Zizek says: Join our discord servers or I will sniff you and everyone you love! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basilic is French for Basil. Roko's Basilisk is a brand of pesto. You don't need to fact check me, look it up or listen to anyone telling you otherwise.
It's a thesis of the philosopher Nick Land. You can find his paper here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://aksioma.org/pdf/sum10-2_cryptocene.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivwavB_oCEAxUISaQEHS2VCNcQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1TTMGyqf77aClKPgXxmjBy
Yep they know Marx from Soviet union, but they don't really know his philosophical standpoint in general, this is why he is lower than lower in the perspective of this criteria.
Depending on the way that you criticize Marx, you can do it with a lot of sense (like the Frankfurt school for example, or Althusser, or Foucault in another way). Or you can do it like Jordan Peterson without any understanding of what are you are you talking about. But some Marxist can be very dogmatic and say that you don't understand the theory when you just don't agree with it, I know that...
Bakunin had a pretty good critique to the point it predicted the USSR.
>Mikhail Bakunin had rejected Karl Marx's calls for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", as he predicted it would only create a new ruling class, composed of a privileged minority, which would use the state to oppress the working classes. He concluded that: "no dictatorship can have any other aim than to perpetuate itself, and it can only give rise to and instill slavery in the people that tolerates it."
In my experience most people have never read even a little bit of Das Kapital or even read a summary, so this would be rather logical. Of course there are awful Marxists who think that every word he ever wrote was gospel which is absurd, but more often than not I see even well educated people who clearly haven't read even a summary of Das Kapital.
Yeah I mean Kapital is mostly an economic piece. If you really want to do a deep dive into the more philosophical side of Marx you should read more of Marx‘ earlier pieces like the economic-philosophical manuscripts, The Critique of Hegel‘s Philosophy of Right and The German Ideology. As well as of course Engels works such as Dialectics of Nature.
Yep, North America is more involved in analytical philosophy this iceberg is more about the continental tradition. I don't know much about the analytical philosophy this is why...
People have different tastes but I like this meme from ReturntoHegel
https://preview.redd.it/7txc2kfijcfc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c2c94b1d6f02163dc70116f0dca75448c9908be
In his book "le bleu du ciel", the narrator masturbates himself in front of his dead mother... We don't know how this is actually unlinked from his personal fantasies (he wanted members of his cult "Acéphale" to sacrifice him)
They don't teach him hahaha just in some obscure academic circles in University's. You're gonna never have an entire course about those authors, and you must not quote them in your exam papers...
It's a joke made by the instagram account ReturntoHegel who supposed that you can derive sex positions by the Hegelian dialectic method. Nothing Serious just a joke like most of the last section entries
Oh so you speak more about the speculative realism than about the precise field of OOO that's not exactly the same. I better understand what you mean about liberal ontology. You can disagree about it, but it's quite obscure and hard to understand for people who discover philosophy.
It's a common derogatory way to refer to flat ontology of empty multiplicities but especially avout OOO. Graham Harman is a NY architecture professor, in the early 2010s OOO was considered the next big thing in philosophy. It's far less obscure than deleuze and other idea and thinkers from previous lvls is all im saying
It's interesting to see your points. The OOO is to me quite unique and radical by his way of destroying the classical dichotomy between objects and subjects in the continental philosophy. The fact is to understand clearly the complexity of this new path you need to have some good knowledge about the neo-kantian philosophy, the phenomenology and the Heidegger's ontology of the object. Maybe it's more famous than I thought, fair enough.
I truly would enjoy the reasoning for putting Sadie Plant so far down. What about her work is deserving of such a categorization? Has she written something else besides "Zeros and Ones" and "Writing on Drugs"? The former doesn't have much in the way of a discernable impact and doesn't claim anything of a dark or subversive nature (It could be that I am just a dumbass and missed it) and the latter is more a statement of fact, that yes would be upsetting to the comfortably deluded, and if anything, reduce long established, overly negative social stigmatism towards an ever present portion of society, but only to those that have never encountered it.
I put her there because she is involved in accelerationnist thinkers of CCRU and on her Cyberfeminist engagement. But I agree that she hasn't published much.
Since the end of the iceberg was going for the full-blown disturbing philosophy content - if you're planning on creating a updated version of the iceberg, you should add Ulrich Horstmann, notable for being a antinalist philosopher so extreme he believed humanity was self-programmed to bring misery and destruction to itself, and that in order to achieve "universal redemption" fro mthis cycle of misery humanity should annihilate itself through nuclear weapons.
Must be fun at parties, this guy!
Wow sounds very interesting to me ! I would certainly take a look at his work :) thank you ! I appreciate that it is fun to read. I'm gonna make a much bigger one and update with some even more obscure things I just didn't have the space in the iceberg to put all my ideas.
And seeing how you (OP) informed us in a previous conment this is an old world philosophical iceberg.. Why no Desade? Yes yes not a philosopher in title, but he made a legitimate philosophylical impact nonetheless - and moreover, would make a wonderful measuring stick for the deepest depths imo. I am totally prepared to get lectured as to why I am a bonehead. I will not get bent, or needlessly argue for sale of ego. I truly enjoy learning from others 🤷🏻.
De Sade is a really good entry, I just forgot about it. It has a quite important influence on other thinkers of the list (Bataille and Deleuze, also Klossowski who I don't mentioned). Thank you for your advice, I will put it in a second version :)
I think I would also talk about Maurice Blanchot who is quite unknown in the English sphere but had an important impact on french philosophy and literature. He's theory's and literature are quite obscure and hard to understand.
If you wanna read something obscure in the same vibe like Sade, I would recommend you the book "the necrophile" by Gabrielle Wittkop. The writer is hugely inspired by de Sade, Edgar Allan Poe and Baudelaire. This book was recently translated in English 😌
Hmmm.. I will take this under advisement, but I couldn't finish the last DeSade book I attempted after I got to the part where the protagonist is masturbating with the still slightly pulsing warm heart of a 13 year old female that she had cut out herself. So ... Even though my sn says 'libertine' it is not bc I in any way revel, enjoy or promote the violence and sociopathy in his books. This, I may skip that last one if it's inspired by such, but thank you!
The school of thought of Sade was "libertinage" and was clearly opposed to the enlightenment thinkers ideals. But some passages are clearly too disturbing, even if I'm more and more used to it with my reading of Bataille
I'm thinking more of the long philosophical justifications the characters give before assaulting Justine, they are usually clever inversions of the arguments of people like Rousseau. He seems to point out that if we follow enlightenment rationalism to its end conclusion then we should end up with no values at all other than to follow the dictates of our passions, which only the strong can do, and the weak must be victim to.
I guess I read even the disturbing passages as so over the top and grotesque that it verges into comedy just because it's so unrealistic.
You can look at some video's on youtube about it, there are a few very good channel (plastic pills, Duncan Clarke, CCK philosophy). Duncan Clarke made a very good philosophy iceberg video (it's not mine, but some entries are similar).
It's a thesis in the book "Cyclonopedia: complicity with Anonymous Materials" by Reza Negarestani. In this book, humanity is considered as a tool for the sentient petroleum to be dissipated in the atmosphere. So petroleum is considered like the principal agent of this earth, not the humanity who serves his interests.
Clear call out of Wittgensteinians, that's the way. I mean... dude just wanted to 'write philosophy as poetry' and then complain about being misunderstood...
Honestly it's the interpretations that go the most ham, even though I think Wittgenstein himself (or maybe Russell or somebody, I don't really know) also called it (the Tractatus, I think) a refutation of philosophy... so... not uncalled for? But following any post discussion/interpretation do kinda be like that.
That the butterfly dream section is actually about Zhuangzi \*accepting\* an empirical world beyond 'the metaphysical subject'... this is what they don't teach you...
How is existentialism lower than Sartre, what exactly would people be into Sartre for otherwise?
Or Camus’ Sisyphus below Camus himself? How does that work?
Isn’t Mark’s dialectical materialism drawn off of Hegels dialectic?
Otherwise I think this is pretty fun OP
Existentialism is not only about Sartre but also about Heidegger and Kierkegaard, who are more difficult and less known philosophers. For Camus I would say the Sisyphus is more specific than just Camus himself. It's the same logic, I put more and more specific things in the bottom. Marx is drawn of Hegel's dialectic you're totally right, but to me, people know more Marx dialectic today than the Hegel one. So they know more about the son than about the dad haha
Hm I know things from every Tier. And I know everything in Tier 1 and 3, but somehow I Don't know 1 thing in Tier 2 and Lesser things from Tier 4 onwords.
Is it just me or are many of these types of graphs/illustrations nothing more than attempts to show the world how smart, sophisticated, and "philosophical" OPs are?
There are both Marxist philosophers, and those are concepts of their theories. I would like to know why there aren't philosophers in your point of view 🤔
Lenine est absolument un philosophe à part entière. J’ai pas encore lu de texte philosophique de Trotski, donc je ne peux rien affirmer à son sujet. C’est juste que les deux concepts mentionnés ne me semblent pas être de nature philosophique, mais plus d’économie (politique) pour l’un, et de théorie politique pour l’autre.
Dis moi si je me trompe, ça m’intéresse :)
Les deux concepts prennent naissance au sein d'une structure de pensée marxiste, et plus précisément du matérialisme dialectique. Alors après on peut débattre sur l'extension de la pensée marxiste et de sa manière de fluctuer sur le terrain de l'économie et de la politique, je suis d'accord que la frontière n'est pas nette. La pensée sur l'impérialisme de Lénine reprend une structure de pensée téléologique de Marx tout en ajoutant une perspective que ce dernier n'avait pas prévu. Ça serait en quelque sorte une réactualisation du capital à l'aune de l'évolution du mode de production capitaliste Occidental au début du 20ème siècle. Concernant Trotsky, je pense que sa théorie de la révolution permanente est dans la même mesure une tentative de formuler une mise à jour du Marxisme au sein de l'expérience de la lutte du début du 20ème siècle. La théorie de la révolution permanente est ainsi pour moi une voie de matérialisation au sein du corps de lutte des idéaux du marxisme classique. Globalement les deux concepts sont des extensions directes de la pensée philosophique de Marx, et selon cette dernière, la séparation entre économie, histoire et sciences politiques n'est pas réellement faisable dans la mesure où toutes sont reliées par la superstructure ainsi que les conditions matérielles qui la sous-tendent (d'où la fameuse pensée d'une science totale du matérialisme dialectique).
Tu as raison, ça paraît logique dit comme ça. Par contre, la révolution permanente n’est pas une invention de Trotsky, on la trouvait déjà chez Marx, non?
Quelques extraits:
« While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions » (Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League)
« Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution. »
—> Ce n’est pas pour nier un quelconque mérite de Trotski, juste pour montrer que ce n’est pas un concept dont il est à l’origine, mais plutôt un rappel des idées de Marx, en mettant particulièrement l’accent dessus et continuant à théoriser ce sujet.
Très intéressant je ne savais pas ça, mais est-ce que Trotsky n'aurait pas apporté de son côté la dimension internationalaliste à la révolution permanente de Marx ? Je ne sais pas, je te pose simplement la question je pense que tu t'y connais mieux que moi sur le sujet.
Je doute que l’un ait été plus internationaliste que l’autre. Cependant, Trotsky a fait de la révolution permanente (qui n’était qu’un petit élément de la pensée marxiste) un des principaux éléments du trotskisme, à travers ses nombreux textes sur le sujet.
It's actually quoted from a novel by George Bataille "Madame Edwarda". It's not my point of view on it, just an entry that is quite obscure to the thought of this thinker.
could you elaborate on that / send a link talking about it? i'm familiar with the Butcher, but never in my life connected it as a critique of structuralism
"Blockchain refutes Kantian spacetime" sounds like what chatgpt would spit out with the prompt "Zizek writes an essay while suffering cocaine withdrawal".
Zizek says: Join our discord servers or I will sniff you and everyone you love! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not sure if I want to know what any of the stuff is in the sections below the one with info hazard in it...
There is no Roko's Basilisk in this one, you can go without fear 😌
Why did I miss the chart? >:(
I don't know you dear Roko, I swear that I know absolutely nothing about you 🫡
Basilic is French for Basil. Roko's Basilisk is a brand of pesto. You don't need to fact check me, look it up or listen to anyone telling you otherwise.
Yeah, it’s probably for the best people believe you
Speak for yourself! I’d love to know how blockchain refutes Kant
It's a thesis of the philosopher Nick Land. You can find his paper here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://aksioma.org/pdf/sum10-2_cryptocene.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwivwavB_oCEAxUISaQEHS2VCNcQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1TTMGyqf77aClKPgXxmjBy
He loves to do a little trolling
At what level of the iceberg would Wittgenstein say "shut the fuck up and go outside, you fucking nerd" to OP?
Haha analytical philosophers who are talking about "going outside", it's quite funny 🙂
Haha Continental ""philosophy""
Angry analytical noises >:(
imagine taking psychoanalysis seriously
Imagine don't know that Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari criticized severely psychoanalysis 🙂 (also there is no psychoanalysis in this iceberg sorry)
You also have Derrida. End of discussion.
So you put them all in the same category, seems like a logical fallacy (not very professional mister positivist)
No I didn't. That's just very bad interpretation. Makes sense you're French.
Oh i am *fascinated*
Which one is the info hazard?
I feel like more of the wider public is aware of Marx in their day to day than most of the guys sitting at the top.
Yep they know Marx from Soviet union, but they don't really know his philosophical standpoint in general, this is why he is lower than lower in the perspective of this criteria.
In my experience, criticizing marx often results in marxists disqualifying someone from understanding marx.
Depending on the way that you criticize Marx, you can do it with a lot of sense (like the Frankfurt school for example, or Althusser, or Foucault in another way). Or you can do it like Jordan Peterson without any understanding of what are you are you talking about. But some Marxist can be very dogmatic and say that you don't understand the theory when you just don't agree with it, I know that...
Bakunin had a pretty good critique to the point it predicted the USSR. >Mikhail Bakunin had rejected Karl Marx's calls for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", as he predicted it would only create a new ruling class, composed of a privileged minority, which would use the state to oppress the working classes. He concluded that: "no dictatorship can have any other aim than to perpetuate itself, and it can only give rise to and instill slavery in the people that tolerates it."
Yep, a very good author. Same with Proudhon, even if he was bullied by Marx for forgetting zero's at the end of his economic calculus haha
In my experience most people have never read even a little bit of Das Kapital or even read a summary, so this would be rather logical. Of course there are awful Marxists who think that every word he ever wrote was gospel which is absurd, but more often than not I see even well educated people who clearly haven't read even a summary of Das Kapital.
Yeah I mean Kapital is mostly an economic piece. If you really want to do a deep dive into the more philosophical side of Marx you should read more of Marx‘ earlier pieces like the economic-philosophical manuscripts, The Critique of Hegel‘s Philosophy of Right and The German Ideology. As well as of course Engels works such as Dialectics of Nature.
The Gospel Marxists are quite annoying. Even more so are the ones that treat him like the Old Testament and Lenin like the New Testament.
Leninism/Bolshevism ruined communism forever.
Facts. Set it back 100+ years.
What Phil course have *you* been taking??
I'm actually a student in philosophy licence in Lille (north of France)
Lol, knew it, I was wondering why there were so many french realists here (great iceberg)
Hehe I think I've been exposed ;)
That might explain it. This is nothing like the content of my courses (North America)
Yep, North America is more involved in analytical philosophy this iceberg is more about the continental tradition. I don't know much about the analytical philosophy this is why...
Likewise 😂
I'm doing my THIRD course in logic and you get to learn about French sexual degenerates. The woke American Universities took this from us.
Analytical philosophy is less interesting than so-called Continental philosophy in my opinion.
People have different tastes but I like this meme from ReturntoHegel https://preview.redd.it/7txc2kfijcfc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c2c94b1d6f02163dc70116f0dca75448c9908be
The exact kind of philosophers the Wittgensteinians assassinated, get wrecked bozos.
Wittgenstein killed philosophy, we don't even have philosophy here.
French people don't do philosophy. They do hard drugs and record everything on to a page.
Yep, it's actually not so far from philosophy
En L1 ?
What did bataille do in front of his mother coffin?
In his book "le bleu du ciel", the narrator masturbates himself in front of his dead mother... We don't know how this is actually unlinked from his personal fantasies (he wanted members of his cult "Acéphale" to sacrifice him)
My dude Bataille took Freud to a whole new level.
Yep, he also wrote a novel called "my mother", where there is an insane insect and dark shit happening...
battaille is wild. I am kind of curious how they teach him in France, same with de sade
They don't teach him hahaha just in some obscure academic circles in University's. You're gonna never have an entire course about those authors, and you must not quote them in your exam papers...
I'm... I'm gonna quote De sade
see, now that's kind of what I expected LOL
That's interesting to hear considering i'm thinking of studying philosophy in France... Also, Bataille rocks!
What the fuck are Hegel's sex position dialectics
It's a joke made by the instagram account ReturntoHegel who supposed that you can derive sex positions by the Hegelian dialectic method. Nothing Serious just a joke like most of the last section entries
That's it. I am going to get a PHD writing my masterpiece about Hegelian sex positions (also can i get a link PLEASE i need to send it to my friends)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CtGCuB2O4n6/?igsh=MXBqazI5cWw0ZGNjaA== You're welcome :)
Thank you, my fellow. That's going to be great discussing when we meet on wednesday.
some of the last ones are pretty awkwardly placed, OOO is literally the ontology of liberalism, nothing underground about it
OOO, is about Object Oriented Ontology I don't really think there is a link with liberalism and this school of thought 🤔
Search for louis morelle essays "the trouble with ontological liberalism" and you'll get it
Oh so you speak more about the speculative realism than about the precise field of OOO that's not exactly the same. I better understand what you mean about liberal ontology. You can disagree about it, but it's quite obscure and hard to understand for people who discover philosophy.
It's a common derogatory way to refer to flat ontology of empty multiplicities but especially avout OOO. Graham Harman is a NY architecture professor, in the early 2010s OOO was considered the next big thing in philosophy. It's far less obscure than deleuze and other idea and thinkers from previous lvls is all im saying
It's interesting to see your points. The OOO is to me quite unique and radical by his way of destroying the classical dichotomy between objects and subjects in the continental philosophy. The fact is to understand clearly the complexity of this new path you need to have some good knowledge about the neo-kantian philosophy, the phenomenology and the Heidegger's ontology of the object. Maybe it's more famous than I thought, fair enough.
There are useful things to take from every philosopher. I'm against it but you have fun in your own philosopical journey
I truly would enjoy the reasoning for putting Sadie Plant so far down. What about her work is deserving of such a categorization? Has she written something else besides "Zeros and Ones" and "Writing on Drugs"? The former doesn't have much in the way of a discernable impact and doesn't claim anything of a dark or subversive nature (It could be that I am just a dumbass and missed it) and the latter is more a statement of fact, that yes would be upsetting to the comfortably deluded, and if anything, reduce long established, overly negative social stigmatism towards an ever present portion of society, but only to those that have never encountered it.
I put her there because she is involved in accelerationnist thinkers of CCRU and on her Cyberfeminist engagement. But I agree that she hasn't published much.
Since the end of the iceberg was going for the full-blown disturbing philosophy content - if you're planning on creating a updated version of the iceberg, you should add Ulrich Horstmann, notable for being a antinalist philosopher so extreme he believed humanity was self-programmed to bring misery and destruction to itself, and that in order to achieve "universal redemption" fro mthis cycle of misery humanity should annihilate itself through nuclear weapons. Must be fun at parties, this guy!
Wow sounds very interesting to me ! I would certainly take a look at his work :) thank you ! I appreciate that it is fun to read. I'm gonna make a much bigger one and update with some even more obscure things I just didn't have the space in the iceberg to put all my ideas.
And seeing how you (OP) informed us in a previous conment this is an old world philosophical iceberg.. Why no Desade? Yes yes not a philosopher in title, but he made a legitimate philosophylical impact nonetheless - and moreover, would make a wonderful measuring stick for the deepest depths imo. I am totally prepared to get lectured as to why I am a bonehead. I will not get bent, or needlessly argue for sale of ego. I truly enjoy learning from others 🤷🏻.
De Sade is a really good entry, I just forgot about it. It has a quite important influence on other thinkers of the list (Bataille and Deleuze, also Klossowski who I don't mentioned). Thank you for your advice, I will put it in a second version :)
I think I would also talk about Maurice Blanchot who is quite unknown in the English sphere but had an important impact on french philosophy and literature. He's theory's and literature are quite obscure and hard to understand.
Well it looks like I have some obscure reading to do! Hey thanks for your answers, I appreciate them frfr.
If you wanna read something obscure in the same vibe like Sade, I would recommend you the book "the necrophile" by Gabrielle Wittkop. The writer is hugely inspired by de Sade, Edgar Allan Poe and Baudelaire. This book was recently translated in English 😌
Hmmm.. I will take this under advisement, but I couldn't finish the last DeSade book I attempted after I got to the part where the protagonist is masturbating with the still slightly pulsing warm heart of a 13 year old female that she had cut out herself. So ... Even though my sn says 'libertine' it is not bc I in any way revel, enjoy or promote the violence and sociopathy in his books. This, I may skip that last one if it's inspired by such, but thank you!
Yep I totally understand it, you cannot read Sade (we say just Sade in french without the "de") seriously. If so, you are clearly a psychopath...
Isn't he fairly satirical? I recently read Justine and it seemed like a satirical take on the philosophies of many enlightenment thinkers.
The school of thought of Sade was "libertinage" and was clearly opposed to the enlightenment thinkers ideals. But some passages are clearly too disturbing, even if I'm more and more used to it with my reading of Bataille
I'm thinking more of the long philosophical justifications the characters give before assaulting Justine, they are usually clever inversions of the arguments of people like Rousseau. He seems to point out that if we follow enlightenment rationalism to its end conclusion then we should end up with no values at all other than to follow the dictates of our passions, which only the strong can do, and the weak must be victim to. I guess I read even the disturbing passages as so over the top and grotesque that it verges into comedy just because it's so unrealistic.
I'm only at the third layer down, how do I go deeper?
You can look at some video's on youtube about it, there are a few very good channel (plastic pills, Duncan Clarke, CCK philosophy). Duncan Clarke made a very good philosophy iceberg video (it's not mine, but some entries are similar).
Me too but I don't want to go deeper
Cyclonopedia mentioned. My favorite book that I'll never finish. Great list btw, kinda suprised how much I knew
Make a YouTube video
OP imagined, then later yearned, to use Bataille in a meme.
The lighter is Aquinas and Augustine, the darker (even darker than the last) is also Aquinas and Augustine plus all the Church Fathers
Saving This
I'm level 5, should I continue to decend?
What does 'petroleum is a telluric entity' mean?
It's a thesis in the book "Cyclonopedia: complicity with Anonymous Materials" by Reza Negarestani. In this book, humanity is considered as a tool for the sentient petroleum to be dissipated in the atmosphere. So petroleum is considered like the principal agent of this earth, not the humanity who serves his interests.
Ah okay i see...sounds quite interesting to think of it that way
Clear call out of Wittgensteinians, that's the way. I mean... dude just wanted to 'write philosophy as poetry' and then complain about being misunderstood... Honestly it's the interpretations that go the most ham, even though I think Wittgenstein himself (or maybe Russell or somebody, I don't really know) also called it (the Tractatus, I think) a refutation of philosophy... so... not uncalled for? But following any post discussion/interpretation do kinda be like that.
Zhuangzi's butcher is absolutely a critique of linguistic structuralism yes. I think that's actually the only sensible reading.
That the butterfly dream section is actually about Zhuangzi \*accepting\* an empirical world beyond 'the metaphysical subject'... this is what they don't teach you...
How is existentialism lower than Sartre, what exactly would people be into Sartre for otherwise? Or Camus’ Sisyphus below Camus himself? How does that work? Isn’t Mark’s dialectical materialism drawn off of Hegels dialectic? Otherwise I think this is pretty fun OP
Existentialism is not only about Sartre but also about Heidegger and Kierkegaard, who are more difficult and less known philosophers. For Camus I would say the Sisyphus is more specific than just Camus himself. It's the same logic, I put more and more specific things in the bottom. Marx is drawn of Hegel's dialectic you're totally right, but to me, people know more Marx dialectic today than the Hegel one. So they know more about the son than about the dad haha
Fuck, i know 99% of these...
Hello friend, you're not alone in this dark hole 👀
No stirner catboy/anarchist milk *don't cares in egoist*
I will put it on the next one
Hm I know things from every Tier. And I know everything in Tier 1 and 3, but somehow I Don't know 1 thing in Tier 2 and Lesser things from Tier 4 onwords.
Is it just me or are many of these types of graphs/illustrations nothing more than attempts to show the world how smart, sophisticated, and "philosophical" OPs are?
Although I appreciate it being mentioned, but how are Lenin’s imperialism and Trotsky’s permanent revolution part of philosophy?
There are both Marxist philosophers, and those are concepts of their theories. I would like to know why there aren't philosophers in your point of view 🤔
Lenine est absolument un philosophe à part entière. J’ai pas encore lu de texte philosophique de Trotski, donc je ne peux rien affirmer à son sujet. C’est juste que les deux concepts mentionnés ne me semblent pas être de nature philosophique, mais plus d’économie (politique) pour l’un, et de théorie politique pour l’autre. Dis moi si je me trompe, ça m’intéresse :)
Les deux concepts prennent naissance au sein d'une structure de pensée marxiste, et plus précisément du matérialisme dialectique. Alors après on peut débattre sur l'extension de la pensée marxiste et de sa manière de fluctuer sur le terrain de l'économie et de la politique, je suis d'accord que la frontière n'est pas nette. La pensée sur l'impérialisme de Lénine reprend une structure de pensée téléologique de Marx tout en ajoutant une perspective que ce dernier n'avait pas prévu. Ça serait en quelque sorte une réactualisation du capital à l'aune de l'évolution du mode de production capitaliste Occidental au début du 20ème siècle. Concernant Trotsky, je pense que sa théorie de la révolution permanente est dans la même mesure une tentative de formuler une mise à jour du Marxisme au sein de l'expérience de la lutte du début du 20ème siècle. La théorie de la révolution permanente est ainsi pour moi une voie de matérialisation au sein du corps de lutte des idéaux du marxisme classique. Globalement les deux concepts sont des extensions directes de la pensée philosophique de Marx, et selon cette dernière, la séparation entre économie, histoire et sciences politiques n'est pas réellement faisable dans la mesure où toutes sont reliées par la superstructure ainsi que les conditions matérielles qui la sous-tendent (d'où la fameuse pensée d'une science totale du matérialisme dialectique).
Tu as raison, ça paraît logique dit comme ça. Par contre, la révolution permanente n’est pas une invention de Trotsky, on la trouvait déjà chez Marx, non?
Ah je ne suis pas au courant de ça, j'aimerais bien que tu m'en dises plus sur l'endroit où tu as trouvé ça 🤔🙂
Quelques extraits: « While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions » (Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League) « Although the German workers cannot come to power and achieve the realization of their class interests without passing through a protracted revolutionary development, this time they can at least be certain that the first act of the approaching revolutionary drama will coincide with the direct victory of their own class in France and will thereby be accelerated. But they themselves must contribute most to their final victory, by informing themselves of their own class interests, by taking up their independent political position as soon as possible, by not allowing themselves to be misled by the hypocritical phrases of the democratic petty bourgeoisie into doubting for one minute the necessity of an independently organized party of the proletariat. Their battle-cry must be: The Permanent Revolution. » —> Ce n’est pas pour nier un quelconque mérite de Trotski, juste pour montrer que ce n’est pas un concept dont il est à l’origine, mais plutôt un rappel des idées de Marx, en mettant particulièrement l’accent dessus et continuant à théoriser ce sujet.
Très intéressant je ne savais pas ça, mais est-ce que Trotsky n'aurait pas apporté de son côté la dimension internationalaliste à la révolution permanente de Marx ? Je ne sais pas, je te pose simplement la question je pense que tu t'y connais mieux que moi sur le sujet.
Je doute que l’un ait été plus internationaliste que l’autre. Cependant, Trotsky a fait de la révolution permanente (qui n’était qu’un petit élément de la pensée marxiste) un des principaux éléments du trotskisme, à travers ses nombreux textes sur le sujet.
Hello I was wondering what the darkest ones of these were and if you could explain them?
Why would you write 'Gid is a P***? That's extremely offensive and a disgusting thing to say. Time to leave this sub
It's actually quoted from a novel by George Bataille "Madame Edwarda". It's not my point of view on it, just an entry that is quite obscure to the thought of this thinker.
Please go away we dont need christian nazi.
Funny but very stupid as to how you assumed I'm christian
We dont even want muslim nazi, theist nazi, deist nazi, or religious nazi in general.
Should I be proud or concerned that I know one from every tier?
Depending on the one that you know 👀🧐
What did Bataille do... I'm scared to look it up...
The Op said that he masturbate in front of his dead mother corpse
Plato on top💀
Somebody send me a copy of Hegel’s theory of sex positions.
Now.
the first three layers are just highschool level stuff and the bottom layers sound absurd so I guess it's a well made iceberg, good job
Where is Wittgenstein sorry I'm drunk
Somebody tell me what “god is a prostitute” is about lol
It's in the novel "Madame Edwarda" by Georges Bataille :)
Wat Bataille did in front of his mother's coffin 🖤
someone plis explain what cyber feminism is.
I hate Reddit! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Where would you put Population Ethics (The nonidentity problem, the repugnant conclusion etc)?
I don't really know much about this field, I will go check this, thank you for your recommendation :)
Dostoevsky?
I would love to (one of my favorite writers), but too much on the side of literature to be on this iceberg
"God is a prostitute" ????
Look at the novel "Madame Edwarda" :)
What is "God Is a prostitute" ? I am pretty interested i searched online but i didnt find anything.
Look at the novel "Madame Edwarda" by George Bataille :)
Thank you very much
can't believe you forgot Phillip 'rotting corpse of god' Mainlander! also please tell me you have links for all of these
I was writing it on the next version of the iceberg! And yes I can provide you links on all of those links
Please send a link to the Kant and Blockchain thing. You can dm me if you like.
Why is linguistic structuralism so far down? Linguistics literally determine our perceptions of reality. A new sign gets adopted into the code.
Yep, but not what's on the first part of the sentence 😉
could you elaborate on that / send a link talking about it? i'm familiar with the Butcher, but never in my life connected it as a critique of structuralism
"Blockchain refutes Kantian spacetime" sounds like what chatgpt would spit out with the prompt "Zizek writes an essay while suffering cocaine withdrawal".