Wtf is wrong with french people

wtf is wrong with french people

Other urls found in this thread:

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Lacan
Brilliant, but obscurantist
>Lyotard
Hack
>Foucault and Derrida
They weren't wrong

Stop thinking le evil college kids who distort them somehow discredits them

Foucault was gay
Derrida was an Algierian Jew
Lyotard actually is pretty based if you just read him as an objective analysis of today's world
Lacan I don't know much about but he seems like a hack

The brains of France were fried after the revolution. It took awhile to hit them, but by the 20th century they were pozzed beyond repair.

Montaigne, Descartes, La Brueye, Francois La Rouchefoucald, and Chamfort were all French, remember.

Rousseau was the last worthwhile French philosopher.

After the fall of France from world cultural hegemony they decided they had nothing to lose.

If they couldn't compete against the Anglos imaginative universe they'd go Samson and pull the whole fucking temple down. I respect that and there's no going back

are you kidding

Yeah, they did enough to discredit themselves on their own!

they're the reason we're in such a mess today

Is this a /pol/ parody?

Do you really think hacks like Comte, Deleuze, Sartre, de Bouvier, and the four men in OP's pic are deserving of praise?

And there's nothing you can do about it. Its like trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche

>mfw ppl still misread "God is dead"

Look, I understand it wasn't Nietzsche was trying to say, but Nietzsche did NOT believe in a god. He believed the Jews surmounted morality, not God. In this way, Nietzsche was woefully incorrect and showed he was at the very least agnostic.

He's the moral nihilists version of Kierkegaard.

Nietzsche hates Jews. He was like /pol/, would've browsed the board if he were alive today

who know, he might even be among us

Nietzsche didn't explicitly hate the Jews, he just believed they surmounted morality.

He thought that paradigm influence would shift from their religious doctrine to science and then to something else in an increasing speed.

He was wrong, because while a lot of Jews probably do have too much influence, their God was the real God, as espoused by Jesus and the Koran.

that has nothing to do with "trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche." Stop warping Nietzsche to your own purposes like the Nazis.

Nietzsche was a Nazi, numale libcuck

Try the redpill of truth

I'm not the guy you responded to, believe it or not, but Nietzsche is sophistic. His philosophy, as a result, tends to be esoteric to the utmost degree. It becomes hard to see objective truth, which is his intention, and this goes against God.

I don't think he ever says he dislikes the idea of God, in fact, he may even say he likes. But that's part of the chaos too, because he doesn't really believe in the God, just the idea.

And by the way, all Nazis had a copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra on them.

Imagine being such a loser that you spend your entire life pretending to be a redditor's impression of a /pol/tard on Veeky Forums

You're multiple times more pathetic than the people you're "parodying". You've been doing this day in and day out for over 6 months, it's time to stop.

Go away underageb&

>its a /pol/tard claims every retarded /pol/ user is a shill episode

Both of you need to go back to /r/the_donald

They also breathed air.
Let's ban that shit.

>>Lyotard
>Hack
The good kind though

I'm proud to be redpilled. I stand by my race unlike you, race traitor

Just another libcuck who wants everyone to believe that "le /pol/ is just satire! xD".
We
Are
Serious
And
Here
To
Stay

Your post is interesting but don't put so much effort into replying to an ironic post

You're retarded this guy is clearly just trying to pretend to be an exaggerated /pol/ poster like this guy Real /pol/ posters don't immediately throw out their buzzwords they usually do so after a few posts of meaningless argumenting

It's honestly pathetic why someone would try to constantly post replies in an attempt to resemble /pol/ posters, and I still don't understand why because they're not making it clear if its satire or just weak baiting

What "race" are you? White American isn't a race.

>he thinks actual /pol/acks talk like that
You've never been to /pol/

Fuck you illiterate, you and Donald Dump are going down

>no true /pol/

Is the logical fallacy graph still not the sticky?

>is clearly just trying to pretend
>I don't understand why because they're not making it clear

Try the redpill and see undistorted truth

fuck you guys, I was unironically asking what's wrong with french people. their literature is lit, but the philosophy (if you can call it that) is pure cringe. I blame that hack Rousseau, but, you know, french renaissance has sparked the fire

Nothing? They're magnificent critics and social theorists?

The reason why Peterson is losing his shit today isn't because those fuckers were wrong, it's because they were *right.* Turns out text and difference and psychoanalysis really work, and have real-life consequences. Not always the consequences we like. But since when did philosophy ever do that?

It's always like this. People were salty about Copernicus and Galileo too. And yet it moves.

People will sort this shit out too. Not with more post-structuralism, true. But certainly not by being completely ignorant about it either. Maybe Peterson is on to something. Certainly he's tapped into the zeitgeist. He'd do his argument some favours by not hand-waving away Those Evil Nihilistic Postmodernists and taking the time to engage in their arguments, but whatever. And hell, even if he's wrong, the fact that he attracts the audiences that he does is enough to indicate that some kind of change is on the horizon. Maybe he's the first of a kind, maybe not. But I think that's how it works. They executed Socrates too.

Of course I'm not saying Peterson is Socrates, but,
>what exactly are you saying, fuckface
>goddamnit i'm not saying anything, i'm shitposting like a cranky fuck about french guys
>well thanks for telling us asshole
>tfw

Wrong interpretation, but you're not wrong exactly.

There is truth to the old American saying "You can't come home". Once something is changed it can never be unchanged, for the unchanged thing is by itself different by your altered perspective.

You must realize by then, that there is always going to be a pendulum swing in the confines of traditionalism. As the pendulum swings left, and the generations challenge the norm, so too do their offspring which challenge the virtues espoused by their parents; its natural and inevitable. Because of this, we are to assume that all traditions will eventually be scrutinized by the following generation.

If we accept this conclusion, then we are left with a very simple and very understandable premise, upon which greater understanding of society can be gleamed. It is surmised as this: Traditional values lead to degeneracy. This is the idea driving the narrative of "A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man". Whether you accept this premise as true is up to you. If you do accept this, then you have changed your views in life, or reaffirmed them, thus making it impossible to go back "home".

They are destroying whiteness and masculinity, retard

Baudrillard was the best of that lot, but he never gets mentioned with them. I guess because he's outstanding in his field.

are you for real lol

I'm not sure if I'd call it "sophistic" in at least most cases (though he obviously has no problem with using it for his own purposes), but i'd argue it only goes against OBJECTIFYING God, not Objective Truth itself. Nietzsche does more to clear the ground of all the objectification in the way so that we may have a more authentic relation to Being. This much, at least ("the wasteland"), I do buy about Heidegger's reading of him.

So by your logic, if I were to pretend to be /pol/ in my current post, there would be no argument against it since your magical logical fallacy tells you so?

Ok, cuck numale

Wow feels great being /pol/
And don't respond to me or it's NOT AN ARGUMENT XD


In all seriousness leave this board since not only do you cite logical fallacies as your sole argument, you don't even properly understand them

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

>he thinks there are arguments that could defeat /pol/

/pol/ is always right, cuck.

switch those >>s around, it's pretty obvious who the idiots are

>You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

didn't claim that the argument was wrong because of a fallacy; he only pointed out the fallacy. So the fallacy fallacy doesn't apply to his post.

>an argument isn't wrong if its wrong

I hide all the threads you post in.

De Maistre was the the last worthwhile French philosopher .... even though he was Savoyan.

He was falsely pointing out a fallacy

If I were to claim that an animal I am pointing to is not a bird, because birds have wings, I am not comitting a fallacy since that is a bird's characteristic

Likewise people who post from /pol/ do not make satires of themselves so people who do make satires of /pol/ are obviously not regular posters

That's my objective, dumb cunt

I only post in threads that are negative towards women, French thought, Jews, Africans, liberals, continental philosophy, postmodernism, homosexuality etc. I want to kill them because I'm hired by Israel to stop all redpill discussion

so do people admit they literally got btfo'd by the french?

Yes, the game was over before it even begun

>falsely pointing out a fallacy

Then the fallacy fallacy, as described in post, still doesn't apply to him.

learn a new trick, dog

Pic related looks like something from a Jehovah's Witness booklet.

>Its like trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche
so it's like reading Kierkegaard?

I am not ideologically driven, precious spooked fag.

I'm here to collect (You)s and I get upwards of 300 a day. It's an addiction and it fuels me. Your just simply incapable of understanding because your so entrenched in le Veeky Forums ideological board warfare

Cuck

I disagree. I think they're destroying *ignorant* whiteness and masculinity. Which is exactly what they should do.

Great things were done by Europeans in the past. Being white is awesome. Nobody should feel white guilt for the same reason that nobody should feel any kind of guilt because of their skin color. It shouldn't be a thing at all. And if I act like a degenerate slob it would be crazy for me to blame Derrida for this. That's on me to handle.

The fact is that people are just losing their minds these days with guilt and paranoia. Not entirely for bad reasons. Sometimes for good ones. And sure, French philosophy had a lot to do with that. But it also gave us a pretty serious conceptual toolbox for looking at a lot of shit that was right there under the hood that we didn't see before.

And all of those guys are following from the Neetch. Every one of them. Nobody blames Nietzsche for the way things are today.

If we want to dial things back to the 50s or enjoy some kind of awesome future, I agree, it's not going to be through closer attention paid to micro aggressions. But it's also not going to happen via Richard Spencer. Peterson is right: sort yourself out. Which means, to me at least, not blaming Of Grammatology or Discipline and Punish or whatever the fuck else. Our gnarly ancestors suffered worse than we did. The greatest generation grew up in the depression and fought the Second World War. What the fuck have we done?

Sweet fuck all, that's what, except create cool memes. That's not the fault of the French. Someday it will be possible to write a book called A White Person's History of America and for it not to trigger the Huffington Post to the point of orgasm. That's a day I don't expect to see anytime soon, but it's not beyond imagination.

>Traditional values lead to degeneracy. This is the idea driving the narrative of "A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man"

Modernism is acutely aware of the struggle of bringing the past forward, particularly in the modern era, and living day-to-day life. Afterwards it basically becomes the norm. I don't really buy the idea the Joyce is dismissing traditional values, but rather detailing something I think most of us here have seen, which is the struggles of young people to figure out who they are and how they fit in the world and the problems caused by the friction between the paradigm shift that's gradually taken place over the past centuries and past forms of living

looooooooooooooooooooooooooool ppl don't actually buy into that do they?


dude your insecurities are showing. HARD

One can reject objectivity and still believe in God, you nuthead.

They cook with butter and call potatoes "earth's apples"

>I'm here to collect (You)s and I get upwards of 300 a day.

You can do better things with your time, kid. I hope that you find something meaningful one day.

Exactly. Nietszche does religion a lot of service by clearing the ground!

>be grown man
>unironically calling others 'kid' online

You're sad, sweetheart

The only God that is dead due to him is the God of Scholasticism, which is very good.

One cannot believe if they think they are certain.

Imagine being a grown man and still unironically following Kirkegaard

>insecure
This is a go to term for people with nothing to say. Why exactly is he wrong?

>he doesn't cook his earth apples in butter

You're missing out dude

I'm not, idolization is nonsense. My writing just happens to come from that tradition.

>Its like trying to return to believing in God after Nietzsche
I think slave morality would better go there, Nietzsche is far from incompatible with Deism or theism in general --- belief in God, but differently from how most people believe in him. I.E. belief in God but no objective morals as most people consider it.


Otherwise, you make a good point, most /pol/tards are just trying to stick their heads in the sand, it's the definition of "re"actionary, trying to flee to the past and only capable of "re"acting, not acting.

I think your explanation is ridiculous and yet I enjoy the way you phrased it.

>the struggles of young people to figure out who they are and how they fit in the world

I think thats true to some extent, but not in some deeper meaning way. They struggle to fit in because its been deemed "cool" to struggle to fit in. The outcast has been much more romanticized than the "normies". Look at the Oscars: They were so keen on exalting a black snowflake this year that they choose a movie by an all black LGBT+ cast and crew as their winner, even though nobody besides those at the Oscar's watched it. This decade is hallmarked by its the glorification of identity crises in young adults.

>the problems caused by the friction between the paradigm shift that's gradually taken place over the past centuries and past forms of living

All paradigm shifts are beget by friction, and yes, I do believe that Joyce was equally as cognizant of it as we are, but thats not what I was trying to allude to. My stated idea is that degeneracy is a symptom of tradition, with tradition being any values held by the majority of the population in either the form of superstition or belief. Rebelling against the norm is an inevitiability, so therefor in the absence of tradition there is nothing to rebel against anymore, thus leading me to conclude that degenarcy and tradition are cyclical.

What this means is that following a period of extreme degeneracy of a traditional system, we are prone to create and adopt a new system of ideals to support the new majority. This is where feminism, post-modernism, and contemporary literature come in. However, they aren't the vogue tradition thats come to replace the old. Nay, its the deconstruction of those ideologies that will lead to a new tradition. But first, feminism and postmodernism must die.

>I don't really buy the idea the Joyce is dismissing traditional values

Literally how

why cant u understand deleuze, user?

>Traditional values lead to degeneracy.
degeneracy is an inherent potential within the human, a monkey can stick a stick up its butt (if that is degenerate... or jizzum unto his friends banana as a prank); Traditionalism, "religionism" attempted to domesticate, to temper, the wild animal in man.

It is possible degeneracy does and can exist. Is it desirable for it to exist? How much? If no, what can we do about it? Be "culturally", socially, more strict? About purity, cleanliness, grace, health?

What the fuck am I reading

A brain on redpill

...

Reread portrait you psued.

Since Voltaire they have been trying to justify hedonism through philosophy; In the process they created socialism and spelled ruin and suffering on the entirety of the 3rd world. I seriously would argue that French intellectuals are responsible for the majority of the woes of the world.

>It is surmised as this: Traditional values lead to degeneracy.
So it actually is exactly the opposite, 'reactionaryism' is a reaction towards the possibilities of degeneracy/degeneration (of that, which has been long time proven to be the necessary foundation and pillars of society/community.

>X isn't a race
Yes it is, dumbass. Races are constructs. Anything can be a race.

>whiteness and masculinity,
only powerless men cling to whiteness and masculinity, since they having nothing for themselves

Wow first the Jews were hellbent on destroying the world and now the French? What's next? Fucking Canadians?

Basically this.

>Canadian Intellectuals

>>Since Voltaire they have been trying to justify hedonism through philosophy;
libertarians do this and everybody loves them

More than Rousseau does

In a word, fraternité. In another word, elan

Seriously, fuck anybody who plays France in EUIV. They were fanatics then, and they still are.

IMAGINE

IF...

ALIENS

Whiteness and masculinity are born in the fires of adversity. They are earned, not pampered and protected from wayward Frenchmen.

These philosophers tell you that our present society destroys whiteness and masculinity; that your television is selling you your identity. Is that what white men do these days? For shame, you are only placated by the powers that be.

Can you imagine Julius Caesar sitting in Rome and thinking of the barbarians, "Noooo, go away! You're destroying whiteness and masculinity!"

Are the French capable of not thinking about sex for even 5 seconds?

I've never seen an ethnic stereotype this true before. It's astonishing.

Peterson as in Jordan Peterson?

Why is this board justifying significant philosophers to the judgment of a meme?

>sexual pleasure is degenerate

You should read more French.

>de Bouvier

Do you have any singke clue of how ridiculous you sound like ?
I'm not a fan of their philosophy/point of view but seriously, each one of these four people alone were much more brilliant than we will ever be all together. I mean what the fuck man, who do you think you are ? Are you severely autistic ? Or just that insecure with yourself

'Non'

wtf is this shit

The core of liberalism is destroying existing 'structures', i.e institutions.

The church, family, monarchy, nobles, and it goes on.

Thats the big struggle between liberals and conservatives.

Frankly I'm more triggered by Lyotard, Deleuze and Baudrillard are considered "post-structuralist" than the claim post-structuralism was 'leftist'.

Yep.

I think Peterson matters. The culture war that he is fighting is a semiological deadlock, but it's real. He believes what he's saying and to some degree I do also.

The problem is that there's a gap in there, a missing space to be filled in. Peterson does a lot of hand-waving about postmodern nihilism, but it doesn't seem as though he engages charitably with the intellectual project of the guys he blames for the current academic climate: Derrida, Foucault, Lacan. This compounds the problem, no doubt; those three guys are legitimate beasts and all triple-A, no joke, philosoraptors. Peterson is not on their level.

However...things have changed. If anything, the postmodernist project has been incredibly successful, and now Peterson is feeling suffocated by that. As I think many of his students and followers are as well. To me that is worth paying attention to.

Why is there a redpill movement going on today? Why is Trump in the White House? Why is Steve Bannon one of the most important men in America right now? This didn't happen out of nowhere. This happened as a *reaction:* Zizek is always saying, for example, that the left failed, and that is why Trump is there. And yet that is only one-half of the picture, because in another sense, the left and the thinkers with it have been successful almost beyond measure.

To me at least the point is manifestly not to take sides, but rather to see how these things came to pass. What Peterson is reacting to is this idea of the Universal Subject, the subject of pure ideology. Zizek isn't a meme, and he's saying the same thing. Unlike Z, however, Peterson has no interest in social progress. He's entirely on the mythic side of things.

What I would like to see filled in is that space between his thought and those of the pomo guys he is upset about. Because it doesn't seem as though he's about to do that for himself: he's pretty much set in his ways, and all things poststructural seem to him to point to totalitarianism. To some degree this is being born out in mass culture, though of course, only with the best of intentions. Look at Twitter or Facebook. Look at the highly dubious merits of the anti-Islamophobia bill that passed in Canada. Even Sam Harris has identified this stuff as well.

Once upon a time Baudrillard used to lament the disappearance of the real and its replacement by the virtual. I would say, today, the problem is that the virtual is in and the problem is that you almost can't take a step without trespassing on someone else's sense of virtual identity. This is what Peterson is reacting to. And to pick some of the locks on this mechanism and try to understand the arguments being made really is the task of a philosopher.

(cont'd)

Good riddance

So, though this is very reductive: the poststructuralist guys are really really good at raising *problems* - slippages, gaps, difference, and the rest. And Peterson *thinks* that *he* is really good at finding solutions: the mythic, the archetype, and so on. That those solutions - or when a guy like Harris simply will not deal with what Peterson is saying because they can't come to a universal notion of truth - do not align with the problems is why things go off the rails.

Peterson is cranky, but we have been in this place before. Allan Bloom did it years ago. Shit, even *Nietzsche* did this. Peterson has a whole different set of references and influences that he is bringing to bear on these problems. He's reacting, not in the same way that Trump et al are reacting, but he's got something to say. He may not know what it is. I think that if he had been writing this stuff twenty years ago, he would have just been another guy telling us to live authentically. In one of the other threads there was an user saying that this is not how psychology is supposed to be taught, that he's a self-help guru and so on, and that shouting Sort Yourself Out is ridiculous. It's not a totally unfair remark to make.

But I think it's evident that the era of Marxist thought is over. Peterson is reacting to that in an unusual way, complaining that it's become nihilistic. What I find interesting about this is that there is this mutual sense of nihilism; a guy like Baudrillard is so fucking nihilistic already, but that comes out of an absolute sense of desperation for him. Now that desperation has sort of been transplanted over and Peterson is now feeling it as something hostile and detrimental to life. His response is to urge people to look for the mythic. It's a kind of Nietzschean response to the poststructuralists, who are themselves all disciples of Nietzsche and following from him. Kind of amazing.

What has been lost is that sense of a centre, the notion of a real, a reference point. Things that probably aren't going to be that point: language, history, capital, the unconscious. And probably not the state either. All of this is the late ferment of Enlightenment liberalism getting transmogrified by Freudo-Marxism into a very wonky and recursive modern culture that doesn't seem to have any sense of where it is or where it is going, and Peterson just seems to be crazy-brave or just crazy-crazy enough to say that the emperor has no clothes. That puts him in a unique position, of neither being on the left, which will argue that the emperor never had any clothes to begin with, or the right, which is shocked and outraged by the emperor's nakedness and thinks he would look better if he was wearing a uniform or a crown. The big universal We has perhaps become too big and universal for anyone to feel properly at home in. So maybe we do need a kind of deep psychic reboot, but as individuals, not as revolutionaries.

Sorry, this post became long and stupid.