Do people who study philosophy on rigorous academic level actually read this guy? Or is he more popular with dilettantes

Yes.

The problem I find is people who often cite his work on deconstruction are basically bullshitting their way through something they think they should know but don't. Shit's pretty complicated tbf. I don't think a more rigorous way of talking would help either, since the thing that takes a similar bullshitting position in analytic schools is second order logic.

The guy p much developed a way where you can find certain kinds of ideology in your own thought, and that is an amazing achievement.

>since the thing that takes a similar bullshitting position in analytic schools is second order logic
Wow, you are utterly retarded.

This.

Why's that?
>inb4 muh second order logic

You seem to actually understand the guy, so could you try to illuminate what his actual accomplishments were? I agree that people who cite him tend to be bullshit artists of the highest order, but Derrida seems to have a coherence that his typical followers do not.

There's a strange phenomenon that you will first start to understand in grad school (if it doesn't eat your brain too(. The phenomenon is that everyone in grad school is a pissant fucking retard functionary who is cordoning off a tiny little area, with a tiny little favourite philosopher guy to apply to that area, for the rest of their pissant careers that no one will ever give a fuck about, if they even have a career at all. But boy are there lots of them, seeming really important in the heat of the moment!!

For every real thinker who actually appreciates and makes use of a Derrida or Foucault, there are ten thousand "Foucauldian" and "Derridean" scholars who devote their life to him and form little cliques and journals around him, dominate an entire department here or there, making them seem like the entire scholarly universe in that field. Usually for about a decade or a generation at most.

They're all pissants. Derrida's heyday is well and over, and he'll be forgotten as quickly as he became fashionable. He's not entirely a fraud - only mostly - but make no mistake that 90% of his fame is for being the celebrity obscurantist of the Parisian circlejerk du jour in his time. Same with Lacan. Partly the same even with Foucault, though Foucault is a lot better and will have a lot more staying power.

When you picture Derrida, don't picture him high up on some linear ladder of philosophical complexity or prestige. Picture him as one of many, many scholars in a huge constellation. Once you get a good enough general picture of that constellation, you'll instantly know who the flashes in the pan are.

Another great phenomenon as an addendum: 98% of the grad students (read: future jobber whogivesashit professors) who base their careers on guys like Derrida, as in the first phenomenon, don't actually read Derrida. "Derrida" is a received tradition that you master by submersion in it. It's much more a subculture than an actual philosophical system. It's surprisingly easy to pick up all the jargon and the basic Cliff's Notes mechanics that you need to do "Derridean" work entirely by osmosis.

this nigga couldn't give you a straight answer to save his life, I bet he was the kinda person that didn't know what to order at a cafe

This is a really interesting point, and I can see where you're coming from. I think I agree that most people in grade school just pick a philosopher or a school or a period and make it their schtick, and it's pretty obnoxious.

I think where I disagree with you is when you say "90% of his fame is for being the celebrity . . . of the Parisian circlejerk du jour." I mean, we can say the same thing about Emerson, but he's been consistently studied for over 100 years. Nobody writes ~without~ their circlejerk; some writers just happen to pick up traction outside of it. And maybe some of that traction is the adaptability of that writer's ideas in other people's lives. So a trace of Derrida gets incorporated into discourse - whether you like it or not - and so what?

Plus, he can be funny. Not least of all because people get bent out of shape about him.

>What is emotivism

academic philosophers do not read derrida, period
other academics do in more bullshit fields like sociology

One of his achievements at a fairly basic level is in how we define a text or oeuvre. So iirc there were just before he became big on the scene movements like new criticism that said if a text is good or something like that it can stand on its own feet without a need for reference to other texts or historical facts or other things outside the text. Others argued that the author's shopping list was potentially vital information that should be attached to an oeuvre or something to that effect.

Derrida gets past this by placing importance on the readers own personal relationship or interpretation of a text. So an oeuvre has no hard set in stone boundary. You also don't have to worry about some dumbass author's state of mind or view. They wrote the text because they weren't going to be present ultimately so forget them.

The text itself now you can think of as this meaningless on its own set of signs. It's the act of reading/interpreting it that actually assigns meaning, in a sense you construct the text or work yourself using pieces given to you through the marks on a page. How you set up these relations and meanings very much depends on your viewpoint as that person in that place at that time. By looking at how this meaning is changeable you can start to better recognise which parts are of the text and which parts are you. That's more or less diferance, how you construct meaning from the text. Then you can start to try to construct a stable meaning of the text again.

Deconstruction is this ability of a text to have its apparent meaning undone, through the I guess "process" above. I dunno how helpful that all is, ot should he pretty good but I'm p tired and it's not massively easy to cut down into a Veeky Forums post

A thread about philosophy, and you use a well known fallacy to try and make a point?

Sounds like a load of horseshit.

This. He is an utter non-entity in the field of philosophy.

Just another data point here, user, but I've now been at a few schools pretty highly regarded all around and in philosophy in particular, including two that have nontrivial continental contingents, and have never met anyone who takes him really seriously. The most common attitudes seem to be that it's bullshit or that at best it's not really worth the effort to extract what insight there is (might as well just reinvent the wheel if you have to spend dozens of hours reading the instruction manual and even then don't have much grasp on what it's saying and don't feel like you've learned much once you finally do think you understand it).

I did have one prof, though, who saw a lecture by him and thought he was very impressive in person.

And yeah, almost all the analytic philosophers I know are either apolitical or left of center, including quite a few who are well to the left. I guess there's the occasional libertarian.

I took a whole seminar on him, so yes.

Unpopular opinion alert!

I think Derrida is a better philosopher than Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is the best writer of any philosopher, but as a philosopher, I think he's middle of the road.

Derrida is less desultory than Nietzsche. Desultary is really a piss-poor quality for a philosopher to have and it's N.'s achilles heel.

Derrida showed very convincingly that the nature of language itself (the means of expression for the philosopher) is inimical to one of the most fundamental principles of philosophy: the law of non-contradiction. If you don't see how this is a very important insight and challenge, then. . . maybe philosophy isn't for you.

That's a pretty neat idea. Which book outlines this? Interested in more

Can you give a top 5 or so of continental philosophers taken seriously at that level? I've read all of the major ancient philosophy texts, the German idealists, and the existentialists and I want to start moving into the more modern schools.

Hmm, can't think of any really contemporary people, probably just because I'm not up to date, but I'd say (and these are each controversial): Habermas, Foucault, the Frankfurt School, and maybe Gadamer. Going back further it's easier: Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Brentano, Freud, Kierkegaard, Marx, etc.

My impression is that to understand the more recent people, the most important people to read, if you haven't yet, would be Marx, Heidegger, Freud, Weber.

My own recommendation, perhaps alongside this other stuff you're getting into, read some analytics. Try Frege's Foundations of Arithmetic, or some papers by Lewis, Nagel, Davidson, or Foot. Or, if you're mainly interested in political stuff, try Rawls, Nozick, and/or G.A. Cohen. For a continuation of some parts of German Idealism, check out the Pittsburgh school: Sellars, Brandom, McDowell (would be a good idea to read late Wittgenstein first).

In any case, good luck!

what is
>the nature of language itself
and how did Derrida show
>very convincingly
that it undermines the law of non-contradiction?

could you summarize the argument?

Absolute idiot

Quine's Word and Object

Quite a lot of the groundwork is in of grammatology

>which parts are of the text and which parts are you. That's more or less differance.

What the fuck?

I like Derrida's stuff about logocentrism but I don't really care about his work with signs or texts. Is there a book of his that's more about cataloging logocentrisms?

Why have you edited out the last part of thecsentence?

zizek likes to go on about how he's all about showing how lacan is actually really saying something underneath the apparent gibberish layer

>Plus, he can be funny. Not least of all because people get bent out of shape about him.
i hate you

>""""conservatism""""
>not leftist
lmao 2bh

When people here approach Derrida they seem to forget how much he's working in the same path Heidegger tried to carve. The whole Derrida thought stems from the Heideggerian cosideration of metaphysics, as way of thinking which "forget" the Being, hides it behind "what exists", and necesessarily leadss to nihilism.
Now Derrida tries to formulate an approach to text where every reference outside of the text, where the mutual relationship between the word tree and a tree is broken and deem as metaphysical, and more importantly, the link between the intentions of the author and meaning is broken what remains is just the text. Meaning for Derrida comes from relationship with words and words only, that why the possibility of meaning lies on what eventually disrupts meaning. That is the differance, the operation, the repetition of words, their (dis)placement in time which causes what Derrida calls the "effacement" of meaning.
But since he's trying to write and think post-metaphysically he can never actually conceptualize differance, instead he has to resort to make emerge from his texts and never actually give definitions, just what it does functionally.

This is really just a tiny fraction of his thought though, I left out the whole logocentris part which is closely connected to this and I'm sorry if I have been imprecise, but this is the best I can do given the circumstances.

You can't try to be smart and use the word "cuckery"

It's spelt cookery

Kant and Hegel prefigure all modern philosophy

Fichte, Schelling, Schiller, Schlegels, Coleridge (after Schelling), Schopenhauer follow immediately

Nietzsche and Marx/Engels are obviously important, the former being easy enough to read and the latter being a chore

To a lesser extent Kierkegaard

Bergson is very important, little read today but much read by many giants of modern philosophy

Croce, Gentile

Freud is vitally important because of how many people were psychoanalysis cultists and how many other deep psychology were inspired by psychoanalysis

Husserl is vitally important because phenomenology prefigures much of 20th century philosophy

Heidegger was a student of Husserl and is vitally important

Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre were students of Heidegger

Kojeve, Strauss, Ricoeur, Buber, Levinas, Jaspers, Habermas

No real reason to read Althusser anymore, Gramsci (for Neo-Gramscians if interested in Marx, Gellner, Kolakowski, Perry + Benedict Anderson, Eagleton

Saussure + Prague school of structural linguistics, Claude Levi-Strauss, Barthes

Foucault, Bordieu, Badiou, Marcuse, Adorno + Horkheimer, Benjamin

Jung, Reich

Deleuze, Lacan, Koyre, and Derrida are memes you should only read if you're a leftist woman

Bachelard, Canguilhem, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Piaget

Schmitt, Gehlen

>Deleuze, Lacan, Koyre, and Derrida are memes you should only read if you're a leftist woman

it's funny because leftists women read way more Foucault than Derrida or Deleuze.

Derrida is a philosopher for readers of literature, he is not a philosopher's philosopher

>Real men
>Read

Excellent bait

Caught so many fish with this tasty morsel

Derrida is not trying to work in the same path as Heidegger, he's trying to work in the same path as Walter Benjamin, with a greater focus on language than aesthetics. His entire project is to take Benjamin's The Author as Producer and On Some Motifs in Baudelaire and move them forward, into the realm of language focus, with application to ideology and political systems. Have you ever even read Derrida?

> it's a "I know the inner thoughts of this philosopher better than you" episode
What you say is interesting and I see what you're getting at I think, but to make out like Derrida has no influence from Heidegger is a massive folly. There's nothing wrong (or even really that debateable) with the other user's comment unless you want to play the game of toxic ivory tower academia, where everyone but you knows nothing

>it's funny because leftists women read way more Foucault than Derrida or Deleuze.
Get real, most don't even read Derrida and Deleuze. "Think pieces" published by strong WoC in Mother Jones and r/socialism posts on Donald Trump don't count as reading.

A lot of people understand Derrida. He started an entire branch of philosophy still being worked on today.

Why do you people even bother with this? Unless you want to be a proffesional philosopher there is no point in doing an in depth reading of any philosopher unless he is fun to read, like nietsche or deleuze.
I would say Deleuze is a great read and his writing and ideas connect ot contemporary experiences of life.
You read a philosopher in depth to write about him or to use his ideas in your own philosophical writings...
Do you really think learning philosophy is gonna reveal some truth to you? Its as much a construction as anything else, finding different ideas that allow society to choose from a breadth of options for different circumstances.
You can find more "truth" in your own personal experiences.
Reading philosophy is examining certain ways of thinking that are connected to certain personal experiences and culture of the writer. Reading a philosopher from your own culture is closer to your own experiences but living life yourself, experiencing things in person is as "true" as it can get.

what did he meme by this?

>Have you ever even read Derrida?
Of course not.

Your own philosophy is whats important. You only need to study other philosophers if you want to persaude others to accept your philosophy, examine it, interpret it and bother with it.
If you indeed want others to examine your ideas and what you think, then you need to rely on the structures and methodologies of authoritative "truth" like known philolosophers to make others appreciate how learned you are and bother with your ideas.
If you dont want that all you need is to find a person you love who is willing to take the time and dive into your own world to understand it.
Unless you are interested in actually working as a philosopher, writing essays on other philosophers, meticuleously studying their ideas, all you have to do is engange yourself in deep fullfilling relationships that give the parties involved the motivation to understand each other in depth.

As usual, I kill the thread.

topkek

>I would say Deleuze is a great read
Deleuze is another nonsense peddler. You got conned.

Not even close. Derrida is an utter non-entity in the field of philosophy.

Holy fuck - every writer mentioned in this post other than Kant and Kuhn is a gibberish-writing pseudointellectual. Great job.

In this way normies should stick to the culture they exist in, as their world is primarily external and mostly "real" (normies can't be like Underground Man). What led up to the current zeitgeist and where it will go aren't terribly important to them.

Intellectuals and overthinkers, for whom most of their world is their internal thoughts, can benefit greatly from philosophy, as most philosophers are like this themselves, and careful readings of any great texts requires a sort of "dialogue" with the text (why did he write this? why did this character do this and not this?) which can yield helpful perspective.

If you have faulty assumptions in your way or system of thinking then, while your experience is "true", it may be ignorantly self-destructive. Carefully reading philosophy can give you the tools to deal with this, or at least give you alternative ways of thinking to try out.

philosophy is a practice, not reading books

>other than Kant and Kuhn
lel okay

derrida's more of a critical studies and cultural shit guy than a philosophy guy, but he's definitely important in many parts of academia

haha u little bitch

>Schiller, Piaget, Jung, Freud, Saussure, Levi-Strauss, Barthes
>philosophers

yeah, sure, buddy.

>i'm interested in continental philosophy
>let me just not read any of these thinkers who defined massive chunks of it, because a robotic machine sorting algorithm would rank them as another discipline instead of "Philosopher" and i confuse that sorting for platonic reals

going to stab you

Then read him as a novel. Like I wrote, He is a great read, his style of writing is very inspiring. I mean it, it loosens your thoughts.

He's hard to translate into English. He reads more smoothly in French or another romance language.

>retards stuck in the 19th century, looking for an "underlying truth".
Get your asses into post modernity already.
Why is all of Veeky Forums stuck in Classical modernity?

I've never heard of a philosopher influenced by Levi-Strauss or Barthes, the influence of Saussure on philosophy is one of the great catastrophes of the continental intellect in the 20th century, Jung is for soccermoms who also believe in homeopathy, Schiller's conception of beauty as a moral experience could well be called proto-fascist and Piaget is pretty based, but representative more of the kind of scientist whom philosopher's should really pay attention to, but don't (today's equivalent would be non-classical cognitive and neuroscience).

You need to get a more nuanced perspective of how intelligentsias work. You're basically saying "don't read any structuralism because I don't like it," and "don't read guys who had enormous influence on other thinkers and artists, because I think they're wrong!"

It's not even worth prying apart your post in detail.

I've read Saussure and many inspired by him. My perspective on how "intelligentsias" work is relatively nuanced, mainly because I've read most of a postdoctoral thesis which analyses the Young Hegelians in terms of the sociology of knowledge (I know a bit about France/Paris and the way trends like structuralism or the Nietzsche revival(s) worked, but nothing in depth or with a lot of theoretical scaffolding to hold it up; Vienna in the decades before and after 1900 would be something I'd love to read about, if you can recommend a particular work).

The fact that you include "influence on artists" as a relevant criterion in the history of philosophy does not bode well...

We're on a literature board and you don't care about the influence of philosophy on art and literature? What the fuck? That's what makes me doubt that you understand how """""intelligentsias""""""""""" work.

We're in a Derrida thread where Lacan is mentioned. Derrida is by far mostly significant in literary criticism. Should he be read less as a philosopher because of that? Lacan is a structuralist and psychoanalyst, speaks of fellow structuralist Levi-Strauss as his "friend," and was no doubt inspired significantly by the latter's repeated calls, postwar, for French thought (not just philosophy) to take inspiration from structuralism. Levi-Strauss himself denounced Lacan. All of this was going on while Sartre, a philosopher and extremely prolific literary and artistic writer (playwright), was being abandoned by intellectuals, philosophers, activists, and artists of all stripes in favour of the literary theory of men like Barthes, whose essays on writing now sit right next to Sartre's on a shelf, in the Libary of Congress classification system.

You care about the influence of psychologists on philosophers (Piaget's epistemology - is that not philosophy in itself?) but you don't care about the influence of philosophy on art, or presumably vice versa. Again I could just type sixty five pages of examples of how philosophers took direct inspiration from art. And not just for showing off, or padding out their stuff with literary citations, but actual inspiration. How about Foucault citing Borges' Celestial Emporium in The Order of Things? Even more importantly, do you really not recognize that the unconscious of an intellectual era is shot through with those KINDS of things, ideas and conceptual frameworks, mentalities and zeitgeists and whatever, that informed both Foucault's and Borges' thinking? In ways that don't respect pseudo-platonic professional or intellectual walled gardens like "this dude's an artist, lol, I don't need to read him to understand his contemporaries' conceptual frameworks better."

You say you understand intelligentsias but I don't believe you.

>We're on a literature board and you don't care about the influence of philosophy on art and literature?
Not when the question is "which continental thinkers are taken seriously in academic philosophy?", no.

Well, I'm in academic philosophy, and I study this stuff, and so does my adviser, so there's that.

You have a weirdly narrow view of what's "important" or vetted by the establishment. Especially since even the establishment is against doing that, these days, at least outwardly.

Either that or your view of someone being "taken seriously" is strange. Have you never met a philosophy PhD doing his work on Pascal, or some obscure Greek or medieval who isn't "taken seriously" anymore? People study moderns in the same way. Example:
>Ricœur argues that psychoanalysis is not a science but a language, a "semantics of desire." He seeks to bring Freud's ideas into conformity with the linguistic turn - the "effort to understand virtually all aspects of human behavior in terms of language."[1] For Ricœur, all interpretation partakes of a double hermeneutic. Psychoanalysis involves an "archaeology" of meanings, motives and desires, an attempt to delve into the unconscious layers of repressed or sublimated memory. Yet it also points a way through and beyond that condition by offering the patient renewed possibilities of self-knowledge and creative fulfillment.

While obviously Heidegger influenced Derrida, and so did Benjamin (tbqh, he influenced a lot of people despite being a "B list philosopher" read mostly by people in aesthetics), the point is that both Derrida and Heidegger had a huge influence by Husserl

I was reading Agamben's The Other a few weeks ago and it got me thinking how this "canonical" view of philosophy Veeky Forums (and undergrads in general) is alienating, since you have someone like Agamben, who's clearly one of the sharpest minds in today's philsophy, who's citing texts ranging from everything to gnosticism to medieval theology to biology to the Frankfurt school to present his ideas, while people just keep on selling this theleological, contained view of philosophy in which every writer is merely commenting on other philosophers.

"What strikes me with Bachelard is that, in a way, he plays against his own culture with his own culture.

In traditional education and also in the culture we receive there are a certain number of established values, things one must read and others one must not read. Oeuvres that are estimable and others that are negligible. There are the small people and the big people, there is hierarchy. You know, the whole celestial world with its thrones, dominations, angles and archangels -- all this is well hierarchized, and roles are very precisely defined.

And Bachelard knows how to separate himself from this ensemble of values. He knows how to separate himself form it by reading everything and by confronting everything with everything. He reminds me of skilled chess players who manage to take the biggest pieces with the little pawns. Bachelard does not hesitate to oppose Descartes to a minor philosopher or an imperfect or eccentric eighteenth century scholar. He doesn't hesitate to bring together in the same analysis the most important poets and a minor poet he might have discovered by chance, browsing through a small bookshop.

By doing that, he does not mean to reconstitute, if you like, the great global culture, which is that of the West, of Europe, or of France. It's not about showing that it is always the same great mind that lives and swarms everywhere. On the contrary, I have the feeling that he tries to trap his own culture with its interstices, its deviances, its minor phenomena, its dissonances."

Fuck All had top tier prose, those retards who keep spouting how he's undecipherable are just people whot ook Modern Logic 101 and decided every continental philosopher is shit

Canon is just there to provide a basis for understanding the fundamentals of western philosophy. You think Agamben didn't start with the Greeks?

Studying who referred to whom as a friend and which books are next to each other in the library of congress can be interesting, but it's not studying philosophy, it's studying relatively tangential aspects of the history of philosophy. In any case the question you initially answered wasn't "how many people can you name who are in some way or another important for 20th century philosophy" and you are trying to shift the goalposts here which a rigorous thinker should avoid.

>or presumably vice versa
How would you presume such a thing? I am truly baffled. If a philosopher is influenced by a scientist and writes a work of philosophy, that's philosophy. If a painter is influenced by a philosopher and paints a painting, that's a painting. These two directions of inspiration are not interchangeable, they are the opposite of each other (you are probably going to point out how both of these happen in the same social circles, but that doesn't change anything about the formal aspect of what's going on).

Foucault's citation of Borges in Les Mots et les Choses is pretty shit. The categories of the chinese dictionary are exactly as fanciful and imaginary as Foucault's idea of being able to identify monolithic epistemes and the way they determine the entire thought of an era, but my latest rant on Foucault is over here I understand that the intellectual milieu of a thinker influences his thought, but that wasn't the question to begin with. What you are doing sounds like cultural studies of intellectual elites, or a sociology of knowledge, or a history of ideas, but not actually "studying philosophy" in the narrow sense.

fantastic post lad

nice thinly veiled analytic vs continental thread, shithead

Con artists like Derrida, Foucault, Agamben, etc are not studied in Philosophy. They may be studied by other con artists in junk fields like "cultural studies" or "SJW studies", but that's neither here nor there.

The nature of language is that it has no static semantic scaffolding to make it unambivalent. Words and their usage are super flexible. The result is polysemy, the multiplication of meaning of a words. Take the word "order" for example. It carries several different meanings and connotations. This multiplicity can and does cause severe rifts between the intentions of the communicative moment and its interpretive results, up to and including contradiction.

Evidence: oxymoron's place in the catalogue of rhetorical tropes, and the very existence of contranyms such as "cleave."

As for how he showed that, read his work. Etymology is his pry bar.

That's just throwing your hands up and saying "it's all just too complicated!" No, stop being a drama queen and calm the fuck down. Start with a simple model and refine it until it is empirically adequate - just like any other science.

How? I don't think that it's even all that non-trivial, introspection should reveal how much our use of language is dependent on context instead of absolute meaning, especially if you've learnt a second language. There's no reason to believe that we can scientifically refine our understanding of a given word until it becomes absolute in any given sense.

Meanings are of course contextual, but this can be explored in a systematic manner. In physics, we start with frictionless planes and perfect vacuums even though these conditions do not exist in the real world. Additional constraints are added to improve precision where desired. Semantics is no different.

Polysemy sometimes leads to miscommunication miscommunication (great discovery, I be nobody ever noticed that!), so... something something contradiction?

I just don't see it yet. How does this undermine the law of noncontradiction in any way?

At best it can get us to trivial observations akin to noticing that some possible utterances of "I'm hungry" are true and others are false. And though it's an interesting question how best to model the meaning of words like "I", no plausible account of them will result in thinking there are contradictions in the offing here.

And in any case, does any of this apply to non-context dependent formal languages as well? Because if not, then I'd happily just take the principle of non-contradiction to be about a suitable formal language, which presumably has sufficiently "static semantic scaffolding", whatever that means.

>nobody's talking to me
>obv because im a genius

>empirically adequate
nice oxymoron

Will Stirner ever be taken seriously?

>Nobody agrees with me
>Must mean I'm the genius that ended the thread
Yep, All in a days work.

Stirner won't be taken seriously because people don't like to accept the idea that we are all self serving in the end. People don't like the idea of egoism because considering your needs first priority in your life is "selfish" and "negative". It also has something to do with him being obscure relative to other philosophers outside of Veeky Forums. Stirner might one day be taken seriously but I doubt it. People want peace of mind through ignorance and love, not spooks and anarchy.

Do you know of any good thinkers who would destroy Stirners ontology and descriptions (because he doesnt really argue) of life?

Sounds like you don't know what "oxymoron" means.

It's not that he isn't "taken seriously" as a philosopher by contemporary academic philosophers. Rather, he is simply considered a minor figure of his era, focused narrowly on moral and political issues. He is mentioned by philosophers and historians of anarchism, but that is about it.

I like to think about Stirner's philosophy as a pro- for transhumanism. How do you feel about that, user?