Now that Veeky Forums's resident philosopher Nick Land has officially endorsed Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson...

Now that Veeky Forums's resident philosopher Nick Land has officially endorsed Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, is it time to drop the Marx and Wittgenstein threads and discuss some REAL intellectuals?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis
youtu.be/T6AMJ8Ls0eo?t=1049
lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/slavoj-zizek/the-two-totalitarianisms
youtube.com/watch?v=u9gjZpG_03A
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>this is your brain on drugs, blogs, twitter, and china

That ad doesn't make sense! Most people would rather eat a fried egg than a raw one!

>implying you want ppl to eat yr brain

>implying you don't

BLEEP BLOOP
READ MOLDBUG
BLEEP BLOOP
CATHEDRAL TRANSATLANTIC BIO-DETERRITORIALIZATION BLOOP BLEEP

>did a lot of drugs, but never looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain

Oh! I know this guy! He was in Ernest Cline's Ready Player One™

>REAL intellectuals

What sort of perversed ideology is this?

>renames a young Alex Jones photo to encourage the Hicks conspiracy
get a life man

I would encourage anyone to actually listen to that podcast. Very well thought out opinions on this bizarre trend of youngsters becoming hyperpoliticized to a ridiculous level. Also great talk on god and innate story archetypes.

But you won't listen to it. Because Joe Rogans name is attached to it. Oh well.

That was a pretty good interview. Especially if you're into the jungian thing.

am i just psychotic or does zizek render like cgi

Haha holy shit na you're spot on mate.

Is this what continental philosophy has come to? jesus christ

youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

This interview is better in my opinion. It goes way deeper into the subjects he only scratches the surface of in the interview with Rogan.(Partly because I think the whole SJW topic is really beating a dead horse).

Yea but like I mean feminism does have a positive and a negative, so it qualifies as a religion not an ideology. They don't believe in a difference between men and women, so positive = matriarchy and negative = patriarchy, and that's the balance of human existence as they see it.

Yeah, but it's an ideology because it doesn't talk about the potential negatives of matriarchy, and it doesn't talk about the positives of a patriarchy.

So yes, it is indeed an ideology.

Feminism isn't about installing matriarchy, you absolute mongrels

What is it then? About equality?

Well you can forget that, because it's not gonna happen, certainly not the way they imagine it.

No, matriarchy IS the positive. It's faith.

And what the fuck ever. It's just a way of framing their reality. ""Equality"". Whatever they call it. Women with all the advantages of men with none of the disadvantages.

>No, matriarchy IS the positive.

Yes, and since they refuse to acknowledge anything lacking with it, they are ideologizing.

I tried listening to it and it was shit.

This is better, I actually started listening to this one first and was pretty shocked by how shit the other one is. I'm not American and I've never heard of Joe Rogan so I didn't know what to expect.

What do Christians believe is flawed about Jesus?

>What do Christians believe is flawed about Jesus?

He was human.

He didn't write his book himself

Despite common belief Jesus was pretty quick to anger.

that's not really an issue outside of theology, and there were different views if I remember right as to the divinity and human nature of christ. general believers say god/jesus is good, and the devil represents the negative parts of humanity.

anyways. I feel like I'm not getting my point across. in the view of the feminists, jesus is feminism/equality, patriarchy is the devil, and somewhere along the way some feminists will figure out some technical benefit to patriarchy and some technical negative to their version of equality.

I guess I'm not even arguing that it isn't an ideology, only that his definition didn't fit. Feminism is just a bad religion. A poorly thought out religion. A false religion, in the sense that it doesn't represent human nature as well as something like Christianity. But an ideology is more about the unwillingness to change your point of view, a sense of knowing everything - which is why I like in the bible it warns not to lean on your own understanding.

Yeah, but the point Peterson was making wasn't that the entirety of an ideology is wrong or has false content.

The point he was making is that it never ever tells the entire story, and it dogmatically clings to only parts of the story.

You see the same thing in fundamentalist Christians, who dogmatically hate homosexuality. Homosexuality is literally mentioned only a handful of times(if that), and that's only in the Old Testament.

So, in these people, it's almost as if they are possessed by that passage, and just ignore the entire rest of the book.

>real

...

Drug free America is also just an empty shell.

Zizek is pure ideology honestly.

>human nature
homo sapiens have enough neuroplasticity and are self-reflexive to the point of making talk of any universal nature quite dumb

>A false religion, in the sense that it doesn't represent human nature as well as something like Christianity.
the degree to which the essence of some religion might be getting at, in a distorted form, some truth about a real general condition doesn't make it any less ideological or infantile

>The myth belongs to the pedagogic stage of the human race, since it entices and allures men to occupy themselves with the content; but as it takes away from the purity of thought through sensuous forms, it cannot express the meaning of Thought. When the Notion attains its full development, it has no more need of the myth. Plato often says that it is difficult to express one’s thoughts on such and such a subject, and he therefore will employ a myth; no doubt this is easier.
-- hegel's history of philosophy

>an ideology is more about the unwillingness to change your point of view, a sense of knowing everything
the ideological distortion of reality is beyond anyones individual will, just being more liberal about your views doesn't mean you're being any less ideological while you're still merely engaging in interpreting the garbage you're being fed

>which is why I like in the bible it warns not to lean on your own understanding.
self-reflexion is a law of motion which pertains to all of nature, nature works upon itself and grows in this way, natures highest stage of self-reflexion as of yet emerged with human labour as the unity of theory and practice

Did I do a keybump too much of ketamine or does Peterson have the same face as Bloom?

You mean apart from the fact that Bloom is quite clearly an Ashkenazi Jew, and is probably 40 pounds fatter?

keep it up senpai, i'm having a good time with your content

>homo sapiens have enough neuroplasticity and are self-reflexive to the point of making talk of any universal nature quite dumb

>tfw you try to disprove universal human nature by referring to universal human nature

Im sure this sounds like a reasonable conjecture to a dumb person

Watch that newspeak, f a m. Consider the following:

Person A claims there is such an object as: blueshape.

Person B claims, no, the shape is red.

Person A memes, in reply:
>tfw you try to disprove blueshape by referring to blueshape

user's claim rests entirely on the notion that self-reflexiveness leads to wildly differing and hyperindividualist ends rather than something universal.

If he was serious, this would be the claim he was trying to prove.

Wait a second. When you guys were talking about universal human nature, I thought the existence of race was getting denied, but yeah, user , there's definitely such a thing as a specific, different human nature, as informed by our evolution.

Wonder what Peterson would have to say about right-wing postmodernism e.g. Land, Moldbug, et al.

Also should Land and Peterson be added to this pic?

>courage and decency

Isn't that hot as fuck? Like, loyalist to the extreme?

Does anyone know Nick Lands actual sincere opinions? He is such a prolific persuader that it is impossible for me to follow his actual position.

>rightwing postmodernism
This might have described Land c. 2008, but it's never described Moldbug.

Any questions?

Land for sure, he's the definition of a rhetorician, and you can call everybody pseudo-intellectual because people don't understand that an intellectual is just a member of a certain societal role, not someone possessing great intellect.

And I guess Peterson should be added for consistency, although he's a far lesser "offender"

You haven't read anything about Land if you think he's right-wing, the guy is a socialist who wants to accelerate societal collapse with the most effective means possible, right wing neo"reactionism".

Is this like how Zizek is actually a crypto-fascist?

Zizek is actually just a closet-Stalinist.

That's just what he wants you to think.

he (or moldbug, I forget which) explains that people think NRx is right wing because it's "heretical" to the progressive Cathedral

I've read more or less everything about him; my guess is you've lost his trace at ~2011. He's a neoreactionary, man; track him online @:

ufblog.net
xenosystems.net
timespiralpress.net

Twitter:
@uf_blog
@outsideness

Moldbug uses the term 'rightwing' to describe his politics, and Nick Land's never contradicted the position.

Did you know that Jordan Peterson once referred to Milo Yiannopoulos as an intellectual

Source

Not even /pol/ is that stupid.

This.

He's Marxist to the core

youtu.be/T6AMJ8Ls0eo?t=1049

Same thing, the national socialist and stalinist divide is overstated due to geopolitical reasons not because they're so different in practice. It was manufactured ideological conflict, they are actually natural allies against capitalism even if their approach is different, one materialistic and the other spiritual.

Seemed a bit tongue in cheek to me.

Ah yes, I guess they're just playing horseshoes.

>is it time to drop the Marx
shouldn't have been picked up in the first place desu

>2016
>still snorting ketamine

Join the rest of the world and inject that shit already will you, for fucks sake

I guess you could interpret it that way, but the idea of calling Milo an intellectual in any sense of the word is more bizarre than funny.

Reminder that Jung is a load of mystical bullshit.

t. butthurt materialist

>

Still more respectable than Freud.

Also, collective unconscious is an increasingly convincing concept.

>mentions Gulag Archipelago every thirty minutes, citing it as a definitive putdown of Marxism
>fairly bad at arguing in a public forum
Despite that, he's better than most. He thinks symbolically and tries to totalize in an admirable way.

He doesn't call Milo an intellectual anywhere in that video.

Zizek literally responds to this assertion

lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/slavoj-zizek/the-two-totalitarianisms
>In the Stalinist ideological imaginary, universal reason is objectivised in the guise of the inexorable laws of historical progress, and we are all its servants, the leader included. A Nazi leader, having delivered a speech, stood and silently accepted the applause, but under Stalinism, when the obligatory applause exploded at the end of the leader’s speech, he stood up and joined in. In Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be, Hitler responds to the Nazi salute by raising his hand and saying: ‘Heil myself!’ This is pure humour because it could never have happened in reality, while Stalin effectively did ‘hail himself’ when he joined others in the applause. Consider the fact that, on Stalin’s birthday, prisoners would send him congratulatory telegrams from the darkest gulags: it isn’t possible to imagine a Jew in Auschwitz sending Hitler such a telegram. It is a tasteless distinction, but it supports the contention that under Stalin, the ruling ideology presupposed a space in which the leader and his subjects could meet as servants of Historical Reason. Under Stalin, all people were, theoretically, equal.
>We do not find in Nazism any equivalent to the dissident Communists who risked their lives fighting what they perceived as the ‘bureaucratic deformation’ of socialism in the USSR and its empire: there was no one in Nazi Germany who advocated ‘Nazism with a human face’. Herein lies the flaw (and the bias) of all attempts, such as that of the conservative historian Ernst Nolte, to adopt a neutral position – i.e. to ask why we don’t apply the same standards to the Communists as we apply to the Nazis. If Heidegger cannot be pardoned for his flirtation with Nazism, why can Lukács and Brecht and others be pardoned for their much longer engagement with Stalinism? This position reduces Nazism to a reaction to, and repetition of, practices already found in Bolshevism – terror, concentration camps, the struggle to the death against political enemies – so that the ‘original sin’ is that of Communism.

He calls Milo a flamboyantly gay English intellectual

>mentions Gulag Archipelago every thirty minutes, citing it as a definitive putdown of Marxism

He's not wrong.

Someone should ask Jordan Pterson what he thinks of Zizek, particularly what Zizek says about political correctness

>mentions Gulag Archipelago every thirty minutes, citing it as a definitive putdown of Marxism

Well it is though. Unless you think genocide is funny, which is something I wouldn't put past a Marxist.

Oh wow, there was a skip in my video at the exact moment he said intellectual. I had to reload the page in a different browser. Blame Google.

Oh also Zizek's theory of ideology especially

Does Peterson hate Lacan as much as he hates Derrida and Foucault?

Who knows. I suspect he has a problem with his materialism.

Hopefully he hates all French pseudo-intellectual obscurantist hacks.

He would say that, wouldn't he but I'm not convinced. Unlike say American liberal right wingers I'm not trying to pin them both as two terrible systems but on the contrary two good systems of similar designs that were very successful. I'm coming from a hobbesian perspective though. To me it seems Zizek's defence of Stalinism comes down to flavour, the finer details of the ideology rather than the reality of the systems.

With good reason, the materialist thinkers are intellectually stunted beyond belief.

Political correctness and social justice warriors are stupid, but people who think they're the biggest problems in the world today are even more stupid

They're things that could prevent us from being allowed to challenge the biggest problems in the world.

He has a serious hard-on for Jung and I don't blame him so Lacan is probably most-definitely on his hate list.

I hope you don't think immigration is one of them.

Name a bigger problem that the West is currently facing.
True, very true.

Political corruption. Corporate plutocracy. Global apartheid. Climate change.

How is soft genocide not a major problem? Ensuring your own continued existence should be one of the most fundamental things to deal with.

>Political correctness and social justice warriors are stupid, but people who think they're the biggest problems in the world today are even more stupid

They aren't the biggest problems in the world, but even things that you can argue *are* the biggest problems in the world, didn't use to be, and became that way because nobody did anything about it when it was possible to.

Calling PC retards out on their shit now is how you stop it from becoming an even worse problem later.(Which by then, you might even not be able to fix).

You're very unlikely to be killed by an immigrant, Anonymous. Unless you're talking about miscegenation, in which case, LOL.

>Political corruption.
This I agree on, politicians should all be shot or hanged. Democracy was a mistake.
>Corporate plutocracy.
Yup, see above.
>Global apartheid.
Yes, this is a noble goal. Segregation is the key to preserving diversity.
>Climate change.
Hahaha, good luck nuking China and India.

Why on Earth would I think that the destabilisation of the most (or in fact only) philanthropic community of nations in history by third-world, parasitic irruptions - like leaving Alzheimer's patients in the care of Alzheimer's patients - might be a bad thing?

Nothing is being destabilized by immigration. You're just buying into psychopathic fear-mongering propaganda.

You're very moralistic. You seem incapable of realpolitik or of thinking in terms of populations. One wouldn't be opposed to 'miscegenation' because of the ~morality~ of it - it's not the 20s, user, please - but because of the longterm socio-structural ramifications of it.

If, in the future, the rich countries are still one or two certain colours, then it'll be easier for you to maintain valuable alliances, if you are as well. You've got to think about what other people will do, user.

I'm not talking about either, it's population replacement. The hard genocide comes later when the immigrant populations reaches a majority, if you want a taste of what is waiting say America you need to look no further than South Africa. You might be dismissive of this but just look at the radical change of London for example, what you see is Europe without any Europeans left.
No, that's reality and I live in it. What do you think happens when a hostile foreign body with strong racial and cultural cohesion enter the Western world that has been completely dismantled by these marxists you claim pose no threat at all.

Where do you live and how expensive are your holidays from that place? Because this selectivity of reality you've got going can't come cheap.

>Nothing is being destabilized by immigration.

youtube.com/watch?v=u9gjZpG_03A

I have an aesthetic appreciation for Land's work during the CCRU's days, the rest is worthless.

see