>go for a walk >download radio 4 shows to listen to something >hear will self on a point of view >"porn objectifies women and is sexist against women. one day a week there should be a curfew for men aged over 18 so women feel safe. i can walk at night because i am male and even though men get attacked more and women mainly get attacked by people they know, this shows that women have a harder time." >listen to roger scruton >some simplified potshots at lefties (harry potter causes entitlement) >listen to call in show >"Brexit voters didnt know 100 % what they voted for therefore cancel Brexit"
Guys, is it just me or is the whole of literary and humanities culture utterly intellectually bankrupt and consisting of nothing more than dirge?
I include actual high brow stuff like philosophy in this. The republic and the politics were filled with half assed assertions. I am currently reading and enjoying war and peace but holy fuck there was a short bit that could be summed up as tolstoy wondering "HURR, is it randumb or is it fate *strokes beard while holding a spork* xD". THIS is the DEEP and PROFOUND stuff I heard about? Fucking hell, it was almost as bad as pynchon in Gravitys rainbow ("Cause and effect? Or effect and cause? Sporkleborkle!").
I looked at a book by AC Grayling in the library where he went over various philosophical questions and it was filled with intellectually trivial thoughts. 40 years in Oxbridge allows you to say nothing. The same with the effective altruist Oxford philosopher who was on joe rogan and peter singer ("but wut if the poor guy was in front of you???") To give them credit, that is because they are honest analytic philosophers who can only honestly say trivial stuff. Continentals are so laughably charlatanic I dont even need to give examples.
Armchair anything is in the end worthless. Mathematicians and scientists are humble enough to look for constructs outside their mind for deep results. Science is part of philosophy but what we call Philosophy, that takes place in the philosophy department, is usually defined as anything that cant be investigated in the other departments. That is why philosophy (what people call Philosophy, not Physics etc) is filled with worthless frauds.
Haha, yeah, it's sad that the entire history of literature and philosophy has produced only the basic and trivial.
I bet you could write something profound and groundbreaking though!
Tyler Butler
Okay, you've got it all figured out. What now?
Jordan Campbell
when you get a bit older you'll realise that people who speak publicly often tailor what they say to their audience if you want academic depth go to academia you dumbfuck
Lincoln White
accept that literature is entertainment and stop this fucking cringeworthy and fraudulent attempt to portrary ulysses or crime and punishment as containing "profound philosophical analysis"
Of course, but NOT in the philosophy department.
Parker Watson
>muh entertainment/profundity dichotomy
Go back to coding, script monkey
Leo Wilson
What did you view as the "philosophical analysis" Dostoevsky was attempting to undertake in C&P?
Julian Rogers
nothing. Just the same old mash of half assed characters and social commentary. Its the pseuds who claim it amounts to philosophy not me
Daniel Parker
It was a pretty clear rejection of nihilism and celebration of humanity desu
Nicholas Ramirez
> there was a short bit that could be summed up as tolstoy wondering "HURR, is it randumb or is it fate *strokes beard while holding a spork* xD". Jesus, you are retarded.
Brody Collins
>fraudulent attempt to portrary ulysses or crime and punishment as containing "profound philosophical analysis" Who claims this? Is anything that isn't philosophical analysis is thereby entertainment? I can claim that a great Picasso certainly doesn't contain in its proper contents any philosophy and is certainly more important than "entertainment."
Alexander Sanders
>Science is part of philosophy but what we call Philosophy, that takes place in the philosophy department, is usually defined as anything that cant be investigated in the other departments. That's why it's filled with frauds? If you've got it sorted why don't you interact with the discipline? Also, I'd like some examples from the continentals (that aren't Hegel) that you find obscurantist or pretentious.
Luke Carter
This kind of criticism is so fucking stupid. It's like someone criticizing Ariana Grande and some sperg saying >but she's out there, getting rich! why don't you do it better then? Sigh...
Jaxson Long
That's what you get for not following the real counterculture instead of meme "intellectuals".
Brayden Gutierrez
Not at all.
It's like someone saying that the entire body of Western music has been one vacuous triviality after the other.
Jose Price
False, he didn't say the entire canon of Western philosophy is a fraud, he mentioned specific examples. Saying you don't like Mozart or Bach is not the same as saying the entire Western tradition is bs. Plus, most of his critique was directed towards Tolstoy up to today, with two of his three paragraphs addressing problems in modern philosophers. That's entirely different from saying there was never a good philosopher. Instead of getting your panties on a twist you should ask him to be more specific in his criticisms, debate over it and perhaps suggest some other authors. But you treat the matter like gospel, and one can't criticize it without being labeled the usual names.
Angel Cox
>Will Self Why would you do this to yourself? Sad thing is that Scruton is probably among the best we can get in public discourse these days. Peter Hitchens I have some respect for, despite the fact that he never says anything particularly useful. Other than that, who is there worth even paying attention to?
Aaron Peterson
I bet the first people to ever program chess AI felt this way
David Moore
i like your post
Dominic Smith
Radio 4 is utter dogshite most of the time, being a britmong you should know that
Samuel Perez
...
Nathaniel Reed
Is it you Sean? I have some questions concerning the book
Andrew Rogers
I suggest mister OP to get familiar with the article written by Ivan the Laughter. The name of this article is plenty comprehensive of its contents: 'New Aesthetics Theory'. Simply, Ivan the Laughter there makes an attempt (a successful one, I guess) to draw a line, separating value- and sense-laden, socially important works of art from emptyful, humiliation-worthy (or better unmentioning-worthy) simulacra of real art. The attempt of Ivan the Laughter in it's methodology is influenced by works of russian literature critics, such as Belinsky, Pisarev and their colleagues. I hope thy will find it interesting to take a peek at: lukrusglub.tumblr.com/post/152948326908/иван-смех-новая-эстетическая-теория