ITT: Charlatans

this.

It's spectacular really. We have all these low IQ retards flooded into the universities who then adapt the obscurantist language of the postmoderns to hide their intellectual vacuity. Those people pretending that the emperor has clothes are then used as revolutionary cadres to dismantle western civilization. It really is clown world.

Attached: lacanlol.png (771x305, 107K)

Attached: hegel.jpg (680x402, 59K)

>using mathematical symbols in philosophy
makes me want to throw up (I love math btw)

Jacques Lacan? More like Jacques Caca!

Lacan didn't even understand what the symbols he used meant, when this was pointed out by mathematicians his followers declared this to be another stroke of genius..for whatever reason. There's no talking to these people. This madman is now considered one of the most important 'philosophers' within the university bubble.

Attached: lacanlol2.jpg (669x144, 23K)

>pic related
The fuck

Attached: EFD274E6-427B-431F-9D0D-256D6C330AFE.jpg (550x421, 16K)

based

>one of the most important 'philosophers' within the university bubble
I have an M.A. in philosophy.
No, he's not. Outside of a few remaining circles, postmodernity as a whole is pretty much dead.
Considering literary studies, they are still pretty big, but Lacan isn't mentioned often there, too. Guys like Deleuze, Derrida and Kristeva (along with Barthes, Benjamin and Foucault who aren't exactly postmodernist) are much bigger.

Pinker
too obvious?

∀ and ∃ are logical symbols. They are used in philosophy, too, since logic is still a philosophical field of work. Lacan abused them, nevertheless.

JBP
self-help snake oil salesman, hasn't made any contribution to academia for decades. has never made any serious contributions to academia ever.

>people I don't like the idea of are charlatans blah blah blah dull thread

Its actually quite difficult to think of many public anglophone humanities intellectuals (that is english speakers who's primary business is as an academic peterson;s primary business is not within academic institutions (patreon, yootube, self-help book sales etc )If you discount historians its embarrassingly low.

There's an unhealthy attitude towards "experts" that was made explicitly clear during the political campaigns of Trump and Brexit.
English speakers are wilful plebs

>This madman is now considered one of the most important 'philosophers' within the university bubble
depends where.

public intellectuals very often oversimplify and as a consequence deform views they present, so i would not count them as an indicator of the state of the academia.
as for quite well-known and very professional people i can name Simon Blackburn.

>This madman is now considered one of the most important 'philosophers' within the university bubble.

not true. Zizek had alot to do with the popularity of lacan in, for want of a better term, "pop academic" culture. But in reality it would be very difficult to study lacan in any depth in many western academic institutions.
If you wanted to study Lacan, beyond a brief mention in an "introduction to continental philosophy" type course lasting 1 undergraduate semester in the uk, the only institutions I can think of that might accommodate that (unwillingly) is essex university and maybe the university of warwick.

I'm sceptical about many other european countries being that enthralled with lacan .
The only places I've heard about being accepting of lacan within an academic environment is in Argentina and maybe mexico.

Just because zizek can fill a hall during one of his lectures doesn't mean lacan is popular.

I went to a bruce fink lecture (who is a fantastic lecturer/writer on lacan) when i was in uni (7 years ago). 15 people turned up. 3 of them were professors who organised his lecture. they had booked a 100 seat theatre. The lecture was well publicised and zizek was very much in vogue.

maybe in the future western universities will become infested with lacanians due to the popularity of zizek.....but its not happened yet

>Simon Blackburn
had to google that, lol

Deleuze
Baudrillard
Derrida
Foucault
Whitehead
Bergson
Spinoza
Marx
Adorno
Benjamin

"The case of Freud himself, founder of ‘psychoanalysis’, is quite typical in this respect, for he never ceased to declare himself a materialist. One further remark: why is it that the principal representatives of the new tendencies, like Einstein in physics, Bergson in philosophy, Freud in psychology, and many others of less importance, are almost all of Jewish origin, unless it be because there is something involved that is closely hound up with the ‘malefic’ and dissolving aspect of nomadism when it is deviated, and because that aspect must inevitably predominate in Jews detached from their tradition?"

This guy is pretty much the secular equivalent of an archbishop for post-war German leftism.

Attached: habermass.jpg (980x713, 34K)

I see what you did there

What a fucking retard, hahaha.
I knew there was something mentally wrong with him after I saw some Youtube lectures where he's gesticulating like a mentally disturbed man. This settles it. Lacan is a special sort of retard too. I think the slightly later French Postmodernists knew that they were pseuds, and Foucault even said something to this effect. But Lacan, was a low IQ mentally ill man genuinely believing he was insightful and valuable.

>This guy is pretty much the secular equivalent of an archbishop for post-war German leftism.
Bullshit

Mario Draghi quoted him in one of his recent speeches I believe.

I wish he was

It's not so much that he is referenced but he was a pioneer in replacing reason and logic at the heart of philosophy with a sort of dadaism. The pretension, the pseudoscientific jargon and constant obfuscation was there from the beginning. I can't even bring myself to read Žižek for cultural relevance just because he considers the guy a serious thinker.

>Later Lacan scandalised everyone during a lecture at the Massachusetts Instititute of Technology by the way he answered a question about thought put to him by Noam Chomsky. 'We think we think with our brains,' said Lacan. 'But personally I think with my feet. That's the only way I really come into contact with anything solid. I do occasionally think with my forehead, when I bang into something. But I've seen enough electroencephalograms to know there's not the slightest trace of a thought in the brain.' When he heard this, Chomsky concluded that the lecturer must be a madman

t. Liberal

deleuze and that other guy with the bob dylan '66 haircut

the chaos is calling obviously

I agree with Zizek, Peterson, and Jung. Don't know who Christopher Ryan is and Freud I think at least took what he was doing more seriously.

Based chad lacan flustering the virgin chumpsky

I would remove Jung and replace him with Lacan. Freud went a bit too far with his case studies and other ideas, but I think he meant it, it's just that he got caught up in his own theory.
Zizek also has some philosophical merit, he's just enjoying his celebrity too much and trying to be relevant. But charlatan may be too strong of an accusation.

>itt: people who politically offend me

the biggest charlatan of them all is (You), Yea Forums.
(You) are the charlatan

>Brainlets aren't even willing to try and understand their subjectivity, who dismiss enquiry into one of the most complex phenomena we can say anything about as obscurantism, because they want to hide from their feelings and thoughts, and by default perpetuate their own and the social status quo.

Who is really the charlatan? The charlatan of the charlatan who calls him one without trying to figure out of he is one?

You fucking idiot. Of course he knew what they meant- he gave them his own meaning! They're just symbols. The fact that you think squiggles have to be interpreted in only one way conveys perfectly your brainletism.

Indeed. Chomsky thinks with his arse and his belly. Although most jews think with their genes to a certain degree. Its to everyone's benefit.

Attached: images (47).jpg (500x390, 18K)

Attached: hack.jpg (574x436, 35K)

>>people I don't like the idea of are charlatans blah blah blah dull thread

what? It goes beyond a mere metaphysical discussion. Lacan was dealing with clinical work.Yet there's very little evidence to support his "findings", he pretty much created a new philosophical branch for Psychoanalysis and decided that we can use that to treat people and deal with mental health. That is absurdly dangerous tho, we're dealing with human lives.

someone post the Burroughs professor BTFOing user pasta please

I've never seen a Deleuze post that doersn't come off like schizophrenic rambling. It's piqued my interest, but I have trouble believing that there's any legitimate thought in his work.

>h-he must be a charlatan if i can't understand him!

But user, if he hides the structure of his argument, then nobody can call him a hypocrite.

hard no on Foucault, the man was an analytical genius.

He was a crypto-normative pawn.

Bernard Henry Lévy
Raphael Enthoven
Edgar Morin
Michel Onfray
Michel Serres
Alain de Benoist

based

Special French Edition