/lit/ - Literature

>>13934423
>speculative realists,
These are the only guys that sort of intrigued me, but they're not doing enough with it, like they're lacking some type of ambition or creativity or something.

You'll figure it out if and when you make it to grad school

cheeki breeki

>>13934423
Become him.

>where are all the guys who died within the last 50 years

>>13934423
I'm like the Guattari of this century but I feel like I'm not schizoid enough

>>13934441
This is true, but only if you approach grad school from the perspective of discovering why there aren't great thinkers anymore. Most grad students become part of the system, or can't hack it and leave with a masters.

New and interesting thinking will only appear with a change in the material structure of society. Right now we're at a dead end, intellectually speaking. The relevant truths for our society have all already been articulated, and as a result there can be no more great thinkers until there is a material basis for new truths.

Everyone who is big brained figured out philosophy and literature is useless and retarded and are working in CS making actual contributions to humanity. Kek have fun with your mental masturbation and writing poems about tfw no gf. Philosophy is not needed anymore because Science has already solved it. Everything else is just useless questions. Get with times retards.

>muh intellectual theories

Lmfao, actually smart people now are almost autistically focused on one specialization

>>13934496
It is amazing how Whitehead and a bunch of others tore apart this mindset last century and yet the ghosts logical positivism still plague the modern world. The downfall of humanity will be its own ignorance and stupidity. Anyway stop bifurcating nature and stuff.

>>13934484
Correct

>>13934504
then they aren't actually smart. And I can prove it to you; I have 150iq, your iq is lower, and by your metrics I'm supposedly smarter than you, therefore right. Oh, I have a PhD in genetics by the way. I'll never work a day in the field and I'm done wasting my intellect on such minuscule matters. Specialization is the antithesis of intelectuality. If something is learnable through sheer repetition and work, then it is contingent, at best, useless, counter-productive and anti-intellectual at worst.

>>13934504
"Another great fact confronting the modern world is the discovery of the method of training professionals, who specialise in particular regions of thought and thereby progressively add to the sum of knowledge
within their respective limitations of subject. In consequence of the success of this professionalising of knowledge, there are two points to be kept in mind, which differentiate our present age from the past. In the first
place, the rate of progress is such that an individual human being, of ordinary length of life, will be called upon to face novel situations which find no parallel in his past. The fixed person for the fixed duties, who in older societies was such a godsend, in the future will be a public danger. In the second place, the modern professionalism in knowledge works in the opposite direction so far as the intellectual sphere is concerned. The
modern chemist is likely to be weak in zoology, weaker still in his general knowledge of the Elizabethan drama, and completely ignorant of the principles of rhythm in
English versification. It is probably safe to ignore his knowledge of ancient history. Of course I am speaking of general . tendencies; for chemists are no worse than engineers, or mathematicians, or classical scholars. Effective knowledge is professionalised knowledge, supported by a restricted acquaintance with useful subjects
subservient to it. This situation has its dangers. It produces minds in a groove. Each profession makes progress, but it is progress in its own groove. Now to be mentally in a groove is 'to live in contemplating a given set of abstractions. The groove prevents straying across country, and the abstraction abstracts from something to which no further attention is paid. But there is no groove of abstractions which is adequate for the comprehension of human life. Thus in the modern world, the celibacy of the medieval learned class has been replaced by a celibacy of the intellect which is divorced from the concrete contemplation of the complete facts. Of course, no one is merely a mathematician, or merely a lawyer. People have lives outside their professions or their businesses. But the point is the restraint of serious thought within a groove. The remainder of life is treated superficially, with the imperfect categories of thought derived from one profession....."

>>13934504
>>13934556
"The dangers arising from this aspect of professionalism are great, particularly in our democratic societies. The direct,ive force of reason is weakened. The leading intellects lack balance. They see this set of circumstances,or that set; but not both sets together. The task of coordination is left to those who lack either the force or the character to succeed in some definite career. In short, the specialised functions of the community are performed better and more progressively, but the generalised direction lacks vision. The progressiveness in detail only adds to the danger produced by the feeble-ness of coordination. This criticism of modern life applies throughout, in whatever sense you construe the meaning of a community. It holds if you apply it to a nation, a city, a district, an institution, a family, or even to an , individual. There is a development of particular abstractions, and a contraction of concrete appreciation. The whole is lost in one of its aspects. It is not necessary
for my point that I should maintain that our directive wisdom, either as individuals or as communities, is less now than in the past. Perhaps it has slightly impr.oved.
But the novel pace of progress requires a greater force of direction if disasters are to be avoided. The point is that the discoveries of the nineteenth century were in the direction of professionalism, so that we are left with no expansion of wisdom and with greater need of it. Wisdom is the fruit of a balanced development. It is this balanced growth of individuality which it should be the aim of education to secure. The most useful
discoveries for the immediate future would concern the furtherance of this aim without detriment to the necessary intellectual professionalism. My own criticism of our traditional educational methods is that they are far too much occupied with intellectual analysis, and with the acquirement of formularised information. What I mean is, that we neglect to strengthen habits of concrete appreciation of the individual facts in their full interplay of emergent values, and that we merely emphasise abstract formulations which ignore this aspect of the interplay of diverse values..."

>>13934423
Those would be scientists

>>13934423
There are plenty of reasons for this. White noise entertainment, the failures of our education system (kindergarten through post-grad), the pressure put on gifted children, and really any children who are decent at math to devote their life to a STEM field and either ignore the humanities or peruse it at the base level (high school english class). There will probably be some intellectuals and artists of merit in the upcoming decades though.

A whale of a time

>>13934569
have you ever met an actual scientist lmao? they wear pokemon shirts past 30. literal clowns. at least in france they have the decency not to speak too loud in public because style is still the deciding factor of intellectual merit, and these swines can't be bothered to look good. Far from true intellectuality but still bettter than the scientism ruling over the angl*sphere.

>>13934504
>>13934567
"In every country the problem of the balance of the general and specialist education is under consideration. I cannot speak with first-hand knowledge of any country but my own. I know that there, among practical educationalists, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the existing practice. Also, the adaptation of the whole system to the needs of a democratic community is very far from being solved. I do not think that the secret of the solution lies in terms of the antithesis between thoroughness in special knowledge and general knowledge of a slighter character. The make-weight which balances the thoroughness of the specialist intellectual training should be of a radically different kind from purely intellectual analytical knowledge. At present our education combines a thorough study of a few abstractions, with a slighter study of a larger number of abstractions. We are too exclusively bookish in our scholastic routine. The general training should aim at eliciting our concrete apprehensions, and should satisfy the itch of youth to be doing something. There should be some analysis even here, but only just enough to illustrate the ways of thinking in diverse spheres. In the Garden of Eden Adam saw the animals before he named them: in the traditional system, children named the animals before they saw them. There is no easy single solution of the practical difficulties of education. We can, however, guide ourselves by a certain simplicity in its general theory. The student should concentrate within a limited field. Such concentration should include all practical and intellectual acquirements requisite for that concentration .. This is the ordinary procedure; and, in respect to it, I should be inclined even to increase the facilities for concentration rather than to diminish them. With the concentration there are associated certain subsidiary studies, such as languages for science. Such a scheme of professional training should be directed to a clear end congenial to...."

/lit/ is fucking retarded, this is baffling. everyday we hit new low. go through the replies and realize who inhabit this board now. pathetic. plebian filth, anglo swines, stem faggots... name the most vulgar thing you can think of and this is what comprises this board nowadays.

>>13934423
It’s only been 20 years dumdum, you’ll know the thinkers of today in 20 years more

>>13934504
>>13934587
the student. It is not necessary to elaborate the qualifications of these statements. Such a training must, of course, have the width requisite for its end. But its design should not be complicated by the consideration of other ends. This professional training can only tooch one side of education. Its centre of gravity lies in the intellect, and its chief tool is the printed book. The centre of gravity of the other side of training should lie in intuition without an analytical divorce from the total environment. Its object is immediate apprehension with the minimum of eviscerating analysis. The type of generality, which above all is wanted, is the appreciation of variety of value. I mean an aesthetic growth. There is something between the gross specialised values of the mere practical man, and the thin specialised values of the mere scholar. Both types have missed something; and if you add together the two sets of values, you do not obtain the missing elements. What is wanted is an appreciation of the infinite variety of vivid values achieved by an organism in its proper environment. When you understand all about the sun and all about the atmosphere and all about the rotation of the earth, you may still miss the radiance of the sunset. There is no substitute for the direct perception of the concrete achievement of a thing in its actuality. We want concrete fact with a high light thrown on what is relevant to its preciousness. What I mean is art and aesthetic education. It is, however, art in such a general sense of the term that I hardly like to call it by that name. Art is a special example. What we want is to draw out habits of aesthetic apprehensIon. According to the metaphysical doctrine which I have been developing, to do so is to increase the depth of individuality. The analysis of reality indicates the two factors, activity emerging into individualised aesthetic value. Also the emergent value is the measure of the individualisation of the activity. We must foster the creative initiative towards the main- tenance of objective values. You will not obtain the apprehension without the initiative, or the initiative without the apprehension. As soon as you get towards the · concrete, you cannot exclude action. Sensitiveness without impulse spells decadence, and impulse without sensitiveness spells brutality. I am using the word 'sensitiveness' in its most general signification, so as to include apprehension of what lies beyond oneself; that is to say,_ sensitiveness to all the facts of the case. Thus 'art' in the general sense which I require is any selection by which the concrete facts are so arranged as to elicit attention to particular values which are realisable by them. For example, the mere disposing of the human body and the eyesight so as to get a good view of a sunset is a simple form of artistic selection. The habit of art is the habit of enjoying vivid values."

>Broooo... this is like, the end of history man
Shut the fuck up, the twenty first century has barely started
Want a new joyce? Then be the new joyce faggot

>>13934556
>>13934567
>>13934587
>>13934603
what book?

>>13934615
Science and the Modern World

>>13934423
We're not even 20% in 21st century idiot. most of the people you mentioned weren't relevant or even born in 1919

>>13934423
>There was so much talent last century
Made me laugh anon.
The reason why we don't have talent now is because we didn't have talent then.
The last time those kind of men had something important to say they were still called academics.

>no Wittgenstein
You don't deserve "talent"

>>13934423
>Deleuze
A nobody, a cheap imitator of Spinoza, Nietczhe and Kant rewriting their philosophies with a slightly metrosexual and communist twist. Pushed by the French to cope with their embarrassing history in the century.
>Foucalt
Same story, except he is a child molester as well.
>Adorno
You mean that man who thought laughter was unacceptable? Right.
>Whitehead
Who?
>Benjamin
Seriously though, who?
These people were nobodies. Only the subhumans who climb the academia ladder push or know anything about what gibberish they spouted. They are nowhere the likes of Kant, Nietczhe or Locke. The Enlightenment was the true date of death for philosophy. The golden age no matter what the idiotic socialists who infest the intelligentsia today will always be Antiquity. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca, Cicero...the list goes on and on. Even a man like Diogenes is superior to these pseudo intellectual babblers of the 20th century. Some would say his ways were quite crude, but at the end of the day, what is important is that he followed it to a T. And his philosophy wasn't going on hundreds of pages about "capitalist realism" or "post modern societal anti oedipus" or whatever the fuck these cowardly french rats went on and on about. It was a simple philosophy, a way of life that could be explained in but a few sentences. Then you go and try to read Delueze and after 500 pages you end up feeling like you were infected with second hand autism. Simplicity is severely underrated in modern philosophy. Brevity, practicality. All of that has been thrown out into the bin so we could have some bullshit metaphysical throw up contest. Moronic.

>>13934423
kek those people were part of the intellectual wasteland

>>13934642
Name 1 (one) relevant philosopher born after 1950. All the ones OP mentioned were born before 1930 and by the time they were 60 they were pretty known. I don't know you, but I can't name one single philosopher that was born after 1950 and on the level of Deleuze/Foucault/Whitehead/Adorno/Benjamin

>>13934423
>Deleuze
>Foucualt
>Adorno
OH NO NO NO

>>13934423
We concluded that "we're born to die, the world is a fuck, kill'em all."
t.Trash Man circa 1989

>>13934423
Start with the Greeks, not with the French.

The internet is Pandora's box and the remaining humans struggle to speak to each other through layers and layers of armor. All that's left to do is to impact the lives of people you are actually involved with; the identity of the great philosopher is a rotting carcass.

>>13934513
Because digital circuits still give us new tech and so it's not doubted enough

>>13934423
Pretty sure there were many You's back then you looked at Foucualt (sic) the same way you look at...Zizek or whoever.

Let's wait for their legacy once dead to judge.
Note that's it's not necessary that their texts will be read and interpreted as they meant them.
It's the people who formulated the extreme positions that get cited and, thus, remembered. Even if hundreds of other men in their respective decades said the first thing. Names get tied to concept and then remembered as if they created the opinions alone and against the grain.