anti philosophy

How to Break up Like a Philosopher

Teleologist: We aren’t meant for each other.
Deontologist: We aren’t right for each other.
Solipsist: It’s not you, it’s me.
Empiricist: I think we should see other people.
Rationalist: I’ve been doing some thinking…
Continentalist: You’ve lost that love and feeling.
Egalitarian: This is the best thing for both of us.
Functionalist: I don’t care about accommodating your feelings.
Quinean: I’m sorry, but you don’t mean anything to me anymore.
Foundationalist: We have nothing left to build upon.
Relativist: It’s no one’s fault.
Atheist: These things just happen.
Kantian: You lied to me!
Consequentialist: You should have lied to my mother about her pot roast!
Anti-Fictionalist: I’m sick of faking it.
Cartesian: I don’t clearly and distinctly perceive a future together.
Hegelian: Do we have to go through this again?
Lockean: Our primary qualities simply aren’t compatible.
Behaviorist: I just can’t keep going through the motions anymore.
Presentist: There just isn’t any future for us.
Eternalist: At least we’ll always have that weekend in Paris.

Very important video. I had to cut it this way for time and had cut out some things I didnt want to. So click here for the full uncut lecture of Jordan B Peterson explaining how ideas have people rather than the other way around, how ideas have people rather than the other way around, and a rundown on collectivism, identity politics, neo-marxism, and post modernism. He also explains post structuralism which is nested in post modernism, but he only calls it post modernism. I just call it all ‘social justice ideology’ or ‘marxian philosophy’. He actually gives a very short short explanation of marxian conflict theories, but calls it post modernism too.

“when push comes to shove, you see how much concern there is among the radical feminists for the rights of women… If pushing those rights forward doesnt undermine the ‘western patriarchy’, we’ll take the undermining and leave the damn rights behind”

“I’ve always been of the idea, especially reading Jung, people dont have ideas, ideas have people… It’s not like every social justice warrior is a… post modernist, but the ideas are distributed among them like they’re distributed among a mob, and when you put the whole mob together, you get the whole post modernism thing happening at the same time”

You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.
—  Albert Camus

Tony is the most human person in the Avengers, and I think that is why there is such a divide between Tony Stans and Anti Tony Stans. I think people who like Tony see how human he is and relate to him. They see themselves in him. They see this flawed character among all these gods. I think anti tony people see Tony as too human, and it scares them. They too relate to Tony, but the idea of being flawed and human can be scary for anyone.

My theatre teacher says that the purpose of acting is to hold a mirror up to nature. (This is from Hamlet btw) Theatre isn’t to take you out of your problems for a little bit, it’s to show you the problems. And that scares people. Tony shows how human we can be. How we can mess up even if we’re trying to help. We can be arrogant, and selfish, and selfless and loving and kind and all the things that Tony Stark is.

Tony Stark is the most human of all the Avengers and I love him

Reality is here and now, everywhere, gleaming through every reflection that meets the eye…. Everybody is a neurotic, down to the last man and woman. The healer, or analyst, if you like, is only super-neurotic…. To be cured we must rise from our graves and throw off the cerements of the dead. Nobody can do it for another -it is a private affair which is best done collectively.
—  Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

benjaminikuta  asked:

What effect does punching Richard Spencer have? Please cite reliable sources.

It denies fascism a platform to legitimacy. 

Transcription of an interview with Mark Bray from WNYC’s On the Media – Feb. 10, 2017

Brooke: But not just that, right? Antifa is fundamentally against the right of fascists to speak and be heard.

Mark: That’s entirely correct. So, in your open you mentioned the popular slogan that liberals have adopted from Voltaire that, “I may disagree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Anti-fascists fundamentally disagree with that premise. They argue that, given the horrors of Auschwitz and Treblinka, the destruction that Nazis have caused, that fascists, white supremacists shouldn’t be granted the right to express their ideas in public, in part because, they argue, had that been done earlier in the 1920s, the 1930s, we might have been able to bypass what ended up happening.

Brooke: I get that as a tactic, but I’m still not sure how the philosophy of anti-fascism squares with the liberal values of free speech and open dialogue, and I guess it doesn’t.

Mark: To some extent, it doesn’t. The question is: if we want to prevent something along the lines of what happened in the 1930s and 40s from happening again, how do we do it? And the liberal prescription for doing it is, essentially, free and open debate and dialogue, and if Nazis do something illegal then hopefully the police will stop them. Anti-fascists recognize that in the 1930s, 1940s, the police supported fascism. The fascists didn’t actually stage a revolution to come to power; they worked within the political system. And all the reasonable dialogue and debate that one could muster did not do the job. The argument is that, if we want such a horrific crime to not reoccur, it needs to be nipped in the bud.”

For Antifa, No Platform for Fascism | Abolition Journal

“You like your teacher? Ew, why?”

I love the way their eyes light up when they discuss anything remotely related to a subject they’re interested in. I love how excited I get just listening to their rants and tangents even if I have no prior knowledge or interest in the topic. I love that the sheer amount of information they know about the most obscure things (ex. French philosophy on anti-oedipus) is absolutely insane but also mesmerizing. I love that they don’t get caught up in trivial, immature situations. I love that they have so much wisdom to share from years and years of experience and they’re not embarrassed to share. I love how much they care for their students and genuinely want them to succeed and that they would do everything in their power to help me if I asked. Why do I like my tc? How could I not?

Identifying pseudoscience

Science is the method of eliminating the maximum number of biases from observation as readily possible, describing results with as little interpretation as possible, and attempting to using valid and sound arguments to explain patterns in data with theorhetical models, peer reviewing results, and predict future results under similar conditions to experimentation.

The following may be very useful to read, especially with a topic in mind to examine whether it relates to these bullet points. Think of any broad topic relating to sets of political or religious beliefs, various practices in medicine, diet, fitness, spirituality, psychology, community, counseling, any subject presented as science. Really, any system of interpreting truth can be put under the microscope of the rest of this post, and It doesn’t even absolutely have to be a topic that presents itself as science, just any system of thought that makes claims. Once you have a topic in mind, consider how it relates to each bullet point. The subject I obviously would like people to examine is feminist theory.


The following are some of the indicators of the possible presence of pseudoscience.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

  • Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements[47]
  • Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power.[36]
  • Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e. publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can measure or test them independently)[Note 5] (See also: Reproducibility).
  • Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam’s razor).[49]
  • Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
  • Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[50]
  • Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.
  • Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering[51]

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

  • Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: Falsifiability).[18][52]
  • Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.[53] Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best “conjectures”, or at worst “pseudoscience” (e.g. Ignoratio elenchi)[54]
  • Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance).[55]
  • Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g. Statistical hypothesis testing).[56]
  • Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims.[26] This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect.
  • Promulgating to the status of facts excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect.[57]
  • Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. “Pseudoscientific” arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant.[58]
  • Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to dismiss negative findings.[59]

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

  • Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed “science by press conference”):[58][60][Note 6] Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.[59]
  • Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.[61]
  • Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested[61]
  • Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all view points is not encouraged.[62]

Absence of progress

  • Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.[52][Note 7]Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.[63][64] (see also: scientific progress)
  • Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time.[65] By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.
  • Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations.

Personalization of issues

Use of misleading language

  • Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade nonexperts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: For example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name “dihydrogen monoxide” and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled.
  • Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline
Women are objects

Men are also objects.

People exist. Consequently, they’re objects.

In the same way that hippies dont understand that everything is chemicals, feminists dont seem to understand that everything is objects. Everything made of matter is an object. People, believe it or not, are made of matter, and made of chemicals too. To recognize someone’s existence, let alone interacting with them in any way, is to recognize they are a physical object.

Women are also people, and so are men. Objects and people are not mutually exclusive things. Objectification is not real, it’s a made up concept from feminist theory. Objectification is not real, but dehumanization is. Objectification is where you view a woman -specifically a woman, by definition- as an object, which they are. By definition, you objectify women. By definition, you cant objectify men. It’s a magic trick. It’s impossible to not “objectify” anyone, even if it were a word that included something that happens to men. Because of the meaning of the word objectification, feminist could see you interact with any woman, and complain that you are objectifying her. Dehumanization, on the other hand, is where you view a person as inhuman, as though they are lesser than the inherent qualities of every person, where you deny their individual agency, individual interests, individual worth, and the natural rights of the individual…

Wait… denial of individuality….

…Oh hey, feminist theory and marxist theory do that in their conflict theories, it’s called collectivism. They even erase your kindness, love, integrity, and humanity by claiming those are really just a deceptive, manipulative struggle for power between you -not as an individual, but as a representative of a group- and all other groups of people.

Their marxist ‘conflict theory’ and subsequent ‘social conflict theories‘ of feminism are each are built on the premise that the individual is irrelevant to political analysis and subsequent political goals.

Forget the individual, forget their personal agency, personal interests, personal value, and individual rights, those apparently dont exist or dont matter at all. It’s why they dont care what happens to a male victim or female perpetrator. That’s why they like the term social justice instead of individual justice, individualism, or simply justice, it’s because they think the individual is a force of inherent evil. It’s why they only care when the victim is a ”victim class”, and then they still dont care about the person personally, they only care about them the as a representative of an oppression narrative about an “oppressed group”. It’s about using the victim as a martyr for their political aims. They don’t care about the individual victim, they care about what is done to a person *as a woman*, or *as a “person of color”*, or *as “lgbtq”*. It’s not about the individual rights of women, or whatever group, it’s about women’s rights as a group -group rights. Social justice theories view everyone and everything in society as a political representative of a collective (and an expression of oppression). Everything is political to them, one of their early mottos was literally “personal is political” which may as well have been “big brother is watching”. Maybe a specific individual who advocates social justice recognizes the significance of the individual, but they certainly didnt get that idea from social justice. Socialist justice reduces everyone to a superficial identity, forgoing their individual significance as a human being, painting them as a collectivized group with interests based on their gender, sexuality, race, etc, then claim everyone else are the ones who maliciously objectify people.

Amazing little switcharoo they did there.