Scruton attacks Zizek

Roger Scruton not very complementary about Slavoj Zizek

city-journal.org/html/clown-prince-revolution-14632.html

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
youtube.com/watch?v=UDz45y_C630
vimeo.com/93963469
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_glass
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

...

dammit

Scruton is a fuckin dork.

ye i have a friend who's into analytic philosophy and he said 80% of the philosophy world think zizek is a joke/trash. i'm assuming he's implying the world of analytic philosophy although i personally don't know the exact size difference between continental and analytic

From what I understand he's regarded as the NDT of the philosophy world.

this guy is a fucking dumbass

I study philosophy and my professor has respect for him and we have even read him in a course. It might have something to do with him being very popular with a wider audience than other very respectable philosophers will ever get. It's natural that there is some resentment against him

This rehashing of liberal narratives (i.e. Basically the entirety of Analytic philosophy, with some autistic formal logic and linguistics and appeals to science thrown in for good measure) is what passes for philosophy in English-speaking academia. Pathetic.

Well he is a conservative.

gulag. cabbage soup.

Scruton is a reactionary fuck.

[argument not found]

I've got your argument right here Analytic babby

you are such a fucking sperg I feel embarrassed even reading your posts

...

this guy's understanding of basic Lacanian concepts is Rationalwiki-tier

...

The very fact that he wrote The Sublime Object of Ideology makes that a bullshit claim.

I don't like how he shits on brutalism but Scruton will always be a superior philosopher compared to Zizek.

There really is nothing of merit to Zizek except some truthy psycho-analytic cliché's that aren't even his.

Makes sense.

might have some merit though?

...

Assblasted illiterates who refuse to read real philosophy should get off leftypol tbh

I'm a big fan of his hourlong, butthurt rant about how all art and architecture after WW1 is bad and somehow the cause of a multitude of social ills and only traditional (before WW1) art and architecture is good and there's an ebil conspiracy by modernists to keep traditional art down.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

This got on BBC, somehow.

but modern art is shit
literally shit, i saw a girl shitting out something as """performance"""
it makes me sick

Art and architecture do affect crime, mental state, and a whole host of other things. It has even been scientifically tested to some degree.

Why am I even bothering to respond, I'm not left wing. I just got linked here to see this post and its silly replies.

He's not just attacking conceptual art (lots of people do that), he's literally attacking every art and architectural style after WW1 including surrealism, minimalism, Art Deco, brutalism, etc.

I think it has a lot more to do with the economic situation, fam. Poor people don't have a lot spend on aesthetics.

First of all on a personal level I think all of those styles are extremely ugly. I can see the merit and beauty in them, but it requires specific situations, weather, mindset. Architecture is a public practice and needs to educate and inform the average person. The average person is lost within Brutalism / Minimalism, etc.


We're living in one of the most prosperous ages of human history and yet asethetics have been destroyed within society. The Sistine Chapel was constructed in the 16th century, were the italians of that era then richer than us? Perhaps you'd argue it was the centralisation of wealth within an elite that allowed through patronage the construction of such great things. Yet we have some of the greatest inequality of wealth today, it's simply squandered.

I personally find rural England, where I live, one of the most beautiful and aesthetic places on Earth. Simple things like the way the stone walls are built, the way the signs are crafted, are all beautiful in themselves, and many of the things were placed there long ago.

I believe culture is the primary determiner of the asethetic level of society instead. Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, ugly buildings do not last because they have no value. They are torn down within 50 years and rebuilt because there is no eternal quality to them, they are not connected to hundreds of years of cumulative European heritage. Not to mention the fact that they depress and induce into crime anyone who lives around them for a great stretch of time.

How's it going, Scruton?

Not Scruton, but working class person who has to actually live with Brutalism, not just jerk off it as a middle class architecture student.

My apologies, you just happen to be posting in a Scruton thread, parroting Scruton's views and apparently live in a very similar place to where Scruton lives. I thought I'd take a chance and see if the man himself had paid us a visit.

If like to point out that the old Italian painters and architects only worked for the very wealthy. Maybe now they're a part of the general public domain, but at the time they were not.

Today is no different. Beautiful things are still being built, but only for the ultra-wealthy who can afford them.

Forgot my pics

which is why it is important that public works are beautiful

counterreactionay tbh

What's a NDT? Niggaz die trying?

What counts as "beautiful" is highly subjective. I would argue that brutalism is considerably nicer looking than the run-down shacks and tenements the American proletariat have to live in.

Brutalism is literally an armchair architectural ideology though.
It's building design that's meant to look good in photos and look really fucking terrible in reality.

Not quoted but I take it you haven't actually lived near those places.
It's the architectural equivalent of people's tinder photos, all-dolled up with just the right angle to make it seem less like a horrid piece of shit you notice it is in reality. This is why Brutalism gained such a horrible reputation among regular people who actually see those places in real life on a daily basis.

Do you think I live under a rock?

Most government buildings where I live a brutalist. It's not nearly that bad. Stop acting like you're the only one privy to a fairly common architectural style.

Brutalism is severely underappreciated

This.


And have you lived in tenements like the one he posted? Because thats a picture of Camden, right near where I live, and I can tell you I would prefer a plain albiet often ugly stone face to a rotting, collapsing, roach infested rowhome.

There is a good reason for that matey.

No it isn't, there are discernable objective mathematical forms contributing to beauty, driven by biology, take your enlightenment 'spooks' and drown yourself

I read this a while back, isnt this guy a neocon or something lol.
I like how he says "release" like zizek is some sort of beast that is loose upon the world.
He clearly see's him as a threat.

Looks like Scruton doesn't have any… Scruples

I personally would love to live in a "mid-tech" psuedo-ghetto with loads of high rises if there wasn't a lot of crime. Imagine the raves!

kekekekkekekekekeke

don't waste your time, brother.

what do you expect from a board who's entire idealogy is based on the shunning of empiricism and positivism? They literally think their feels >> reals.

I've heard, from reliable sources, that his penis is devastatingly minuscule. Make of that what you will.

youtube.com/watch?v=UDz45y_C630

That still doesn't make it an objective beauty standard.

those are gaudy as fuck, not beautiful

You do realize that Marxism is the only social science where the fundamental laws regarding it are falsifiable? The basis of praxis(man acts rationally) is unfalsifiable and false, just like Poppers rationality principle.

Neil deGrasse Tyson

and i would agree, but i dont see where the logical leap from that to being buttbamboozled about modernism occurs

He's spot on in that documentary though. A huge reason why the left alienates workers is the art that represents our movement is usually ugly and hideous. When it comes to cultural analysis, Roger Scruton is based.

He's right beauty is a virtue and it's a terrible thing that ugliness has won.

kek, but a sadly

Who?

vimeo.com/93963469

He got wrecked by Jonathan Meades though.

Scruton is a retard who takes modern art seriously and doesn't realize it's foremost a means of social critique and rebellion.

...

the rebellion of talentless hacks?

They want to make you angry.

i do get angry everytime i see the subsidised eyesore created by a local artist whose only real talent is kissing councillors buts

an artist work speaks for itself, a conartist sells a little story about it filled with artspeak

...

Pochaco is more attractive than any of those basic bitches, though.

You are mingling quality of depicted object with quality of artwork.

fuck scruton and his superficial as shit work

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Scruton

I like how the creator of this meme reveals his own ignorance by piling everything between 500 bce and 1750 ce into one category

While I'm not arguing that it should affect your opinions on him, I keep fucking misreading his name as 'scrotum'

...

He's got a point. America really revolutionized extermination by not messing with the bureaucratic inefficiency of camps and simply killing the Indians wherever they found them.

Shit I actually kinda like Brutalism

Beauty is what brings someone pleasure, the is is vague and subjective.
As for abstract art, it is supposed to take the real and make it unreal, it is not representational.
Modern art is not about the end product, but rather the process or the idea, or the concept.

Brutalism is top-tier my friend

Very good taste

Brutalism is top-tier my friend

Very good taste

tbh I think that is one of the main problems in Roger Scruton's theory. Art became illogical and unappealing after 1750 with the ushering in of the liberal democratic revolutionary era. His claim that art up to and including World War I isn't degenerate is bafflingly ignorant.

mfw

[argument not found]

Scruton is an Anglican reactionary and an apologist for British imperialism.

Worse, it's a Tory traditionalist form of Anglicanism which is basically paganism.

Nearly half of the great paintings we know come from the 18th and 19th centuries. The main reason why nothing really sticks out is because most art was top-tier. The only way to be novel past that point is to go for a less realistic style or to just go full shit-tier. The late 19th century had elements of the former with impressionism. The 20th century basically was when you have degenerate modern art enter the scene.

That's not how it worked though.

In fact, the US did very little killing. The Indian population was miniscule by 1776. (And by the time England started colonies in Massachusetts and Viriginia. Smallpox killed most of them.)

The Native Americans were outpopulated by sheer immigration and moved to reservations. Their lifestyle prevented them from having a decently sized population. (Especially the Plains Indians. Nomads don't have high populations.)

So it was less of an extermination and more of a deportation. The natives didn't lose as many people as much as that so many whites just flooded the West and grew faster due to better agricultural technology.

yet he would demolish you and the rest of leftypol in a debate

L O L

The image tells you to google the art for yourself. He can't everything in one pic.

What about the Mongols?

If you want realism get into photography, art is about emotions, ideas, concepts, process, interactions now, real art isnt made to please an elite or the the masses, it is a pure synthesis of the innerself


By the way, ready to have your mind blown

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_glass

basically all those ancient masters were tracer faggots.

Using cold hard facts isn't bad.

The Mongols had a low population density. It was just they unified a massive portion of their land in a way that the Indians never did. That and the population was more mobilized for war, unlike the Chinese which had to do other things than herding and fighting.

That and they were REALLY good at war and often recruited conquered peoples into their host.

This also explains why they collapsed almost immediately upon the death of Genghis Khan. A small number of horse archers can't rule settled empires without constant conquest, the Mongols ultimately get assimilated into the larger populations of their conquered foes, and, on an unrelated note, their succession laws were shit.

Basically, the Mongols blitzkrieged most of Asia with a small, highly trained, and mobile army of horse archers along with auxiliaries of conquered peoples. They got assimilated afterwards.

Look, Roger Scruton's claim that art post-18th century pre- 20th century is the height of pretentiousness and stupidity. The Nietzschean Apollonian and Dionysian model is a far better artistic critique (and leagues above fucking Scruton) only due to the fact that it acknowledges the dynamic evolution of art. Of course I break from his idea that there has been kind of Apollonian monopoly on legitimate art and modern art since Greeks (though I would go further, claiming everything after (though not including) Jacques-Louis David was chained to Apollonian art). Instead the perfect coexistence of artistic beauty was achieved during the Renaissance and pre-enlightenment Europe, in works by Sir Anthony Van Dyck and Joos de Momper. Let alone the masterpieces in Italy. This was when the emotion of the world was funneled in the most creative minds of the age, forming a mixture of petite and enduring artwork and figures within, unknown ever since.


Only one of those three photos you posted doesn't cause nausea within me

jesus christ this is like the most basic reductionist analysis of history. What a hack

checks out

If you want to be technical, Realism refers specifically to the 19th century artistic movement that involves art depicting the daily life of common people.

I was referring to realism in the generic sense of the word. Hell, I just said "realistic", not even Realism. I mean, the lack of capitalization should signify what I mean.

But of course, you can keep jamming that broom up your ass to make yourself feel superior to everyone else.

(Though, the 17th century was also very impressive when it came to paintings. I honestly like all Western art from the mid 16th century to the late 19th century.)

bump :>)

now imagine yourself in Zizek's boots

Jesus, this guy sure gases on, huh?