Any other anons work in academia?
What's your opinion on English instructors consistent use of the following literary theories?
>Feminist
>Marxist
>Archetypal
>Psychoanalysis
>Postcolonialism
Why do so many professors touch on these theories in particular?
>>8138571
school of resentment
Blame cultural marxists.
>>8138571
>What's your opinion on English instructors consistent use of the following literary theories?
much prefer it in philosophy rather than in shallow comp-lit
any interesting and revolutionary aspects of any of these theories are disabled exactly because they are made theories for literary analysis
Mostly uninteresting (though I haven't read any Jungian criticism, and I think that might be cool), but it keeps the paychecks rolling in, since most actually sensible things about the classics have already been said. Most, but surely not all, otherwise we couldn't call them classics. So it's the distinguished critic who can say something new and interesting about a classic that doesn't rely on a pretty much arbitrary and unrelated ideological framework. There's not really anything inherently wrong with those frameworks, it's just that they rarely apply to the actual task of the critic, and are effectively crutches. So yeah, I'm pretty much with Bloom on this one, although I think he's sometimes too hostile. 'Queer theory,' however, and all of those more radical malignant offspring of feminism should be completely stamped out though, in my opinion. Not because I dislike gays--I don't think you can be a remotely literate person and also be homophobic in this day and age--but because those schools contribute nothing but a new academicized form of mysticism. Feminism, Marxism, and especially psychoanalysis (which is a major part of the modern mythology) are good for some things, presumably, just not for reading literature. Queer theory and its close relatives are good for nothing but their own self-propagation, however, like a virus.
>>8138586
No, blame yourself for believing in something called 'cultural Marxism,' which is an empty term used only by Neo-Nazis.
>>8138582
Thanks, man. This is illuminating and gives my heart hope for the future of both literature and academia.
>>8138586
I'll look more into this, but maybe you can tell me: For what purpose do cultural marxists wish to "destroy western civilization"?
Can you recommend any good literature on the subject?
>Feminist
>Postcolonial
good but limited
>Marxist
>Psychoanalysis
good but overdone
>Archetypal
shit
>>8138571
The theories you listed are useful and interesting ways of considering published works but so are ones you've omitted. Can't say what makes one lens more popular when another lens allows for just as good an examination
>>8138603
but sex is a major theme in every movement of literature, and most of it has only been examined through a very specific, narrow sexual perspective.
>>8138571
Marxism and deconstruction have so washed into the culture that they are just sort of taught as the default way to read literature. Granted the more radical notions of class struggle and the students' position in it is toned down quite dramatically at least until the graduate level—which, by the way, brings me to Postcolonialism, which is gradually trickling down to the undergraduate level, being the main theoretical discourse at the grad level. Archetype analysis is impossible because of Marxism. Psychoanalysis is used as a sort of toolbox pursuant to the other reading techniques.
>>8138622
I didn't mention feminism because I'm a misogynist.
>>8138603
Thanks for going into detail.
>Feminism, Marxism, and psychoanalysis are good for some things
What do you think they're good for? Do you mean that those theories are good for other fields or something?
>>8138610
>but so are ones you've omitted
The ones I included are the most prevalent at my school, even among other fields (sociology, namely)
And yeah, I prefer the ones I omitted. Psychoanalysis is cool sometimes.
This assignment gets pretty goofy though
>identify Freudian imagery in "Young Goodman Brown"
>"Satan's stick's a penis!"
All theoretical/analytic frameworks should be seen as tools to be applied to appropriate tasks.
>>8138571
Psychoanalysis is huge with loads if interesting theories and therapies based on observable phenomenon. There is also loads of scientific evidence which supports Freud's theories. There are even branches of psychoanalysis which update theories in light of modern advances in psychology.
I don't know much about archetypes, but there is some scientific support.
The rest of those ideas are crawling with spooks. I would steer clear of the haunted ruins of feminism and Marxism.
>>8138626
>I'm a misogynist
you are not a misogynist if you call yourself one and therefore voluntarily agree with the feminist way to see the world and to divide the people
you are not a misogynist, you are just a stray feminist lost
>>8138605
There isn't any, because those who think a particular in-group is trying to 'destroy Western civilization' are not intelligent or insightful enough to write any good literature.
>>8138612
That's a completely ridiculous thing to say. Greek sexuality was totally different from ours--more different than that of any minority group today, even. Hart Crane and Walt Whitman did just fine in beautifully depicting their sexualities without the help of any theorists, queer or otherwise. True, we have not gained the 'perspective' of the Theorists who push their ideas about the thousand genders until recently, but that is only because the perspective was invented only recently. It's just a gamble at notoriety. Nobody needed that perspective.
>>8138620
Marxism applied to culture is proletarian realism, which is dead everywhere except the DPRK.
>>8138637
I mean that feminism and Marxism are good for politics, and psychoanalysis is good for the psyche, for it is the modern mythology of mind. We need psychoanalytic concepts like the Greeks needed their gods. But they all have very little to do with literature of the past, and literature of the present (or recent past) which overtly uses feminist or Marxist themes very often becomes nothing more than a tired manifesto, and not 'real' art. Psychoanalysis is better for that, but it doesn't apply retrospectively to pre-20th-century works.
>>8138645
>you are not an intellectual if you call yourself one and therefore voluntarily agree with the retarded way to see the world and to divide the people
>you are not an intellectual, you are just a stray retard lost
I fixed your terminology.
>>8138637
A prof said once to me that Freudian analysis was only still useful for literary criticism. I don't pretend to know if she was correct about it, but it was funny and memorable.
>>8138658
>There isn't any, because those who think a particular in-group is trying to 'destroy Western civilization' are not intelligent or insightful enough to write any good literature.
>Marxism applied to culture is proletarian realism, which is dead everywhere except the DPRK.
Explain the flaws of the video I posted then.
>>8138660
it's a poor analogy though
misogynist is a feminist term while retard is an intellectual term not a retard term
terminology it's your way to shape the world...
>>8138661
Google psychoanalytic institutions. It is not a joke.
>>8138644
>Psychoanalysis is huge with loads if interesting theories and therapies based on observable phenomenon. There is also loads of scientific evidence which supports Freud's theories. There are even branches of psychoanalysis which update theories in light of modern advances in psychology.
If you have the time, could you post some links where I could read more about this?
>I don't know much about archetypes, but there is some scientific support.
Jung?
>>8138571
English major here, went to a top-tier (and VERY liberal) American college. Literally none of my professors required us to learn feminist, Marxist, postcolonial, or queer theory at any point. I feel like much of /lit/ imagines that these things are forced down the throats of college students, and people like Bloom are the only thing heroically standing in the way of the spooky liberal brainwashing.
>>8138709
I went to a liberal college and they used feminist theory, so I guess my anecdote cancels yours, my friend.
>>8138668
Well, the 'terse description' (this guy is clearly trying very hard to sound intelligent, and for that, at least, I commend him) is already absurd and wrong. I can accede to the idea that 'Critical Theory,' which is not a monolithic enterprise, but a hodgepodge of all kinds of vastly divergent theories, is influential on the high culture of today. Though notice that I say only high culture. TV doesn't give a damn about post-Marxism or gender neutral queer theoretics of the body or whatever. TV, which I take as the primary cultural artifact of 'the masses,' embraces only a vague, feel-good version of neoliberalism, which includes feminism. You will find no discourses on Judith Butler anywhere but in academe and among those who aspire towards academe. I'm not sure if it's for better or for worse that our contemporary critical theories have little influence on culture at large, but that's the way it is. So I already object to the term 'academic influence,' and the academy is not the same as the contemporary left (thank God).
And I cannot watch anymore after that F Bomb (Frankfurt School); it's just too painful. You can continue to believe that a bunch of men with Semite noses shaking hands are secretly running the show, I don't really care. If only Theodor Adorno and friends were really the men behind the curtains! You are already past redemption, although maybe my brief objections to the terse description can point something out to other, slightly less wayward souls.
>>8138715
>embraces only a vague, feel-good version of neoliberalism
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, see Swedish TV for example. And you are such a bitch that you can't even see a full video? Jesus. Stay bluepilled.
>>8138745
Let me ask you: what books have you been reading recently? What poetry can you recite? What is your opinion on the Mona Lisa; why does it captivate so many? Is it, as Pater suggests, because she represents a certain chthonic element which has been forbidden by our excessively celestial religions? or are you more with Eliot, that it intrigues only because it is enigmatic and is not necessarily a masterpiece, just like Hamlet? perhaps you've got another perspective? How about Bethoven? Is the Grosse Fuge visionary and sublime, or is it senile nonsense? What makes you so very invested in what Ezra Pound (with whom you are presumably politically allied with) memorably calls this 'three gross of broken statues / A few thousand battered books'? Are you really a defender of culture? Do you REALLY care about all this dry, heavy, boring stuff? Or are you more interested in expressing hatred electronically? I am thinking the latter, but I always try to stay open-minded. It's just that in my experience it is the latter.
>>8138767
You have a charm for rhetoric, I'll give you that. You still a pussy though. I'm reading "Aesthetic Themes in Pagan and Christian Neoplatonism" right now, thanks for the interest.
>>8138767
Is it impossible for someone to defend and appreciate art that has shaped their cultural identity without participating in dry academic conversations about it? The university professors are actively encouraging their students to flood Europe with iconoclasts and I don't have to know exactly why I like Laocoon to know that I don't want it smashed with sledgehammers in the coming decades.
>>8138782
Sounds intriguing; I'll have to check it out after the thousand other books on my reading list. How are you enjoying it? Do you enjoy it any more because you're 'redpilled?' Do you understand it any better?
>>8138787
I think that dry academic conversations are actually very much worth having, yes, but I maintain that they have no influence on the big societal picture. Poetry makes nothing happen, etc., etc. I don't really know what you mean by 'iconoclasts' here, but that is all academics can do: encourage. And those who run the world heed no encouragements from academia, for better or for worse. And I can see little point in enjoyment without the understanding of enjoyment, but I guess that's the Kantian in me. If you just want to enjoy, why not have a lot of sex instead of bothering with this heavy, boring stuff? And I'm kind of with Bloom (boring, I know) again here in that good literary criticism is itself a form of literature.
>>8138571
>Psychoanalysis
Are you trying to say say Freud wasn't a revolution for literature? Even Papa Bloom knows you are retarded.
>>8138571
basically it's low hanging fruit. it's low-effort intellectualism at its absolute finest, masquerading for moral instruction when in actuality it's just a handful of memes spat around by a bunch of people who insist on thinking of themselves as the smartest people in the room. in doing so they reveal their shallowness and lack of critical engagement with the material, all while masturbating their moral egos in one big massive circle jerk.
academia is a joke; intellectualism is best practiced in private or among friends.
>the reason why the academics fight so hard is that there's so little at stake.
if you want refreshing intellectual content, check out the analytical thomists and the tiny underbelly of academic analytical philosophers who are returning to the medieval intellectual tradition and finding extremely ripe topics for exploration.
>pic related; an intellectual actually worth her salt
>>8138658
>"Prof. so and so gave me an A on some Marxist drivel! I must be right! You're just a neo-Nazi because sometimes I hear things that sound similar being said by neo-Nazis."
you're either too stupid to realize that this is not an argument or you're being deliberately slimy. I'm assuming the latter.
>like all marxists, cultural marxists want the game to be played such that no one may lose or fail, or at least not fail TOO hard to the point where one can definitively say that one side won and the other side lost. in economic policy, social policy etc, this is the general sentiment of marxism. Of course it can be applied to culture and the arts, and of course those so afraid of the consequences of actually sticking their necks out to hold definitive, non-relativistic positions endorse this mentality.
>You're a worm, and rather than admit that you want to go and redefine the entire animal kingdom so that you're no longer a part of the food chain/pecking order.
Fucking off yourself. Either that or go into the echo chamber of academia and get your paycheck from the alimony-fueled bank account of some prissy pseudo-intellectual 19 year old's mother.
>>8138767
being this fucking pretentious, holy shit XD
Has Fredric Jameson the current final boss of marxian literary theory?
>>8138882
Was.
>>8138883
well who is it now?
>>8138866
I think you've quite misunderstood what I've said, and you've also misunderstood Marxism. If you think Marxism is in any way about relativism, I'd like you to become acquainted with the Soviet Union, which was far less relativistic than the good old US of A has ever been. By a faulty leap of logic, you might well think that Marxism applied to art would mean a sort of pluralistic, modernist approach, but only if you know nothing of what Marxism actually did to the arts. Marxism is economically egalitarian, but because it presupposes that everything is ultimately economic, it has no qualms with making the humanities extremely absolutist, which is evidently what you want. Well, I say sign me out. I can appreciate the sentiment of proletarian realism (and it is, ultimately, sentiment, to the dismay of most Marxists), but it is horrible that it should absolutely predominate. I would like it if socialist realism could have been preserved as a pluralistic school of art, but societies are never pluralistic enough, not in the important sense. And indeed I think that multiculturalism as commonly understood is not pluralistic enough in that important sense. But it's better than nothing, and certainly better than the society you cretins desire.
>>8138767
the mona lisa does not captivate. it's a pretty boring painting, and not even remotely one of his best.
like a lot of things, what you are witnessing is a sociological effect fueling itself. people are told there's something great about it. when asked to back up this claim, one says "well a lot of people seem to think so, so there must be something there." this gives a sense of legitimacy, which further excites more navel-staring as one tries to come up with something intelligent to say so their peers can admire them.
>pic related: exhibit A.
>guy decides to prank an art exhibition by leaving his glasses on the floor
>ignorant gallery attendees assume it is art
>a small crowd forms, inciting others to see what the fuss is about
>a bunch of fucking retards wrack their brains trying to "enter the work"
moral of the story is that people are by and large stupid, gullible and most of all: VAIN.
read your fucking post. it's fucking hilarious how far up your own ass you are.
>>8138905
>well, I say sign me out
good, don't slam the door on your way out, pussy. you weren't bringing anything to the conversation anyway.
>>8138905
marxists know academia is an ISA that reproduces the relations of production, and generally babysits the children of the petitbourgeoisie until they are ready to be slotted into their careers. they know it is also a parasite on the proletariate who fund it, build it, clean it, but get nothing out of it.
this board is fucking cancer. at least i got some sick dubs while i was here, faggots.
>>8138919
woahhhhhhh, that's like, soooo subversive man
>>8138906
Well, I was trying to be a little overbearing, but I think the core point remains. And it's good that you have an opinion on the Mona Lisa, though I'm worried that it's still a little too bound up in all that reactionary mumbo-jumbo popular on here. And I actually tend to think that enough navel gazing can give you something worthwhile. For example, for me I find Pater's essay on the Mona Lisa more compelling and moving than the thing itself, but then again I'm not a visual person. I guess my real problem is people viewing art through an ideological lense, whether it's conservative, liberal, or reactionary.
>>8138919
Interesting. See, it's good if this sort of stuff is part of the pluralistic public dialogue, but once a lot of people start seriously believing it, things get dangerous. That's all I'm trying to say.
>>8138932
you're a failure even by /lit/'s standards
>>8138940
you write, think and reason like a goddamn weenie, so evidently all your navel gazing hasn't done you any favors. go suck off zizek behind the copy machine or something and maybe you guys can talk about "viewing art through an ideological lens" after.
this dick is nuts, son
>>8138965
You're really tempting me to get condescending (and in saying this I guess I already am), but I'll hold out for just a little longer, I don't know why. By the way I've never read Zizek, but I think I agree with some of the stuff he says. One thing I find indecipherable about this post is that second paragraph and the image. What do homophobia etc have to do with the current conversation? Or is the face that guy's making the one you have in regards to me? If that's all that's meant, maybe you should crop it.
>>8138973
He's arbitrarily and wrongly lumped you in with the SJWs I take it. You've been strawmanned in his mind and dismissed through ad hominem. Dont bother
>>8138973
you must be so much fun at parties, anon.
zizek is a babbling moron, like you.
i included the pic b/c i thought it was funny. also because posts with attached pictures tend to get read more frequently, and i want my post to be read.
>>8138986
this is obvious samefaggotry; the writing style is equally as weenie-like and pedantic as the OG retard who shat his draws in this thread
>>8138986
Yeah, I gathered as much, but we're playing a little game here. By the way I actually hate that term SJW. Social justice, understood properly, is obviously a good thing, and it's very much something worth being a 'warrior' for, although preferably without actual physical violence. And I don't think any of those wayward souls on tumblr will be committing any acts of violence anytime soon. But to me it's sort of like calling someone a tryhard. Presumably it's good to try hard at things. They're both inappropriate terms that mock legitimate ideas.
>>8138993
OK, fair enough. And actually I can be fun at parties when and if I can get comfortable with the crowd. But I guess that's a tautology.
As for samefag, it isn't obviously, but I don't feel like proving it. Start posting faster: I need to read and get to bed. Call me a shithead and storm out once and for all or something.
>>8138906
you sound really, really stupid.
>>8138999
holy shit man you really are the king of the 'spergs
nice trips tho
>>8139012
Weak, man. Was that really it? At least give me a copypasta. You really must be an intellectual midget if you can't even shitpost properly.
>>8138745
>look at these charts!
Oh /pol/
Maybe you should try a new hobby, model airplanes or something.
>>8139012
lol you got BTFO but you keep posting
let it go man. it's an anonymous laotian graffiti forum.
>>8139027
>>8139013
..._„„„„¸_...…………………………._¸„„„„_
./'.……¯'*~--„…….…………...„--~*'¯…….'\
Ì'ì\,.…_¸„--~~-„)…………… („-~~--„¸_….,/ì'Ì
...'\¯"¯-¸: : : : : ¯"^-„¸….¸„-^"¯ : : : : :¸-¯"¯/'...
…"-,„„¸/' : : : : : : : ¸„„-^"¯ : : : : : : : '\¸„„,-"......
**¯¯¯'^^~-„„„----~^*'"¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-"..........
.:.:.:.:.„-^" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-" "^-„.:.:.:.:.
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯ : : : : .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.
:.' : : '\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~"¯~-„„¸; : : : : : : : \' : : '.:
:.:.:: :"-„""***/*'ì¸'¯. . . . . . . . ¯'¸ì'*\***""„-": ::.:.:
:.': : : : :"-„ : : :"\ . .Brothers. . /": : : „-": : : : :'.:
.:.:.: : : : :" : : : : \, . . .In . . . ,/ : : : : ": : : : :.:.:.
: : : : : : :, : : : : :/ . . Arms. . . \: : : : : :,: : : : : :
>>8139047
Ah! Perfect! Stupidity. vulgarity, as a form of the sublime! Why, I could write a poem! I could even read one! This sorry one, who lives beyond the shabby corridors of the living, thanks you, enterprising soul of shitpost, for liberating me from miasmal wandering. Sleep, sleep at last!
>>8139053
i thought u had to go to bed faggot
itt: an oblivious autist SJW makes a fool out of himself while thinking he was participating in an intellectual pissing contest with an anonymous stranger
>>8139053
I don't get it. What are you doing?
>>8138660
>icism. I don't pretend to know if she was correct about it, but it was funny and memorable.
why do women always shit up /lit/ with shit logic
>>8138645
>feminism is an absolute interpretive horizon
it's at best a bourgeois obsession to be subsumed under a properly Marxist historicizing operation
>>8138620
>get's asked for literature on cultural marxism
>post a youtube video
right wingers, everyone
>>8138709
An Austrian buddy explained it to me once as feminist theory was a major criticism of sociology in general, and now queer theory is like that with feminist theory. So it's interesting insofar as you're on a fore front of enquiry.
A fair number of places are more traditionalist tho and don't accept this line of questioning or something along those lines.
>>8138906
>the mona lisa does not captivate
Nah m8 it does. You're just one of those people that can only find connection to art by whining about it. You may not have like when the Chapman Bros painted over Goya but I bet you wouldn't have shut up about it.
>>8138571
English Major here. I will make three observations
1 - The pressure to publish has led English academics to adapt. Theory provides a conceivably endless wellspring of topics for academic papers, because it multiplies the number of possible "creative readings" of any given text.
This is the progressive logic of industrial society manifesting in English academia. Because it is a moral imperative to constantly produce at a high rate, English Departments have been taken over by people who can do that.
It is remarkable that literature, an essentially "past-oriented", conservative (in a literal rather than political sense) subject, can be observed to have adapted to a progressive and future-oriented culture.
TLDR: The creation of formal theories or subjectivities (with which to read texts) creates an effectively boundless scope for academic production.
>>8139628
2 - The service-oriented economies of Western Anglo nations have trended toward the provision of services as niche specialisations resembling artisanship.
Universities are providing degree programs mapped to identities (and literary theories are branded with identities) which serve as abstracted sources of truth. They wield the moral authority of suffering and victimhood, and also run on the cognitive biases that tell us that somehow "that other class of people knows the secrets of life".
The specialised university programs are pointless for anything except providing an education in them (i.e. spreading them) - they represent the education analogues of artisan attractions like deconstructed coffee served at niche hipster cafes and bars... Education in general is an industry which has embraced growth and sold out to (among other things) demand for more personalised degrees and university experiences.
>>8138603
>those schools contribute nothing but a new academicized form of mysticism
This is a very interesting way of expressing it, also.
>>8139071
He's much more eloquent and has obviously put more thought into his opinions than anyone else itt though
>>8138571
>psychoanalysis
I don't mind this one at all. I had a professor who specialized in psychoanalytic theory and he taught my Kafka class. Was a blast.
>>8139486
>get's
>>8138603
>Dave Rubin is a neo-nazi
wew lad, kys
>>8139827
It's not eloquence, though. It's obnoxious and juvenile pedantry, and that's saying something when compared to the rest of this board.
>>8139931
Admittedly not (though he is in some respects a reactionary), but he is an idiot, so I consider the distinction unimportant.
Texts are only legible through their political implications, and the only reading capable of fully realizing those implications is the Marxist one.
>>8140204
Hey Paul see you tomorrow afternoon
>>8139025
>I don't want to inform my self, if it has a chance of going against my currently cemented world views
Fucking pseuds...
>>8140204
What a sorry way of viewing literature! what a forlorn way of viewing life!
>>8138603
>which is an empty term used only by Neo-Nazis.
https://scholar.google.gr/scholar?hl=en&q=%22cultural+marxism%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
idiot
>>8140224
At Hong Kong? Where is Tracer Tong?
>>8140234
why aren't you reading my controversial thesis about how kangaroos are actually running all of the worlds top financial institution?
You don't want to inform youself? It goes agains your current cemented world view?
no, it's because you don't have time and interest to read everything.
Also /pol/ charts are biased as fuck.
>>8138644
>>8138689
>>8138603
>Jung
>>8140245
haha meet at the theater bar at five I've got to show you what my student gave me for my birthday
>>8140243
While I admit I was not aware of this usage in academic circles, it seems to be quite different from what you people have in mind. I readily agree that portrayals of Marxism are important in the culture. But again, that's something closer to socialist realism than the Jewish boogeyman of multiculturalism that you people have in mind.
>>8139827
eloquence=/=content
he can write a lot but hardly says anything, other than fawning his ego
>>8140204
the one true faith!
God wills it!
Ahem...
I mean
Marx wills it!
>>8138571
All of those except archetypal are worthwhile, but any scholar who ONLY uses one of those methods of analysis is a hack
>>8138586
wew lad
>>8140268
>“cultural Marxism” as pursued by Raymond Williams, Gramsci, Habermas, Lukacs, and others
It's literally the exact same thing, except without the "conspiracy" angle.
Undergrad here. Should I major in philosophy (analytic) or theory? My school's department in theory is pretty good (fwiw) from what I understand. Jameson teaches here.
>>8139025
>>8140508
if you want intellectual rigor at the expense of sexiness, analytic philosophy
if you want to fuck hot undergraduate women, theory
analytic philosophy is so specific. in my experience it rarely if ever touches on literature of the kind /lit/ occupies itself with, except for pointing to an example to illustrate a larger point. usually the writing is dry. if you think analytic philosophy consists of wittgensteinian aphorisms, you'll be VERY disappointed.
Can you blame them? they've got literally zero career prospects outside of tenure, they receive little to no respect even from other staff and their discipline suffers from ever declining interest and budget.
Let 'em believe they'd be royalty in Marxist Amerikkka, It's the only thing they've got left.
>>8140508
if you do major in philosophy in a department that specializes in analytic philosophy, be sure to take philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, metaphysics and some ethics.
>(there's a reason why lawyers often study analytic philosophy as undergraduates)
>>8138603
>I don't think you can be a remotely literate person and also be homophobic in this day and age
I don't think you can be intelligent in any day or age.
>>8140606
it's completely possible to be highly intelligent and yet homophobic, racist, sexist etc. it's not self-evident that the strong should not rule the weak, or that "oppression" is something to be fought against, or that egalitarian causes trump causes rooted in self-interest or even hatred. all of these ("homophobia/sexism/racism is wrong") are ethical judgements -- common ones shared by many, and so they are assumed in the current climate to be the default positions dictated by reason itself. but it's totally possible to have heterodox views that are fully coherent and supported by other reasons that don't coincide with the "oughts" entailed by these default positions.
this is basic stuff. take a class in ethics; in almost any position it's possible to have in ethics, the professor will ultimately reference a "moral intuition", treating it as a form of evidence which legitimizes the position and gives it foundation. all you have to do is say that you don't share this intuition and you're all back to square one. then, as you are very likely the minority, the problem will shift to "well what do we do with this guy?"
>>8140641
tfw everyone forgets how weak socrates' rebuttal to thrasymachus was
tfw Glaucon and the Ring of Gyges are forgotten and the moral of the story lost to "progressivism"
>>8138571
Because unlike rightist view point, there's actual study to back these view points up. If you're worried about seeing the truth in literature, you shouldn't be interested in literature.
>>8140674
Now your just asking for infograph spam Anon, stop.
Is it hypocritical to want to genocide the alt-right?
>>8140674
>study to "back up" unfalsifiable mumbo jumbo
>psychoanalysis as anything other than a relatively novel way of talking about intention (that it is not always known to the doer why he does a deed)
postcolonialism is just resentment for being on the losing side of history. it's just a technique for taking advantage of the current fashion of the day in which "open-mindedness" is taken as a virtue in itself, much like diversity. and so the winners of the current geopolitical game of king-of-the-hill are conned into surrendering their post because they think it's the "right thing to do." it's bogus and boring.
>>8140704
bring it on, pussy
>>8140704
Your a leftist, hypocrisy is kinda your thing senpai, no point in shying away from it now.
>>8140546
Yes /pol/, we already know that your not listening.
>>8140750
not listening to what?
>>8140691
/pol/ isn't the best at making infographics lmfao. I don't care.
>>8140707
>postcolonialism is just resentment for being on the losing side of history
No it's not.
> it's just a technique for taking advantage of the current fashion of the day in which "open-mindedness" is taken as a virtue in itself
No it isn't.
>much like diversity
Stop throwing buzz words in an argument irrelevant to the point.
>and so the winners of the current geopolitical game of king-of-the-hill are conned into surrendering their post because they think it's the "right thing to do." it's bogus and boring.
This doesn't hold relevance of any kind or sort to the post I made.
>>8140715
*You're
Sw3ti
I've come to some places in Europe and it doesn't seem it's as common as it is in United States.
>>8140774
no it's not is not an argument.
>>8140788
The argument you were making wasn't an "argument" either, it was the ideological left overs from a sandwich with mayo left out in the sun too long.
>>8140781
It doesn't happen in some places of Europe because half of the continent is way more conservative than America.
>>8140816
I mean in Western Europe* in case you're referring to Eastern Europe. Do you think it's an advantage?
>>8140821
Objectively it isn't, European Universities outside of Britain are fucking god awful, especially German universities.
>>8140833
How so? I think I got a pretty good—also cheaper—education there. I may be wrong but I heard many American colleges have no mandatory foreign language courses, like it's possible to graduate in comparative literature without learning another one.
>>8140841
You didn't, I didn't, I thought I did, like you think you did, It's absolutely shocking the level of support you receive in American universities, meanwhile in Germany people literally fight over floor space because they tried to fit 400 students into 200 person lecture hall.
>>8140853
More people indeed come into college, since there's no real selection, but how does it have incidence on the education quality? Most wouldn't even enter an American one. All other things held constant, we're switching from an assumed poor education to none.
>>8140795
U sound bitter, leftie. You mad you've been found out?
>>8140268
>you people
You (as in person) are a fucking retard. Or, as Lenin would call you, a useful idiot.
>>8138767
>What is your opinion
>Is it, as X suggests,
>endless tired old tirade ensues
You people are like sky high advertisement for STEM.
>>8140879
Encourage me to argue and I might argue. But you're not offering me much incentive to argue.
>>8140895
He's doing the Searle with your Derrida as is the correct approach to the 'academic' archetype.
>>8140870
Few sources spread thinly (chronically underfunded), any even remotely successful professors gets poached by the US, next to no research (relies almost exclusively research done in America in English), scholarships are incredibly rare; incredibly smart and talented poor people can't afford to go.
>>8140906
From what I've seen online, most American Universities, even Ivy league ones churn the exact same vapid 'masters' as do Serbian diploma mills. Their STEM section is probably another story altogether, but social 'sciences' and the like are the same all around.
In fact I'm dumbfounded at how bad Americans are at longform considering writing assigments are the norm from the mandatory education onwards. The normie upper middle class crop you see posting on reddit write - at best - something that reads like a corporate brochure.
>>8140895
leftie, leftie, his arguments are lame
leftie, leftie, he takes all scorn and shame
leftie, leftie, he cries when he's found out
leftie, leftie, i love to make him pout!
>>8140234
>>8140546
Sorry I only inform myself with peer-reviewed history, not charts made by teenagers on mspaint.
>currently cemented world views
That's fucking hilarious coming from /pol/ When you go balls deep in ideology and decide a priori that Jews control everything then funnily enough you find all sorts of """"""evidence""""""" that the International Jewry is really out to get you. Anything to the contrary can be dismissed as fabricated evidence or propaganda. Then you find a "community" of like minded conspiracy theorists and reinforce each others delusions. The internet is great for this, I don't know how you fags found each other before online forums and message boards.
>>8140927
Nice prose lol
>>8140234
I'll go out on a limb and guess you never actually read Das Kapital. Or Hegel.
Or any book by any member of the Frankfurt circle.
>>8140906
As far as I know, this only concerns research. Professors lured to the United States with golden salaries, scholarships and high-end facilities are more successful researchers than professors. I have the feeling many students in Ivy League colleges and other elite schools are just listening to a famous person talking about his life instead of properly teaching. I don't think you're having an excellent education with a Nobel prize winner as a professor, but rather as a colleague/supervisor. It's still just my experience but I thought I had great professors, even if they didn't publish a lot. On the other hand, I heard some countries are among the most innovative ones in restricted fields, like France in oncology or Germany in finance.
>>8140929
check who those "peers" are and who pays them, anon ;)
