What does Veeky Forums think of him? Why isn't he /ourguy/ like /mu/? He's a thinker

What does Veeky Forums think of him? Why isn't he /ourguy/ like /mu/? He's a thinker.

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/fiction/sf.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

he's not a thinker, he's a list obsessed cataloguer. he has no critical ability, he doesn't say anything of interest, he just puts things into lists. and his lists for literature are basically worthless, i would rather read the lists of another obsessive cataloguer like Bloom, who at least at one point in his life had some interesting thoughts

...

Conan O'Brien? Not really Veeky Forums related.

He's looking orange as fuck. Is Trump starting some creepy fad where white people paint themselves orange?

But he has many interesting thoughts.
>his unrefutable Beatles article
>questions the unnecesary age limits
>redpilled on same-sex marriage
>hates wikipedia. tried to get his own wiki removed but evil jimmy wales won't allow it.
>refuses to capitalize the pronoun "I", even in his published books
>acknowledges the importance of refrigerators
>recognizes that the critic is the true artist

It is refuted by his refusal to include any sort of verifiable evidence

>muh middle class
>muh sold records
>muh racism

Very interesting indeed!

ur right what was i thinking he's a genius

huh, i saw this guy's list on russian lit the other day at random, odd that you mention him, had never heard of him before. seems like a cool guy at least based on his site.

the fact that so many books

>refuses to capitalize the pronoun "I", even in his published books

Yeah, he's not my guy.

Read his review for Bowie's Blackstar, lol

I like the stuff on his lists so I get stuff to read and listen to off of them. Every other list I have found off of the internet has been terrible.

/mu/ crossposters are the most imbecilic

Genuinely the preeminent authority on rock music and its derivative forms

Scaruffi is like that kid in high school who tried really hard to give off the impression of being cultured and interesting but was actually a dilettante. Except he's 61.

His lists are laughably bad.
People who take rock music seriously are invariably retarded. See: Christgau

>scaruffi.com/fiction/sf.html
>Best of Science Fiction Literature
>Ernest Cline (USA, 1972): "Ready Player One" (2011)

dropped

says the guy who still in-groups past primary school

really intelligent post buddy :)

Great counter argument.

>the critic is the true artist
What a truly horrid opinion

see

HORRID.

>best novels of all time

>to the lighthouse before the waves
>ada before pale fire
>giles goat boy on the list at atll
>no women and men

he's a turbopseud

At least he read Musil. Go back to work you amateur.

He has some decent reviews, but is just a kind of eccentric contrarian.

> V. ahead of Gravity's Rainbow

> People who take rock music seriously are invariably retarded. See: Christgau

quote for truth

> I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.
>To me Heidegger's convoluted and unscientific style seems to have more in common with psychiatrists than philosophers. I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death.
>If you pick up this book at a library or at a second-hand bookshop, you will notice that only the first few pages have annotations and bear signs of having actually being turned. Virtually nobody had ever read this book to the end. But it is routinely listed as a milestone of philosophy. I personally think it represents a milestone of everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific, incomprehensible, incompetent, and, ultimately, just plain silly.
>Be suspicious of any philosopher who hailed this as a great book. Heidegger stated that Sartre had misunderstood most of his ideas, and that's the biggest compliment ever paid to Sartre.

>Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then. I still have to understand why he became so famous. I am not sure that he also became influential because i think the century that followed had little use for his philosophy and/or his method (assuming he had one).

bad argumentation but he's right about Heidegger

it's a dead-end philosophy and his strongest points can be explained with science (eg. circadian rhythm, vitamin D) so it makes his whole concept of meaning/critique of knowledge kind of dumb

Heidegger reverted back to Catholicism at the end of the life, anyway. He knew his radical Lutheranism couldn't answer to some of the valid questions he asked. Plus he got btfo'd by Max Scheler early on and just pretended like it didn't happen.

So I'm sympathetic to people who are impatient with Martin Highnigger.

>Bratya Karamazovy/ Karamazov Brothers (1880) is a philosophical novel narrated by an "omniscient" invisible character. It is overlong and several episodes seem to have been improvised just to make it more convoluted. The final speeches at the trial are redundant just like many other lengthy discussions.

> Many of the characters are irrelevant. Wallace keeps exploding the cast, perhaps because he doesn't quite know what to do with the cast. Once he introduces a character, Wallace doesn't know how to make him or her interact with the others. Dialogues are, in fact, the weakest part of the novel. Vast sections of the book are irrelevant. They don't add anything to the story, they are not particularly well written, they contain no major meditation. "Verbose" doesn't even come close to describing Wallace's style. Most of the book is a chaotic heap of details that are both redundant and poorly written. It is not only verbose: the verbosity is stubbornly and endlessly about drug addictions, alcoholism, murder and all sorts of freak accidents. It is a veritable overdose of the same kind of scene played over and over again, until the reader becomes numb and doesn't even smile anymore. You just turn the page towards the next drug addict and the next freak accident.

>Generally speaking, the pyramids rank among the most overrated attractions in the world, mainly because the Greks included them in the "seven wonders of the world". The truth is that it is not terribly difficult to build a pyramid if you can use the free labor of thousands of slaves. Ultimately, it is just a pile of rocks. The greatness of Egyptian art is best appreciated elsewhere.

>it's a dead-end philosophy and his strongest points can be explained with science (eg. circadian rhythm, vitamin D) so it makes his whole concept of meaning/critique of knowledge kind of dumb

absolute fucking nonsense. you literally think that heidegger can be defeated by vitamin d

posts like these man. really remind me that Veeky Forums is good for nothing but book recommendations.

Yes, when he starts to talk about clock time, the moon, and stuff. It's just a myth he's inventing that can be better explained by science.

He deviated too far from Aristotle and paid the price.

Gadamer also BTFO'd Heidegger's conception of history (as progressive concealment).