CONTINENTALS BTFO!!!

CONTINENTALS BTFO!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=yvwhEIhv3N0

Seriously, its full of fraudulent or emotional quasi-intellectual posturing

Did we listen to the same thing? He obviously admires Foucault.

Reminder that anyone who says "pseudo-" or even "quasi-intellectual" is actually saying "I'm a real intellectual." Let that sink in for a while.

He expressed his lack of sympathy with continental philosophy and its philosophers. Foucault was his friend but even he and Bourdieu stated that's its obscurantist and pretentious.


Go listen to Deepak Chopra

Yet you are the one who burst in here saying, what boils down to, "actually, I for one, am an intellectual", as how would someone who isn't an intellectual, by your standards, be able to judge who is or isn't a real intellectual? Unless of course, you were implicitly claiming to be one? And gave us a youtube and some buzzwords to prove it

Where did you go, Dr Intellectual? I can put the above argument into formal logic if that's more your speed?

He said the writing was obfuscating, he clearly stated these men had worthwhile ideas, and blames Heidegger (or German phil in general) for setting this shitty trend in literary philosophy prose.

Bertrand Russell: *dismisses all styles of writing except for his own based on a vague nationalist generalisation*

'Intellectual' anglophone undergraduates: *fucking lap it up because it means it's not their fault that they don't understand something if it's written by anyone with a foreign name*

Is Chopra a quasi-intellectual?

Searle refused to respond to Derrida after writing a paper about him. For that i think he is cowardly and he holds extremely stupid pre-Wittgensteinian positions on most things concerning philosophy that people never research outside of his Chinese room argument and his general philosophy on mind.

Top 5 GOAT easily fam

gee thanks Sartre

Everyone is, at best, a quasi-intellectual.

Butthurt quasi-intellectual detected

Reminder that Stirner made existentialism moot more than half a century befor Heidegger was born

Oh, you're still memeing Stirner? how embarrassing. Try posting when you can string a sentence together, cabron.

B e i n g / i s / a / s p o o k / a n d / b e i n g s / a r e / e v e n / s p o o k i e r
– Alain Badiou

Would you say the same to Heidegger?

Asshurt polcuck detected

lmao

wew

...

...

...

wew. I can see why Stirner is attractive to you people. It's the purest autism imaginable

Are you, dare I say it, pic related?

Incomparable because you're still relying on the body of medical professionals and their established set of norms, guidelines, practices, etc. to adjudicate genuine medicine. Intellectualism is literally just "tfw to smart".


wat

Has Heidegger addled your brain so much, you can't even comprehend "projecting"?

...

...

Lol

lol

Egoists everyone. So insecure they'll post for days being mad someone didn't get their """joke""".

...

Well if you're not an egoist you're some flavor of deep autism, perhaps a new level hitherto unparalleled

I'm not the one who reads Heidegger and Sartre, you're doing that projecting thing again!

hahaha, obviously

"This is why I don't read" thread no. 732.

Daily reminder Lacan was right and Stirner wasn't .

Sartre was good fam


Delet

user please, I'm trying to eat

m8 you've never picked up a fucking copy of Discipline and Punish or Society Must be Defended in your life have you? Foucault is clear as day.

What do you expect from an "x is said to be shit and I'm very clever for not actually finding out" thread?

Through thought? There is no reason why this understanding could only be limited to 'intellectuals'.
I can understand that someone is being nonsensical while still admitting that they are smarter than I am, for instance.

(I was just making a joke about people who say these 2 buzzwords cos they annoy me. So I made it a logic puzzle to annoy them.)

He's right about academia, and philosophers in general obscuring their works so they can become intellectual. This is why god-emperor Chomsky will lead the vanguard come revolution.

its almost as if academic philosophy is a specialized field and written by and for people already learned in the discipline. why would someone writing a text that probably won't be read by anyone without a prior background in philosophy feel the need to make it accessible to the layman?

First off I do think that academic philosophy needs to get out more in some way.
This isn't the whole of the problem in continental philosophy. The issues with continental philosophy is not that they use technical jargon (analytical philosophy uses quite a bit of that), but rather that they use fuzzy jargon that doesn't, even once you understand it, seem justified.
There were often times where I would read Badiou or Foucault (which I understand are relatively easy for continental philosophy) and they introduced a new term (or a new meaning of an old term), without defining it clearly or even fuzzily.
You can't hide behind 'this is just because you don't understand it' when the people themselves say 'no it isn't' and when an entire other branch of the same study has been criticizing this stuff for years.
Obviously continentals do say things of meaning, but there are still problems with writing comprehensively.

and you seem to not understand what the fucking whole point of academia is, if you unironically think academia should be its own special subgroup of society that is insulated you're a fucking part of the problem.

That's why I'm bringing philosophy to the masses fam