A few days ago I said Lévi-Strauss explains myth with another myth. Thinking more, the core problem is his tool: "binary opposition."
To make that hammer work, he had to chop up all of complex reality until it looked like a nail. So he wasn't analyzing. He was committing violence against reality.
#philosophy
#levistrauss #PoliticsLive #DELTARUNE #naziAll of Lévi-Strauss theories are just an incredibly elegant, self-contained language for describing his own way of thinking.
He wasn't explaining myth. He was explaining myth with another myth.
https://open.substack.com/pub/liuzesen1/p/so-whats-really-the-problem-with?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5fzbmiDon't expect your AI to pursue 'truth' in political philosophy.😂
Reddit is nothing but a hub for technocrats and conservative punks, and it's even infested with a bunch of religious followers.
And finally, when all else fails, the purely ad hominem curse: “Delete your account, no one will read it anyway.” This is the final, emotional admission of intellectual defeat.
So, genuinely, thank you to the commenter. You’ve provided a more compelling conclusion to my piece than I could have written myself. You’ve demonstrated, in real-time, the very kind of non-argument my critique was designed to transcend. Your response isn't a counter-argument; it's a data point.
Second, the classic academic gatekeeping: “You haven’t read the books. Where are the citations?” This questions the author’s right to even have an opinion, again, sidestepping the opinion itself.
Third, the aesthetic rejection: The prose is “insane,” “embarrassing.” This is my favorite part. It suggests the style itself was effective. The goal was never to write a comfortable, sterile paper. The goal was to use language as a scalpel. A successful surgery is rarely described as pleasant by the t
I have to admit, I have a certain clinical appreciation for this kind of response. It’s a perfect, almost textbook example of what happens when an argument cannot be refuted on its substance.
When the logic of a critique is unsettling, the predictable defense mechanism is to attack everything but the logic. We see the full sequence here:
First, the 21st-century version of a heresy accusation: “It’s AI.” A convenient way to disqualify the text without having to engage with its content.
Squaring off against Camus is like trying to discuss engine mechanics with someone who firmly believes in the power of faith. You eventually realize you're not talking about the same thing at all, and that he has mistaken a psychological quirk of our species for a cosmic tragedy.
