Who is the biggest fraud in philosophy?

I dont know any of these people

Lacan was a Chad, not a philosopher

Then why do people treat him as if he's a philosopher?

The biggest fraud in history isn't a specific person but the French philosophical tradition since the end of world war 2.

It is constantly *tiraillée* between liberal grandstanding and marxist elitism as they can't fathom the fact that they may be wrong. It is merely *tergiversations* and gonzo historicism: they weave narratives to fit their worldview, that they are the intellectuals and, by a handwave, the deciding factor of the world's coming revolution.

It is merely narcissism and rejection of structure like children fall into tantrums.

It is shame and villeny veilled in a dress of good manners, activism and moral superiority.

why do the french make you feel so inadequate?

There are exceptions (pic related) but i agree. It's just filled with meaningless jargon meant to hide the emptiness and ridiculousness of the theory.

but french philosophy gave us this! i'd say this is worth all the intellectual terrorism

I am one myself. Call it self-hating but it is not. I just despise our self-centered, reproducing cast of intellectual inheritors.

All philosophers who's name/title begins with B.

Even Baristotle?

don't worry, the americans have destroyed your intellectual legacy by adopting it and taking it into autistic overdrive, there's no way the french can get it back on track now

jordan B peterson?

Who is this and why do i keep seeing him?

I am working on regarde juvenating a French school of thoughts. But it is hard with the Badious, Lordons, Friots, Henry-Levys, etc. reproducing like cockroaches on a kitchen floor.

then, what modern philosopher should i read?

>Henry-Levys
i thought he was just a run-of-the-mill liberal globalist, didn't know he was an intellectual meme as well

probably lacan. Kristeva for sure. though i like baudrillard. he writes meaningful things about seduction and pornography.

Baudrillard actually has meaningful stuff to say about technology as well, and he raped Foucault harder than AIDS did

bourdieu for sure. He took everything from norbert elias made it banal. However, all the people at the university love and teach him.

yes, also about media. reading mcluhan and baudrillard is informing. i don't know what you mean by raping focault, can you explain? just know that foucault regardet fistfucking as something wonderfull.

I mean his "Forgetting Foucault" article actually demoralized Foucault pretty badly.

I will read into that. focault could have said what he said by writing fewer books. and it is really obscure. though, i liked the history of sexuality.

Is she one of (((them)))? The nose always gives it away.

yeah she is

See, I was shitposting but saw the nose and was curious. I really hate this website for what it does to me.

>And, to go even a step further, is the practice of fist-fucking not the exemplary case of what Deleuze called the "expansion of a concept?" The fist is put to a new use; the notion of penetration is expanded into the combination of the hand with sexual penetration, into the exploration of the inside of a body. No wonder Foucault, Deleuze's Other, was practicing fisting: is fist-fucking not the sexual invention of the twentieth century, a new model of eroticism and pleasure? It is no longer genitalized, but focused just on the penetration of the surface, with the role of the phallus being taken over by the hand, the autonomized partial object par excellence. And, what about the so-called Transformer or animorph toys, a car or a plane that can be transformed into a humanoid robot, an animal that can be morphed into a human or robot. Is this not Deleuzian? There are no "metaphorics" here; the point is not that the machinic or animal form is revealed as a mask containing a human shape but, rather, the existence of the becoming-machine or becoming-animal of the human, the flow of continuous morphing. What is blurred here is also the divide machine/living organism: a car transmutes into a humanoid/cyborg organism. And, is the ultimate irony not that, for Deleuze, the sport was surfing, a Californian sport par excellence if there ever was one? No longer a sport of self-control and domination directed towards some goal, it is just a practice of inserting oneself into a wave and letting oneself be carried by it. Brian Massumi formulated clearly this deadlock, which is based on the fact that today's capitalism already overcame the logic of totalizing normality and adopted the logic of the erratic excess:

She's an atheist Jew, though. So keep that in mind.

Zizek should really stick to Hegel, he comes across as a rambling idiot.

Come on Jordan, why don't you just relax already

wonderfull. lol. i actually don't know why i like this style. it is like a bizarre joke

>expansion of a concept

na, they map the neoliberal cultur and subjects quite interestingly. overall, which tradition does that better?

Ayo, fuck you mang. U dunno shit nigga.

>The conception of the expansion of the concept can also be applied daringly to the idea of an open-marriage or "cuckolding" as it has now become known on internet sites as reddit and so on. Here we see the application of what Badiou would call "the One is not" (indeed should not be), finds its logical conclusion in the realm of love, where one can no longer stay with "one" but must share this "one" with the Hegelian Other. Yet we must not confuse this with the erratic excesses of one like Foucault, who did not dialectically engage with the Other, but instead distanced himself by delegating the role of sexual agent to one of his young attractive students.

Zizek really writes some crazy shit. How is he a respected scholar?

Wittgenstein. The madman didn't know any philosophy at all!
Kripke is jewish theology in disguise.
But they have a very good camouflage.
This guys didn't even try

he is a self-described meme, he has acknowledged many times that he hasn't even seen most of the movies he uses in his work, and that sometimes when he is asked to do a lecture about something he just improvises from bits he has without checking anything

and his articles are just copy/pasted from previous articles and books. he is just a master intellectual capitalist

>Wittgenstein
You shut your whore mouth, Witty was an actual philosopher, even though he started as an engineer.

But how does he keep getting away with it? Why do people take him seriously when he himself admits he's a clown?

If you start curing cancer by denying the existence of cancer, without knowing what cancer is to start with, does it make a doctor?

i don't know, but all this seems meaningful to me. it speaks about the current human being and his attempt to deal with the world. It is a mixture of phenomenology, psychology and political theory.

How does this analogy apply to Wittgenstein?

>Henry-Levys
youtube.com/watch?v=7KP5kldLCfM

But it's just word salad that i made up to frogpost.
Are you saying i could be a continental philosopher?

Any psychoanalyst or philosopher who derives his work from Freudian psychonanalytical assumptions that have no empirical weight. Not because of falsifiability.

Speaking of which, Popper is a massive fraud. Falsifiability discounts structure-agent relationships that are inherent to our society. And it makes no logical sense either. To use a /pol/ analogy, if a person can explain every political event because of the Jews, then it might be an indicator that the person emitting these theories may be bullshitting. However, it doesn't mean that you can discount a theory entirely based on falsifiability theory. The irony is Popper's own theory is unfalsifiable from a sociology of science perspective.

And Popper in general is the scientific equivalent of the edgy libertarian.

So, a crypto

the clown has always been an importand figure. the good old jester.

He is like Degrasse Tyson for marxists. Edgy teens find him cool at first, like when I thuoght at first he was cool when he was guest on Croatian television.

Read him and you'll know.

Where to start with Wittgenstein?

you sure could write books that would sell. it is a certain jargon. if you keep it interesting and witty, i'm sure people would read it. i would not, because Veeky Forums serves me well enough for this kind of entertainment.

Usually by the first page of his books.

Most are french media pseuds
I know how you feel, frère. But you won't rejuvenate anything outside of a youtube format

do you skip the intro?

Yeah, because the intro is normally around the last page.

Sartre

why?

Yes Badiou is insufferable, trying to gain legitimacy for his philosophy and politics by shoehorning set theory

It’s not that I hate Jews or anything. It’s that this site has trained me to look at any intellectuals nose and go “Jew or Gentile”. I don’t think this is a normal, healthy way to live.

This isn’t me btw.

...

Sartre

Dunno about her but those are some excellent headphones

Yeah i'd pay to see her give a BJ with those on

elaborate famalam

Evola and every theosophist.

cuck

i want her to tounge my nigger asshole

/lil/ has waifus too? lmao

Not for long. Veeky Forumsizens tend to scare them so much they delete their channels and go into hiding

As long as that one guy who has piss bottles don’t post pictures, I’m happy.

evola was not a philosopher and the theosophists neither

>one guy

oh sweete summer childe

t. simple-minded materialist

Doesn’t post pictures rather

He had some decent concepts and was very influential even on those who disagreed with him because of it, his biggest mistake being bad starting points in every domain, but he did push all of them to theur limits. Besides, his followers were far worse in every way.

That's not a real quote, is it? Not that Zizek needs to be imitated to be a weirdo, as that other genuine quote shows.

What kind of decent ideas did he have, and how are his followers worse?

No, i just made it up. The other quote (about the Transformers toy) is real, though.

>women
>philosophy
choose one

>he has acknowledged many times that he hasn't even seen most of the movies he uses in his work

Any source on that?

he conceptualized the subconsciousness as something structured through language. It is all about signification and significant. His ideas are often contained in obscure "formulas". However, he is very popular. and i must say, hes concepts can be thought provoking. Reading freud is for sure a better idea than reading lacan.

couldn't find a direct quote, but it's a well know meme, i've heard him say it on some youtube video

anyway here's an indirect mention to it
lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/04/09/fatema-ahmed/stalinist-self-criticism/

>Kripke is jewish theology in disguise.
How? I know he's a practicing Jew, but most of his work seems completely areligious.

plato

Tie between Heidegger and Derrida

>Call it self-hating but it is not
lmfao

>It's a well known meme
>it must be real
go back

So I looked up Julia Galef and apparently she's a Sam Harris tier meme rationalist utilitarian?

>I still would tho

Not Badiou, it’s more complicated than that. He does indeed understand the math that he uses, mathematicians just say he doesn’t because he doesn’t write in their style and they hate that. I can’t find it right now, but I’ve found a review of Logics of Worlds by a mathematician which verifies he does indeed deploy category theory without any mathematical errors. The reviewer was deeply uncomfortable with how he was using that to make phenomenological points, but they admitted they were not a philosophy and are not use to reading that sort of writing.

I’d recommend Badiou; Subject to Truth by Hallward, and Badiou and Politics by Bruno Bosteels, in that order. Between the two of them they make a good case for him as an important thinker, and a politically relevant one, outside of just Maoism.

Lukacs is great don’t fckin lie. Especially on Veeky Forums.

While Lacan himself is incomprehensible the fact that so many people have able to mobilize his concepts in ways that I’ve found enlightening and productive makes me inclined to believe there is something there.

That is Nick Land. His biggest influence is the French philosophy Gilles Deleuze. The biggest aesthetic difference between them, superficially at least, is that Deleuze deploys a very biological oriented metaphor, taking about rhizomes, cells, growth, bodies with and without organs, lines of flight and so on, while Land uses the language of cybernetics, technoscience, computational networks, meltdown, data, hacking etc.

Land is characterized as being an accelerationist, basically that the only way around the contradictions of capitalist society is to push them faster and harder until we push right through them. Then he went crazy, moved to China and because a monarchist.

After Deleuze published Anti-Oedipus Lacanian was seen in philosophical circles as completely dead. Along comes Zizek a couple years later and published The Sublime Object of Ideology, which deploys the Lacanian apparatus to reinterpret Hegel, producing a materialist theory of subjectivity, from which he derives a new method for the the critique of ideology (previously seen as having culminated in Althusser) and then actually deploys that method to reveal the ideological structures in film in a novel way.

Zizek basically started a new wave of Lacanian film criticism single handedly. There was the application of Lacan to films back in the 60s and 70s, notably people like Metz and Mulvney, who mostly elaborated on and deployed the concept of the Mirror stage, and worked on differentiating structures as either being part of rhe Imaginary or the Symbolic. Lacan hadn’t yet developed the Real at that time.

Zizek focused, for really the first time seriously, on the far more esoteric, bizarre and incomprehensible ‘Later Lacan’, where he talks about The Real, the Synthome, Borromean Knots, and so on. Zizek is a genuine expert on this topic.

I had to read some rabbinic literature. I can tell you that he didn't come up with a new theory of reference, he only adapted the rabbinic interpretation of some old metaphysical problems.

What rabbinic literature did you read?