I'm summoning all my heavy game continental philosophy Veeky Forumserates. You know who you are: The one who write thorough, well-thought comments in the threads about Lacan, Baudrillard, Jung, Hegel, Heidegger, Freud, The Frankfurter School, Foucault and so on. I need your brain power and create a POWERFUL and BONAFIDA continental philosophy thread. Evolutionary psychology? Never heard of. Scientism? Bullshit. General american academia? Inferior.
This thread is ofcourse posted on this board, which means the attention of analytical weaboos, TED-americans youtubephilosophees and youngsters with heavy ideological and mistaken views upon core terms of philosophy (postmodernism as an example). In this thread we reclaim the respect of this board by merely showing our intellectual and moral superiorty. A true relevation of what it means to be an introspective scholar.
I'll start this thread by a request: Let's collect the greatest intellectual and academic works of the 20th century. Please bid in and give a short explanation of what you see as a major work and give a short explanation why.
I'll start with a fairly obvious one: Zizeks primary work. The Sublime Object of Ideology is his first big boat in international water. The hegelian school and its offsprings: Marx, the frankfurter school, Benjamin, Kripke etc. is thought together with the psychoanalytic school in a succesful attempt to revitalize the critique of ideology today with heavy, dialectic materialistic philosophical grounding.
What are your nominations, my continental Veeky Forumserate brothers?
I laughed loudly at this book, I think Zizek is a real comedian
Nicholas Cruz
i would love to contribute to this thread but unfortunately if i don't get some IRL shit done this aft i am going to be some ultradeep shit
evopsych tho evospych cool af wilber kind of a meme but a well-intentioned one, also hegel, jung & all dem cool guys
Bentley Johnson
zizek has very brilliant insights but his way to develop thoughts is retarded and goes nowhere
also him being a leftist is basically just a meme, could have been as well a rightwinger
Juan Roberts
greatest intellectual & academic works tho:
being & time >technology & technical *thinking* a thing. descartes on suicide watch ecrits >lacan btfo the hysterical self-seeking sphinx that you is. stop being a hysterical sphinx. lrn 2 in2 discourse capitalism & schizophrenia >de/reterritorialization, machinic desire. also b/c deleuze is god-tier metaphysician things hidden >cultural/philosophical anthropology of memes & sacrifice & scapegoating symbolic exchange & death >when karl marx met georges bataille fanged noumena* >vroom vroom
*true, published in 21C but you get the idea
all the big guys are worth reading. OP's book is indeed & worth reading & zizek is no meme. he's the world's best exegete of lacan, who connects the fucked-out 21C back to freud, and from freud all the way back to Dem Greeks >hnng dem greeks
so i'll vouch for any one of those above.
Aaron Allen
despite the fact that "left wing and right wing" are ubiquitous terms used by academics and plebs alike....there seems to be no consensus as to what left and right wing actually mean.
pic related is perhaps the best starting point....although "left wing" its worth noting that right wing academics have used bobbio's arguments to refute the appeal of centrist politics. His writing style is also spot on if you want to learn how to write concise essays, exams, dissertations etc
Connor Diaz
This is philosophy from the continent. My absolute favorite. Not some French postmodernist though, but a Lithuanian Perennialist. Totally illuminated me and cleared away so many misconceptions I had about the Greeks. It was as if the book found me when I was ready. I had studied the subject in college but was veering deeper and deeper into nihilism. Where does Deleuze lead but Land and so on? I had treated the past solely as a means to the present thought. Then I started seriously going back to the Greeks and Indians and Egyptians. I read McEvilley and Pierre Hadot and Peter Kingsley and but this was what convinced me of universals. I finally understood what made philosophy possible and how the practice of philosophy was to inform the theory of philosophy...
Colton Turner
That is because left and right wing are largely social constructions But there is a biological basis of the left and right dichotomy, so there are some ideas that can be traced back to biological or psychological features, and why being left or right is partly heritable
thx for the book, looks interesting, is Bobbio part of any tradition or just doing his own thing?
Michael Baker
You people are insufferable. You don't need a thread solely dedicated to continental philosophy because that's all this board talks about anyway. You think the people here could handle a little logical syllogism? Please.
Jason Campbell
this was meant for
Hudson Harris
yeah. this. will probably BTFO *me* forever or at least into orbit. >probably a good thing too tbqh >could use a break just floating in space forever endgame stuff. at least as far as my own trajectory through meme wonderland is concerned. lacan is a stone-cold killer.
thx for the rec my guy.
Gabriel Fisher
Thank you very much for the suggestions. Would you say that Symbolic exchange & death is Baudrillard's masterpiece though?
This is fantastic. Thanks!
Juan Flores
your style is hard to read for someone like me who is too self-aware and has autism and cringes at even benign things
i don't wan to be a dick but i also hope you don't go so deep into a specific way of writing that you can't get out
Alexander Peterson
for me it is. simulacra & simulatios is the one most people talk about but it's def not the one to start with. baudrillard is interesting because he starts out marxist & goes nietzschean later - but only because he does this ultra-close reading of signs & simulation. he does metaphysics but uses this in this cultural way also, which is why he writes the way that he does: elliptical, fatalist, romantic.
but before you plunge into that read System of Objects and The Consumer Society to understand that he could also write excellent culture critique. in some ways he sort of has a picasso trajectory: starts out classical, ends up cubist. but good god a'mighty could that man describe a kitchen. his later stuff is ofc super hyperbolic and weird but SE&D is right in that transitional zone. see also Mirror of Production and Seduction. Ecstasy of Communication is good also. in a way he's sort of doing the same stuff that McLuhan did but instead of being a canadian catholic he's a french marxist-turned nietzschean. >also cool memories for fun >also also >&c
tl;dr if you like somebody, read everything. as always it's best to start with the beginning tho and work your way through. baudrillard is super-rewarding imho.
& nevar forget that the man still retained a sense of humor.
Luis Ramirez
>your style is hard to read for someone like me who is too self-aware and has autism and cringes at even benign things you know the irony of this is that i never intended to write in this way. i shit you not. i always think i'm being perfectly transparent! it's just the way the thoughts come out. if i try and polish too much i won't write anything. and some of this stuff i just have to get out. b/c it drives me nuts >and i must move on to other things, sadly.
it really is like having a kind of *accent.* chalk it up to a kind of nervousness i suppose.
>i don't wan to be a dick but i also hope you don't go so deep into a specific way of writing that you can't get out kek i passed that point a while back. now trying to fucking claw my way out of it & back to sanity. Veeky Forums helps. a lot.
constructive criticism always a winrar. cringe away & maybe some of it will get through my thick skull. the last thing i want to be is a meme. so all good senpai. apologies for the incipient weirdness of it all. working on it.
Anthony Barnes
no it's not you it's mostly me, i have actual autistic problems watching anybody who is comfortable being themselves because on some unconscious level i can't imagine myself being that comfortable and all of my reflexes tell me "OH NO, HE'S TOTALLY VULNERABLE AND HE'S GOING TO BE HUMILIATED ANY SECOND NOW"
but whenever i see your posts i also wonder whether you will become stereotyped by being very informal and stylized and might miss some weird future opportunity to write something more prosaic (academically or for a periodical or something)
i hope i didn't make you feel bad
Connor Flores
>no it's not you it's mostly me, i have actual autistic problems watching anybody who is comfortable being themselves because on some unconscious level i can't imagine myself being that comfortable and all of my reflexes tell me "OH NO, HE'S TOTALLY VULNERABLE AND HE'S GOING TO BE HUMILIATED ANY SECOND NOW" i hear ya fella. honestly sometimes i worry about it too...but not too much. antifragility is a good look. somewhere out there there's no doubt some user who can come in and wreck my shit completely, i've met a few on Veeky Forums...but most of the time it's misunderstandings. or just the usual back & forth you would expect to find on a melanesian tap-dancing board. so all good my man.
the craziest thing is that anons are actually much cooler than you might have expected. was a surprise to me anyways. i usually roll hyper-cynical but this place is much nicer than you would have thought. so pic rel of course...but it's not *so* rough. >but whenever i see your posts i also wonder whether you will become stereotyped by being very informal and stylized and might miss some weird future opportunity to write something more prosaic (academically or for a periodical or something) we will see
>i hope i didn't make you feel bad nah. and likewise of course. all good fella.
Jace Diaz
Question for the users in this thread: why has this group of thinkers popped up who insists on pretending that post-structuralism is a dead end or has died? They call themselves "post-structuralists" or whatever but they're all a bunch of idiots. The only one who seems to actually read the philosophers they talk about is Ray Brassier and he's the most obnoxious of them all (he *literally* identifies as a nihilist). What's the big deal? Why do they think they're adding something new to the philosophical debate when the summation of their contributions is just a blind negation of what's come before them, placing them square in the middle of the "cleverest" philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries?
John Martinez
Speculative realism is an attempt at absolutely de-centering the subject. I suppose it amounts to anti-realism or anti-humanism in some cases which seems dangerous but it isn't the worst modern movement.then again, it's all pretty much riding the coattails of Deleuze and Land who are far more enlightening to read.
Jackson Price
Anybody read this? I'm almost done with it and it's been consistently mind-opening about the steps needed to achieve dialectical thought. The main thesis is that Pascal serves as a proto-dialectical thinker who recognizes the impossibility of absolute values, yet believes that one cannot give up the quest for absolute values or accept relative ones as a substitute. Goldmann says this constitutes tragic vision, and relates Pascal's stance to Kant's opposition to dogmatism and skepticism. Mostly it's good close readings of Pensees though
Luis Hernandez
Ayy I have "Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity" by this fella, its mostly about Neo-Platonism its a great read.
Gabriel Murphy
Classic Frankfurt School is Herbert Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization" cop it bros.
