Nowhere is the hostility of the Anglo-American tradition toward the dialectical more apparent, however, than in the widespread notion that the style of these works is obscure and cumbersome, indigestible, abstract—or, to sum it all up in a convenient catchword, Germanic. It can be admitted that it does not conform to the canons of clear and fluid journalistic writing taught in schools. But what if those ideals of clarity and simplicity have come to serve a very different ideological purpose. in our present context, from the one Descartes had in mind? What if, in this period of the overproduction of printed matter and the proliferation of methods of quick reading, they were intended to speed the reader across a sentence in such a way that he can salute a readymade idea effortlessly in passing, without suspecting that real thought demands a descent into the materiality of language and a consent to time itself in the form of a sentence?
Nowhere is the hostility of the Anglo-American tradition toward the dialectical more apparent, however...
Other urls found in this thread:
books.google.se
twitter.com
yo, i dig. who is this a quote from?
Is this why I had add as a kid
FUCK fredric jameson
Anglos only like things that are provable. That is why they appeal to misguided epistemology like science and mathematics. Watch a debate with an Anglo and count the times they ask for, or appeal to, the notion of "facts". They don't think, but rather piece together strings of information they, dogmatically, deem, in their false authority, to be true. They try to "debunk" historical and dialectical materialism, Marxism, based on such ludicrous ideas. Look at Keynes or neé Anglo, Austria.
Anglos are such a simple lot you'd imagine they were all gathered together beneath the aegis of a single politics, religion, philosophy....
Know your enemy, friend.
The ideology of capitalistic imperialism is the Ceé Anglo.
The problem isn't that they are "facts fetishists", the problem is that they extend their facts fetish to areas where no facts exist, such as ethics, which is why you get pure autism like utilitarianism when Anglos start talking about morality.
> yfw derrida
Facts don't exist at all.
Of course they do.
How so? We can't observe objectively and have no way of knowing what actually Is.
>Anglos only like things that are provable
Intellectual pleb dedacted. You have to have premises before you can proof anything.
Proof is ridiculous. Nothing can be proved, and to look for proof is to miss the point of engaging in thought.
there are infinite primes
it has been proven
Do you see, why your statment is contradictio in adiecto?
P.1 Nothing can be proved
C.1 There is no proof
No, it is presupposed.
But those statements are in agreement.
Proof has its place, but not in the more literary disciplines where what is sought is agreement. Not IS, but what's better, and why. This 'why' will be in conflict with some other 'why,' not some objective standard.
It has no place. It is a myth, like facts.
That is not what a presupposition is. You need to brush up on your philosophical terminology.
I use it in a way I have defined differently, actually.
it has a place in mathematics
No. Mathematics is just a tautology with numbers.
what is proof? yeah fuck yourself
Mathematical proofs are tautologies.
no what is """proof"""
A myth that is claimed to show what Is, but has never been seen.
to call something a model, you know
-the ''reality''
-the model
-the discrepancy between the model and the ''reality''
without these three things, you do not know you have modeled anything. All you have is the model and no knowledge of anything beyond the ''model'', no knowledge that there is a modelling of anything.
And if you have these three things, you know the ''reality'', thus you do not need to model it afterwards, so it is useless to have models.
I actually like the sentiment and it could apply to many people on Veeky Forums and to difficult but ambitious books; however, the specific support of obfuscatory leftist philosophy doesn't quite suit me.
>things I don't understand are obfuscatory
>there are infinite
But it is a proof and therefore your statement is an antinomy, but I don't think your understanding of logic is sofisticated enough to get this. In very crude and simpilyfied/somewhat not completly accurate terms, the fact there is a proof invalidades the stated premise.
An imaginary connection between clear writing and agreement with what is written.
Hey, look, someone trying to hide his dumb ideas behind a big paragraph! Amazing.
This is a grave error-- saying the same thing twice for lack of a concluding thought is not the same thing as figuring out how to reconcile sets of quantities in order to make a brand new point. Letters and numbers are fundamentally different even if, ultimately, numbers are 'merely' words.
ITT: this board is chock fucking full of pseuds
what a reveal