bullshit philosophy at its finest.

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:46 am

I generated this from the post modernist generator. its boring as hell. dont even read it, its drivel. I want to right a down-to-earth philosophy book without all the macadamia nuts. Fuck all this post-modernist bullshit. This is actually hilarious, could almost be used as proof of solipism.

Lacanist obscurity, capitalist discourse and nihilism
Anna J. Prinn

Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts

1. Postconceptual capitalist theory and Baudrillardist simulation

“Society is part of the genre of reality,” says Marx; however, according to
Dietrich[1] , it is not so much society that is part of the
genre of reality, but rather the dialectic, and some would say the
meaninglessness, of society. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘Debordist
image’ to denote not narrative, as textual situationism suggests, but
prenarrative.

“Sexual identity is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Sartre. Lacan
promotes the use of Lacanist obscurity to deconstruct class divisions. It could
be said that the example of Baudrillardist simulation prevalent in Gibson’s
All Tomorrow’s Parties is also evident in Pattern Recognition.

If one examines subcapitalist Marxism, one is faced with a choice: either
reject Baudrillardist simulation or conclude that class, surprisingly, has
objective value. Debordist image holds that the collective is part of the
absurdity of narrativity, given that culture is distinct from narrativity.
Thus, Sartre suggests the use of Baudrillardist simulacra to analyse sexual
identity.

Many theories concerning the stasis, and eventually the paradigm, of
materialist class exist. It could be said that the main theme of Wilson’s[2] essay on Baudrillardist simulation is the role of the
writer as reader.

If Lacanist obscurity holds, the works of Gibson are not postmodern. In a
sense, Derrida uses the term ‘Baudrillardist simulation’ to denote not, in
fact, theory, but posttheory.

Sartre promotes the use of Debordist image to attack outdated perceptions of
sexual identity. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is
the role of the poet as reader.

The subject is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes
consciousness as a totality. However, Baudrillard’s critique of capitalist
desituationism states that class has significance.

Long[3] holds that we have to choose between Lacanist
obscurity and textual narrative. Thus, an abundance of constructions concerning
Debordist image may be found.
2. Expressions of absurdity

“Society is impossible,” says Debord. Foucault uses the term ‘Lacanist
obscurity’ to denote the genre of subcapitalist class. It could be said that in
Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino reiterates deconstructive feminism; in Four
Rooms, however, he examines Baudrillardist simulation.

“Narrativity is fundamentally unattainable,” says Debord; however, according
to Drucker[4] , it is not so much narrativity that is
fundamentally unattainable, but rather the dialectic, and eventually the
collapse, of narrativity. Many discourses concerning the role of the
participant as observer exist. Therefore, the premise of Baudrillardist
simulation suggests that truth is capable of significance, but only if Lacanist
obscurity is invalid; if that is not the case, Lacan’s model of Debordist image
is one of “structural feminism”, and hence part of the defining characteristic
of sexuality.

The primary theme of Tilton’s[5] analysis of the
neotextual paradigm of expression is the futility, and thus the stasis, of
semantic sexual identity. Derrida uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote
the bridge between art and sexual identity. It could be said that if Debordist
image holds, we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and
postconstructivist narrative.

“Consciousness is used in the service of hierarchy,” says Lacan. Marx uses
the term ‘capitalist appropriation’ to denote not theory as such, but
neotheory. Therefore, the premise of Debordist image holds that society,
somewhat ironically, has objective value.

The fatal flaw, and eventually the meaninglessness, of Baudrillardist
simulation which is a central theme of Spelling’s Beverly Hills 90210
emerges again in Robin’s Hoods, although in a more subconceptualist
sense. However, Reicher[6] suggests that we have to choose
between Lacanist obscurity and textual deconstruction.

If Baudrillardist simulation holds, the works of Gibson are empowering.
Thus, Sartre’s critique of Lacanist obscurity implies that consensus is created
by the collective unconscious, given that language is equal to sexuality.

The opening/closing distinction prevalent in Gibson’s Mona Lisa
Overdrive is also evident in Virtual Light. Therefore, the subject
is interpolated into a prematerial rationalism that includes reality as a
whole.

D’Erlette[7] suggests that the works of Gibson are
reminiscent of Glass. Thus, Baudrillardist simulation states that class has
significance.

If Debordist image holds, we have to choose between Baudrillardist
simulation and Debordist situation. However, Marx suggests the use of Lacanist
obscurity to challenge and analyse society.

In All Tomorrow’s Parties, Gibson reiterates Baudrillardist
simulation; in Neuromancer, although, he analyses Lacanist obscurity.
But Foucault promotes the use of Baudrillardist simulation to deconstruct class
divisions.
3. Debordist image and neoconstructive theory

In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of cultural
language. The main theme of the works of Gibson is a self-sufficient reality.
Thus, Baudrillard uses the term ‘neoconstructive theory’ to denote the rubicon
of postdialectic narrativity.

If one examines Debordist image, one is faced with a choice: either accept
the patriarchialist paradigm of expression or conclude that government is
capable of truth, but only if the premise of Debordist image is valid. Sontag
suggests the use of neoconstructive theory to modify class. In a sense, the
subject is contextualised into a Debordist image that includes language as a
paradox.

“Sexuality is part of the failure of truth,” says Bataille; however,
according to Humphrey[8] , it is not so much sexuality that
is part of the failure of truth, but rather the rubicon, and therefore the
stasis, of sexuality. McElwaine[9] suggests that the works
of Fellini are an example of mythopoetical objectivism. But Lyotard promotes
the use of Lacanist obscurity to attack sexism.

“Society is intrinsically responsible for the status quo,” says Marx.
Sontag’s analysis of postcapitalist textual theory implies that culture may be
used to reinforce hierarchy. Thus, if neoconstructive theory holds, we have to
choose between Lacanist obscurity and predialectic theory.

“Truth is part of the failure of narrativity,” says Baudrillard; however,
according to Drucker[10] , it is not so much truth that is
part of the failure of narrativity, but rather the fatal flaw, and some would
say the genre, of truth. The subject is interpolated into a Debordist image
that includes narrativity as a totality. But the characteristic theme of
Werther’s[11] critique of Lacanist obscurity is a
self-falsifying paradox.

Cultural materialism holds that the purpose of the poet is deconstruction.
Thus, several deconstructions concerning neoconstructive theory may be
discovered.

The premise of neomodernist narrative suggests that consensus must come from
communication. But Pickett[12] holds that we have to choose
between Lacanist obscurity and the capitalist paradigm of discourse.

The primary theme of the works of Gibson is the collapse, and thus the
dialectic, of postdialectic society. Therefore, the subject is contextualised
into a Debordist image that includes culture as a totality.

If capitalist neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between Debordist
image and the cultural paradigm of context. However, Derrida suggests the use
of neoconstructive theory to read and modify class.

Humphrey[13] implies that we have to choose between
Foucaultist power relations and subconstructive materialism. Thus, Bataille’s
analysis of Debordist image suggests that truth is a legal fiction, given that
reality is distinct from language.

Many theories concerning the difference between sexual identity and society
exist. Therefore, Baudrillard promotes the use of Lacanist obscurity to
deconstruct class divisions.

faulkner1
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:51 pm

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by faulkner1 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:05 pm

kinda makes snse

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7182
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:58 pm

Thank you :D

Dubious
Posts: 1889
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by Dubious » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:46 pm

I wonder what her grocery list would sound like and what new metaphysical definitions there could be for poop paper.

gaffo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by gaffo » Sun May 06, 2018 5:02 am

whats with the slam against Solipsism?

solipsism is self evident no?

tbieter
Posts: 1198
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by tbieter » Mon May 07, 2018 3:27 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:02 am
whats with the slam against Solipsism?

solipsism is self evident no?
Baloney

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/solipsism

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11305
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by Arising_uk » Tue May 08, 2018 12:40 pm

gaffo wrote: whats with the slam against Solipsism?

solipsism is self evident no?
If you mean by solipsism that you can only know that you exist and not others then no, as the language you are speaking and thinking in disproves this idea.

gaffo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by gaffo » Sat May 12, 2018 9:04 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 12:40 pm
gaffo wrote: whats with the slam against Solipsism?

solipsism is self evident no?
If you mean by solipsism that you can only know that you exist and not others then no, as the language you are speaking and thinking in disproves this idea.
yes that is what i mean.

how does the lauguage i speak and think in disprove this?

(you can't get out of this just with your simple reply "no not so"...........without talking to me (you (me) talking to myself as to why I'm wrong here).

I await your (my reply to myself - lol) reply as to how my speaking and thinking in English refutes Solipsism.

gaffo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by gaffo » Sat May 12, 2018 9:06 pm

tbieter wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 3:27 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 5:02 am
whats with the slam against Solipsism?

solipsism is self evident no?
Baloney

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/solipsism
"Baloney"........................howso?

to me it is self evident.

Logical thoughts end point.

logic can offer nothing more.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11305
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by Arising_uk » Sun May 13, 2018 12:46 am

gaffo wrote: yes that is what i mean.

how does the lauguage i speak and think in disprove this?

(you can't get out of this just with your simple reply "no not so"...........without talking to me (you (me) talking to myself as to why I'm wrong here).

I await your (my reply to myself - lol) reply as to how my speaking and thinking in English refutes Solipsism.
Because the language you are talking and thinking in could not be created by a solitary being not least because what use would it have for such a thing?

gaffo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by gaffo » Sun May 13, 2018 1:02 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 12:46 am
gaffo wrote: yes that is what i mean.

how does the lauguage i speak and think in disprove this?

(you can't get out of this just with your simple reply "no not so"...........without talking to me (you (me) talking to myself as to why I'm wrong here).

I await your (my reply to myself - lol) reply as to how my speaking and thinking in English refutes Solipsism.
Because the language you are talking and thinking in could not be created by a solitary being not least because what use would it have for such a thing?
as child a "thought" visually - granted i knew spoken english at that time, though could not read.

not sure why you assume the "all power" concept via Solipsism.

the subsoconscience mind still rules my conscience mind, as not having "control" of my thinking/emotions etc in no way negates the concept of Solipsism as valid.


per my "mind" all i know of English i learned in school. that is self evident no?

english may exist outside of me (i must take that concept upon faith) - but of my knowledge of english is solely via my "mind"( which may be all of english there is - logic goes as far as - not farther though).


I'm am taking to myself aren't I?

;-)

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11305
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by Arising_uk » Sun May 13, 2018 1:19 am

gaffo wrote:as child a "thought" visually - granted i knew spoken english at that time, though could not read. ...
I make a distinction between 'thoughting' and 'thinking', the latter is what we do when we use the internal voice the former is when we use all the other represenations the senses give us. So I think consciously or not that we all still use or can use visual thought or any and all of the other sense representations(although smell appears very difficult) if we wish to pay attention.
not sure why you assume the "all power" concept via Solipsism.
No idea what you mean?
the subsoconscience mind still rules my conscience mind, as not having "control" of my thinking/emotions etc in no way negates the concept of Solipsism as valid.
I think it a mistake to think that one cannot 'control' one's thinking.
per my "mind" all i know of English i learned in school. that is self evident no?
You couldn't talk before you went to school?
english may exist outside of me (i must take that concept upon faith) - but of my knowledge of english is solely via my "mind"( which may be all of english there is - logic goes as far as - not farther though).

I'm am taking to myself aren't I?

;-)
:) Not possible if you are talking to yourself in a language as you could not create such a thing on your own, so no solipsism.

gaffo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by gaffo » Sun May 13, 2018 1:42 am

thanks for discussion foghorn - always like the character, i hope your avatar was chosen to reflect your character (mine was Crusader Rabbit - in that "other forum" for 9 yrs - done away a few months ago and now i find myself here without my avatar to reflect my personality.

------------- if not asking too much, would welcome a pointer on this forum for placing avatars so i can re-instate my Crusader Rabbit one - i'm too drunk (and so now under the influance too lazy though happy to make the effort to do so..............but when i sobber up will make the effort if you are willing to aid me here).



Arising_uk wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 1:19 am
gaffo wrote:as child a "thought" visually - granted i knew spoken english at that time, though could not read. ...
I make a distinction between 'thoughting' and 'thinking', the latter is what we do when we use the internal voice the former is when we use all the other represenations the senses give us. So I think consciously or not that we all still use or can use visual thought or any and all of the other sense representations(although smell appears very difficult) if we wish to pay attention.


good point.


I stand corrected and concur in this particular.


Arising_uk wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 1:19 am
No idea what you mean?
what i mean is via the Solipsist doubters make the old agrument "well if you are God" then you'd have full control (i.e. be God) - know yourself, control events, etc................

not need for the "fiction" of frailty.


Frailty is not fiction, and never said i had all the answers - including my own powerlessness.

logic remains.

Solipsism is the only and end result of logic.


why i lack "all power" - no idea.

if i were a man of faith, i'd transfer it all to God.

but i'm an Athiest and have no faith - only logic. so via the latter i must be a limited God and Solipism is the final coldisake(sp) in this realm (if there is another GREAT - i make no assumption - which again requres faith).


Arising_uk wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 1:19 am
think it a mistake to think that one cannot 'control' one's thinking.
with respect fully dissagree.

freewill is over rated, wrong, erronious(sp).

Hubris.
Last edited by gaffo on Sun May 13, 2018 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

gaffo
Posts: 1167
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by gaffo » Sun May 13, 2018 1:49 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sun May 13, 2018 1:19 am

:) Not possible if you are talking to yourself in a language as you could not create such a thing on your own, so no solipsism.
don't follow - being a limited God - this particular.

clueless about, but value learning/talking with myself to become a Greater God.

if willing ;-/

i'm talking to myself again aren't i?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11305
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: bullshit philosophy at its finest.

Post by Arising_uk » Mon May 14, 2018 12:54 am

gaffo wrote:don't follow - being a limited God - this particular.

clueless about, but value learning/talking with myself to become a Greater God.

if willing ;-/
God or not if you are a solitary being you won't be inventing the kind of language we are using as for starters you couldn't talk to yourself in the first place.
i'm talking to myself again aren't i?
No you really aren't, in fact what you've just said implicitly implies that there are others as you'd not be knocking-up a word 'myself' if there was only you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests