So if Harris, Peterson, Zizek are hacks and pseuds, who are the real intellectuals we should pay attention to...

PETER WATSON

How am I supposed to know which people I should trust/read in a field in which I have no expertise in? If I don't know a thing about India, should I go and randomly pick up academic essays about the Vedas? And where would I even find them?

But I'm being facetious. I largely disagree with that stance because most papers published in any field get extremely autistic and have no wider implications, whereas "intellectuals," if you want to use that word, should be the people that are able to make larger points or "get you to think," by using carefully selected ideas from many fields and coming up with something new.

Lurk moar

Zizek might be a meme but he is no pseud, he's a published philosopher and well cited academic.
Just look for the people who actually specialize in whatever you're trying to get into, Memerson might be good if you want into psychology (that is until he started shilling that jung faggot, read freud), Harris is pretty much a pseud

Joe Rogan,
Alex Jones,
Eddie Bravo,
David Icke and
Graham Hancock are definitely intellectuals worth listening to.

Graham Harman

>he left out Joey CoCo Diaz

A. G. Am[b]en, you faggots.

>Zizek
>published academic
>comparabel to sam harris
>sam harris
>a new york times best seller of an atheist book

>Dugin, Charles Taylor

Both bigger pseuds than Zizek and Peterson.

Alain Finkielkraut

>nonfiction recommend
classified SOCOM, CENTCOM, CIA and FSB Meta analytical reports

MacIntyre, Kripke, Butler

My man! I started his book Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud and its like Harari's Sapiens on steroids. Highly recommended to everyone

There are no living intellectuals

They're all opportunistic hacks, duh.

Why didn't you just make a non fiction rec thread?

Kevin Macdonald.

He hasn't been tainted by mainstream university pseuds. Check out Culture of Critique. You can't even get his shit at a library.

Never heard of these before, thanks.

anyone worth paying attention to or who has any merits or anything or value to say does not parade himself around in the media like a clown. He publishes his papers, he is well known and respected inside his academic circles, but aside from that he does not try to exploit this for fame or money

but how can academia be shit and academics be good at the same time?

youtube.com/watch?v=_NVsyMalJXo

>How am I supposed to know which people I should trust/read in a field in which I have no expertise in?
Citations, peer reviews, recommendations, etc. Use your own judgment to calibrate.

Zizek is a hack. He plagiarized his review of the Culture of Critique.
withendemanndom.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/slavoj-zizek-philosophaster-and_9.html

me

mike cernovich imo

desu I'm right here.

Looks like I'm going to have to become this board's sole Fredric Jameson supporter. Can't wait to be excruciatingly annoying and reviled by all for posting the same jpeg of his round dwarfish face in every thread, regardless of relevance.

>can't even get his shit at a library.
this means what he says is dissident and therefore true? what does this mean for everything else you can find in a library?

why does there need to be a litmus test for detecting pseuds? what's wrong with reading books that interest you, engaging with the text, reckoning with it in relation to other things you've read, and forming an understanding of the world that doesn't come straight off some pre-approved ideological reading list?

You do have a huge point that I totally agree with here
>anyone worth paying attention to or who has any merits or anything or value to say does not parade himself around in the media like a clown

but I wouldn't say its impossible for someone who is not known publicly to also be a fraud or have a hidden agenda. There is no system or methodology which is right all the time and leads you to truth when it comes to problems as complex as these. You're going to have to be an informed and thinking person.

Roberto Calasso

Being hacks and pseuds. This was OP point. Debate it.

Harris is no pseud. People just can't handle him being right all the time.

Can someone redpill me on this man's theories? He sounds like a less interesting Deleuze from what I've seen

Ligotti

living ones? no one, give up

peterson has over 100 publications, almost 10,000 citations

>but I wouldn't say its impossible for someone who is not known publicly to also be a fraud or have a hidden agenda. There is no system or methodology which is right all the time and leads you to truth when it comes to problems as complex as these. You're going to have to be an informed and thinking person.
I know of a few scientists/mathematicians who this doesn't hold for, yes, but I think for humanties it holds almost 100%. It's just too easy to bullshit your way through, that few, even amongst actual academics, are worth listening to.

I really dislike your image OP

All you need is E. Bravo really, the rest of that list just steal from him. He is a true skeptic's skeptic.

What kind of mental deficient calls Slavoj Zizek a hack? Harris I agree with, and I understand where people come from with Peterson, but Zizek has a philosophical journal solely dedicated to his study. He is inarguable one of the most important living philosophers.

fuckin retard peterson is cited as fuck

Drop Butler. Add Searle,

EY YO I LOVE GOOBAS

>It's one of those nice gentle French movies where you have incest which is portrayed as a nice secret between mother and son. I like this.

Truly /ourguy/

Bait.

Tristan Garcia

cited in psychology, no one is using his meme talks about the bloody postmodern neomarxists in their academic papers you dumb faggots

this being

what ideas does he has beyond being a boring marxist?

sounds great, thanks user

And he got two books on "Ideas" (second one for the 20th century), then he has "German Genius", it too fantastic.

Go to bed Harman.