and setting, they would be able to nullify or even cure their "ailments". Psychedelics have been shown to be able to treat and even reverse such mental problems as PTSD, Bipolar disorder and depression, I can't imagine treating schizophrenics with psys is that far out or far away.

Clever, but, not really.

Besides your retarded nonsequiter about "muh innocent jews", what actually discourages me from reading Derrida is the obscurantism. It's the same phenomena as the modern state of string theory, ie once something becomes convoluted to that degree it ceases to hold value. If you cannot express something clearly without excessive self referential terminology, then it is not a valid idea. The best thinkers wrote in very clear ways.

Modern languages fail to express mystical feelings. Concerning mystical truths, they cannot be shared as their very nature is to be incommunicable. I'm only beginning to dive into Hinduism and its doctrines, but it seems like sanskrit is the 'best' language for this task. Like you said, we only have jungian psycho babble as of today. I cannot point to towards specific Deleuze works, I've only read the anti oedipe and others bits of him.

citation needed

>Modern languages fail to express mystical feelings
Why?

French theory is the continuation of the German romantic idealist project after the German geist was destroyed.

The French are worthy epigones but still epigones. The best they produce is people on par with the original German version, who would/might have been original if they had come earlier. But they never move beyond German philosophy, except maybe Derrida clarifying something already implicit in Heidegger, and that he already knew but never said outright, because he had moved beyond it and onto other concerns.

And most of the time they make things worse by over-elaborating ideas already implicit in the Germans and producing too much white noise.

Turns out that both the German and the French philosophers were inferior as the Anglos, who’s thought on economics and the nature of reality (market economy, natural science) continue to dominate the world.

It seems so obvious to me that I might have trouble explaining. Firstly, modern man experiences a strong dissociation of conscious/unconscious. The conscious mind has a very strong inclination towards Logos and everything rational, scientifical etc.. This attitude can be seen and admitted even by the staunchest rationalist. Ancient texts, whether religious or not, can be comparitively studied with modern ones to come up with the same conclusions. Thus it can be argued that language, if not the basis of our perception of reality, is at least representative of our collective attitude. Now you might wonder; Why is modern man's experience so radically different from his ancestors? Well, nobody knows. It could be evolutionnary, cultural, metaphysical... Who knows really, we can't know what forces bigger than us are at the front wheel. Or maybe we could, if only we had a more hollistic approach to language, and life in general?

I do not find this contemporary exceptionalism particularly convincing, I must admit.

Why did German idealism die in the first place?

It’s not really to blame for National Socialism or Fascism, that was a product of Darwinism and Italian fascist thought.

...

Gentile, #1 philosopher of fascism, is a neo-Hegelian

Afaik, it ended after Heidegger, who proclaimed philosophy to be a failure and opted out into "poetic contemplation of life" or whatever.

He gave birth to existentialism and lots of language philosophy, but that is practiced by the French today.

Read Voegelin?

hurr durr they dont dun dem science kill 'em all

They don't deserve to live and die in Plato's cave.

Anyone have material on tier 6? I came to that exact conclusion a few nights ago after taking mushrooms.

no way did Derrida make this comment... proof plz

LIBTARDS BTFO

"Is E=Mc2 a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what goes the fastest…”

This is ya brain on French

Yeah, this is everything wrong with French theory in thirty seconds.

Anglos gave us science, parliamentary democracy, practicable economic systems.

The French gave us 473637th wave feminism, post-post-post structuralism and pretentious cinema. Thanks for that.

>these thing good becuz i sed so

In the concrete example of above: the theory of relativity is definitely a better thing than its accusation of sexism (out of all things).

How condescending is it when someone who has actually read Derrida tries to explain his thought but leaves out the part about how he was a Jew who wanted to kill is all?

Zero, because your post is propaganda.

>If you cannot express something clearly without excessive self referential terminology, then it is not a valid idea

Well, derrida for starters would question why valid idea should be simplistic. with this one gesture he blows the fuck out anglo-saxo thinking because it rests on fake dichotomy simple/complicated. If you have noticed, anglo-saxons have a thing for this fake simplicity (for example giving child-like names to serious book, e.g. "How to do things with word" and so on). Anything percieved difficult (continental philosophy for example) is neglected and understood as shamanism.
So no, Derrida isnt as dumb as "everything is subjective lmao xD"

becuz i sed so hurr durr white civilizashun

Continental philosphy isn’t even that difficult. It’s simply obscuritantist and often overloaded.

The most successful by any reasonable account.

Who accused the theory of relativity of sexism? why would it matter? would it make the theory untrue? at what point do you stop loading your own arguements with misrepresentations of someone's work you didn't bother to read and only want erased from the intellectual landscape?

Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality.

>zero condescendings credited
>propaganda
You're cute, you really are.

>successful
>muh rasins
so this is the power of *nglo thought...
>i dont understand it so its le obscure and le overloaded
Fuck off, colonialist. Go masturbate to Rorty or some other liberal sentimentalist.

I'd just like you to know that this was the post that made me quit Veeky Forums for tonight and focus on reading some actual philosophy.

>Anglos gave us science

Jesus fucking christ m8.

This is kinda hillarious because mostly everyone in france recognizes the stupidity of the anglosphere (rampant hostile feminism, multiculturalism à la USA, relativism, liberalism etc). French people are extremely cynical. I have found only Iranians to be on the same level of cynicism/awareness. Also, how come anglos gave us science if it is descartes who came up with La Méthode? Also, how did anglos come up with parliamentary democracy when its first iteration was seen post french revolution? mmh, anglos sure are a smart bunch

If you want to talk about uselesness and nullity of ordinary language then you have to invent new concepts. Philosophy does that since the begining.

cute>propagating falsehoods

Whites were just as niggerish as niggers some 500-600 years ago. We're not better in any way, simply we had more time.

you seriously don't understand what D&G mean by schizophrenia at all and you obviously haven't read anything they've written if you think they'd suggest something as an ideal when their whole fucking point is extending the Nietzschean concept of smooth space

>Anglos gave us science
That's your brain on "I'll say anything to discount postmodernism"

SHUTUPSHITSKINANGLOSAREWHITETHEONLYTRUEWHTIESANDONLYTRUEWESTERNERSWEARETHEPROGENYOFGREECEANDROMEYOUJUSTFUCKSLAVESANDAREJEWISHFUCKINGWANKERGONNARUNAWAYGANLMAOXDSTUPIDFRENCHKEKKEKEKEKEKEPRAISEKEKFUCKGOD

The roots of
>rampant hostile feminism, multiculturalism à la USA, relativism, liberalism
can be found in French thought as well. And they're also actually practiced, since France is a highly multicultural society today and elected a (neo-)liberal.

It's pointless to make a binary distinction France vs Anglosphere, cause they both inspired each other and were inspired by Germany all the time.

>I took an existentialism class at my community college where I had to read The Thing
>I've never READ Peterson, but i've certainly seen his Joe Rogan podcast episode that i am almost directly quoting

>what is Newton
>what is Leibniz
>what is empiricism
>what is rationalism

>It's pointless to make a binary distinction France vs Anglosphere
kek