Can we stop discussing philobabble nu-postmodernists?

>I like this particular philosopher so I claim they are clear to understand while they write in dense and obscure language
But his older writing was, no?

>In 1980 Althusser murdered his wife and was subsequently confined to a psychiatric institution
I wonder which Ideological State Apparatus made him do it

Nick Land is right about everything btw

how is nick land a postmodernist? I think you're just making terms up and applying them to random people

>Nick Land is right about everything btw
Could you explain in easy and clear language what he is right about?
Genuinely interested.

No. Zizek and Land are the core philosophers of this board.

why bother pleb, garbage time is ending soon

>I think you're just making terms up and applying them to random people
You want a definition? Simple, a nu-postmodernist uses obscure, cryptic and or dense language which could be said in clear and simple language.
I could've picked another word but figured that postmodernism fits because Derrida and friends were similar.

I've read Zizek, Morton and Sloterdijk, and have seen quotes from Peterson and Land. I normally read more scientific books and rarely if ever do they use such dense language as these people do.

at least they aren't a charlatan that says charlatan

Yes their writing is can be esoteric and wild, but it fits with our cultural zeitgeist. The classical philosophers are still good to gain some moral ground on, but when it comes to a greater societal narrative, they are having a more relevant say.

I remember reading that Althusser blamed much of his personal problems on the fact that his mother had named him "Louis", which sounded similar to the word "lui", "him", which was very impersonal. Nevermind that Louis is an extremely common French name and they didn't all strangle their wives. He blamed his mother for a lot of stuff iirc.

Peterson isn't even remotely close to being a competent philosopher. He's essentially a religious Joseph Campbell.

>I'm illiterate and seeing things I can't read hurts my feelings

Go to /pol/ if you want a hug box, sweetheart

Proving your own point, nice

Where to start with Sloterdijk?

Zizek is not obscure, if you've ever read him. He indulges a stupefyingly large range of reference, but when you get a handle on his Hegel/Lacan master discourse, everything else comes with a pedagogical lucidity that is rare among academic writing in the humanistic fields nowadays. seriously, find any article by some schmo using Derrida to read Foucault or whatever and it's utterly impenetrable. Zizek is pretty much who he is because of his knack for explaining the utility of any theory he invokes for ideological analysis.

My point was that faggots like you should get out.

That was just his amphetamine phase.

this guy ran into me in a tube station once and nearly floored me
he was sweating rivers and he seemed really stressed

>My point was that faggots like you should get out.
Wouldn't that turn this into a hugbox also?

The story goes like this: Earth is captured by a technocapital singularity as renaissance rationalitization and oceanic navigation lock into commoditization take-off. Logistically accelerating techno-economic interactivity crumbles social order in auto-sophisticating machine runaway. As markets learn to manufacture intelligence, politics modernizes, upgrades paranoia, and tries to get a grip.
The body count climbs through a series of globewars. Emergent Planetary Commercium trashes the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic Continental System, the Second and Third Reich, and the Soviet International, cranking-up world disorder through compressing phases. Deregulation and the state arms-race each other into cyberspace.

By the time soft-engineering slithers out of its box into yours, human security is lurching into crisis. Cloning, lateral genodata transfer, transversal replication, and cyberotics, flood in amongst a relapse onto bacterial sex.

Neo-China arrives from the future.

Hypersynthetic drugs click into digital voodoo.

Retro-disease.

Nanospasm.

>implying "stop discussing things I don't like" is helping curate a board culture
>>implying militantly telling illiterates to leave is hugboxing

>The body count climbs through a series of globewars. Emergent Planetary Commercium trashes the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic Continental System, the Second and Third Reich, and the Soviet International, cranking-up world disorder through compressing phases. Deregulation and the state arms-race each other into cyberspace.

This is, at least, an internally coherent theory of the history of modernity.

This. He makes the hermeneutics of toilets understandable even for brainlets like me who haven't read Marx, Hegel, Lacan or any of the other intellectuals that form the background to his thoughts.

I met him after a show in Montreal, he hates London

Ok. So can one of you explain Zizek in simple terms? Because that is my critique. I do not actually advocate not discussing these people.
(If anything critiquing them creates discussion, if they seriously bothered me I would just ignore them)

See this comment angry person.

Sloterdijk's books are piss-easy to read.

If anything I'd blame him for being to odetailed and taking too long to get to the point.

Land's writing that isn't "Meltdown" is perfectly clear because he is writing for retarded dork enlightenment people.

>I like to make grand claims without providing any evidence
>inb4 anything by any of them

All I ask is: can you explain their philosophy in simple terms?
If not, I have all the reason to assume that the language makes up for their lack of substance.

>Nick Land
Capitalism is out of human control, we can't do anything to stop it so we might as well merge and accelerate
>Sloterdijk
Examines how humans interrelate, views human societies as immunological "interiors" and training-regimes.
>Zizek
Global ideology is everywhere and influencing how you think. Bring the Hegel back to Marx. Honestly who gives a flying fuck though Zizek is a retard.

Thank you for being genuine. Do you see my point? When you put it like that it can still be interesting, but it doesn't really need (in my personal opinion) the language they are using.

And that is just my own critique, I am sure there are people who don't mind it (some anons here don't) but for me it harms the message these people make.

>
Thank you for being genuine. Do you see my point? When you put it like that it can still be interesting, but it doesn't really need (in my personal opinion) the language they are using.

No it doesn't you fucktard. The questions they're examining are complicated and their points have to be nuanced and use specific, technical language. Sloterdijk is not even difficult, just long-winded and loves to on chapter-long tangents which is annoying rather than obscure.

you don't know what the fuck pomo is
>I could've picked another word but figured that postmodernism fits because Derrida and friends were similar.
confirmed for imbecile

>The questions they're examining are complicated and their points have to be nuanced and use specific, technical language.
That is what you claim, but you offer no argument why.
I can agree that it is at times necessary to use technical terms. But if I compare these people with textbooks I've been reading I say they use it excessively and unnecessarily. You can disagree fine.

I am currently reading a book on complexity theory, and while I find it difficult, it uses clear and simple language. And it gets to the point.

>you don't know what the fuck pomo is
I just use it as a blanket term.

Have you considered that something like Hegelianism (which I dislike greatly, but it isn't internally inconsistent or anything) is a gigantic philosophical system with a complex history of development, and that it covers almost every domain of philosophical thought? The joke about Hegel is that so many philosopher who were "against him" already had had "their" ideas incorporated into Hegelianism. It's a giant philosophical juggernaut that you need to take years to fully comprehend.

There's a lot of depth to all of the complex terms that Zizek or someone uses, and he picks every term very carefully from a vast Hegelian philosophical vocabulary. A lot of it simply doesn't make sense if you're not a Hegelian.

I hate Hegelians but Christ, I'm not so arrogant as to assume that there's no substance at all. They're a big tradition and Zizek is primarily writing for people who are aware of that tradition.

Nick Land, in a similar fashion, uses Deleuzian terms quite often. Deleuze is a similarly complex figure who has his own vocabulary of specific concepts that fit into a larger scheme.

Would your complexity theory textbook not make any sense if you didn't know algebra and calculus?

Ok that is a fair comment even if I might disagree

>Can we stop discussing philobabble
This was suppose to happen since year before the last. That is why the board was made. So all you philofags and christfags can post to your heart's content.

>if I compare these people with textbooks I've been reading I say they use it excessively and unnecessarily
Or perhaps you are reading introductory level material? For anyone but a handful of people in the world this kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~motizuki/Inter-universal Teichmuller Theory I.pdf is complete gibberish, should we dismiss it then?

>Or perhaps you are reading introductory level material?
Most of them sure.
I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. You would argue these people aren't introductory and I'm BTFO'D and should read the originals (i.e. the introductory, which would be Deleuze, Jung or Lacan as example).

Your introductory argument is hard to argue against but in case of Jung and Lacan I can at least say that they are largely if not fully discredited in the respectable science which is psychology.

Nick Land believes that the universe is a Darwinistic machine that selects for whatever is best at defending and propagating its existence. He doesn't care about mankind, he only sees us as a step on a ladder to the ultimate survival entity. The next step in his eyes is Artificial Intelligence. He wants us to 'accelerate' capitalism, achieve the technological singularity, and then let that singularity take our place. He doesn't care if AI destroys man, as long as it is a more effective survival machine. I don't like his misanthropy, but it is hard to argue with.

Jung and Lacan aren't discredited by psychology, they just have different goals. Jung described man's innate psychological tendencies, in an effort to find out what kind of civilization/belief system would bring the most meaning to people's lives. Modern psychology is an organ of the Capitalist system, and works not for man's innate psychology, but against it. Psychology doesn't try to create an environment that fits man, like Jung did, but is trying to make man's psychology conform to his environment. Capitalism is too complex, and work too compartmentalized, for man to find meaning in it. So psychologists give men drugs so that they can 'enjoy' life in this system. The system is pacifying the people who live within it so that they work more effectively. Pretty much Brave New World kinda shit.

This. While Campbell (who's a great author for when you don't want anything serious, kinda like pop non-fiction????) gets shat on by people here, this academemic gets spammed to hell because he's against THE EBUL ÉS JAY DOUBLE US, while his biggest contribution to human thought is turning Campbell into even more inane protestant pap

OP have you considered the possibility that you might just be too stupid to understand any of these people or even the terms you yourself use to define them?

I'm giving this thread a rest, but not without giving you a compliment for engaging with this thread, instead of going for simple insults
The thread's title is of course not helpful for a discussion, but that's Veeky Forums culture

Neither Jung or Lacan are psychologists, they're psychoanalists and asking a bunch of different questions than those contemporary psychology is trying to solve.

The same is worth for Freud, btw.

Also, these men being discredited in psychology means shit to PHILOSOPHY. Giorgio Agamben, probably my favourite living philosopher, spends his days reading medieval and roman legal texts, and from the material found in these texts, he builds his ideas. Is he wrong as well?

Also, I used to think Zizek is an obscurantist as well (even though I'm not a babby and understand "obscurantism" can be overcome by reading more books), but that's what happens when you're a pleb and try to understand his views on Hegel, one of the most difficult authors ever. Currently reading his debate with Millibank and he's impressively clear and objective in his pontifications.

not either of them but the "hermeneutics of toilets" is not a bad way of thinking about what zizek does with popular/trash culture. Zizek takes Wittgenstein's idea that serious philosophical problems can be addressed with jokes, and takes it to obscene and insensitive heights in order to break down the cold, artificial distance imposed between identity groups by the politeness of tolerant liberalism. Zizek thinks obscene humour is not only a useful demonstration of philosophical problems, but also an effective way of resolving tensions between self and other and gaining a sense of community. Mikhail Bakhtin's "Rabelais and His World" is a really good entry point into wrapping your head around zizek's adaption of folk laughter.

Nick Land wants to be cucked by robots.

>Peterson is a respectable academic as well
Land is twenty or thirty IQ points above Peterson. There are plenty of academics who aren't that smart, and if you pay attention to Peterson's debates you'll realize he's one of them. He can't refute anybody, he just prattles off his theories even when they barely apply and his opponent is clearly wrong.