/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12597644]

Why are there no modern day philosophers?

[Anonymous No.12597649]

>>12597644
There are loads you fucking moron, literally hundreds of philosophers from across the world working in academia are submitting articles, writing books and doing research all the time. Are you fucking braindead?

[Anonymous No.12597651]

>>12597644
molyneux molested a bunch of kids.

[Anonymous No.12597659]

>>12597649
Post some worth reading, why are you so insulted?
>acadamia
>worth shit
>>12597651
source

[Anonymous No.12597660]

>>12597644
Oh, but what makes one a philosopher anon? Surely you would be so kind as to inform us, would you not?

[Anonymous No.12597667]

>>12597659
Basically you've already made your dumb fucking brainlet mind up that no one is a "true" philosopher because they are around now.

Derek Parfit is a great philosopher, written loads of good books, but you probably think he's shit because you're a dense cunt who thinks he's a genius because you "started with the greeks"

[Anonymous No.12597672]

>>12597667
*was as he died in 2017, still a modern philosopher tho, just my favourite one from 21st century.

[Anonymous No.12597673]

>>12597644
molyneux destroyed them all with facts and logic

he is the embodiment of the Hegelian spirit. don't hate him, you don't understand what it is like to carry the world on your shoulders

[Anonymous No.12597695]

>>12597644
>why are there no modern charlatans
because all the smart people are in the sciences now that reality can basically be entirely explained by them

[Anonymous No.12597858]

I've been thinking this too, and my take is that entire west is suffering from siege mentality, that is, stressed out survival mode stemming from permanent feeling of threat. Demographic change and all-engulfing culture war causes this. All philosophing has turned into utilitarian blunt object to whack what's coming at you. We also don't have leisure class anymore, privileged aristocracy and grand bourgoise secure in mercantilistic policies, both gone. There is no room to stop and think. Allowed range of thought and security in permanent "fuck you money" are not there.

Another thing is information overload. With the amount of information available at fingertips, it's all too easy to assume that someone else somewhere has thought of thoughts already and then surrender prematurely developing thinking further and putting it on paper.

[Anonymous No.12597894]

>>12597858
>thoughts already and then surrender prematurely developing thinking further and putting it on paper.
good point

[Anonymous No.12597904]

You have already made your mind up that there are no philosophers. Even though you could use google to find some. And even if i listed some, you would move the goal post and say, "i want some that are of worth".

Basically, youre a moron

[Anonymous No.12597907]

People should take The Foundation for Exploration by Sean Goonan seriously.

[Anonymous No.12597916]

>>12597695
>now that reality can basically be entirely explained by them
Not true

[Anonymous No.12597950]

>>12597907
Sean, could you at least tell us what your thesis is while you're still spamming your book?

[Anonymous No.12597974]

>>12597916
well let's see, science can explain:
>time
>consciousness
>development
>cosmology
>the laws governing all of existence
>genetics
>memory
>emotions
>morality
and more

what exactly do you think it can't explain?

[Anonymous No.12597987]

>>12597974
the reason of life
the purpose of human lives

[Anonymous No.12597994]

>>12597987
yeah, that's called Evolution.

congrats on not getting past 6th grade biology

[Anonymous No.12598000]

>>12597994
Can evolution explain the purpose of our lives?
No

[Anonymous No.12598002]

>>12597904
OP rekt

[Anonymous No.12598053]

>>12598000
Yes?

you are just a massive machine that has one determined purpose: to reproduce and pass on its genes. that is literally what is at the bottom of all the other delusions and illusions that Evolution has found helpful to facilitate achieving this end of reproduction

I can tell you haven't read any of the literature on this whatsoever

[Anonymous No.12598128]

>>12597950
Like I said, I think people should take it seriously. I'm not Goonan. It explains power/powerlessness quite well, and how current society instills powerlessness.

[Anonymous No.12598170]

People, especially the type that browse /lit/ don't like being confronted with the reality that philosophers have a recognition problem, philosophy isn't dead, but it might as well be.

[Anonymous No.12598173]

>>12598128
are there any philosophers greater than Goonan?

[Anonymous No.12598187]

>>12598170
Explain certainly i've been attacked in this thread just or asking.I don't mind it it's 4chan but still overly hostile itt.

[Anonymous No.12598214]

>>12598053
You also can smoke weed and perceive beauty and have orgasams, consciousness isn’t so bad and it’s a part of evolution, yes our purpose as organism is to reproduce l but as individuals it is far more complex than that, the morality each individual embodies is purely consequential and programmed by the environmental conditionings he had been through.
We are also social creatures and we have weird spiritual experiences that make us stop smoking and become better people
Humans are fucking strange and complex, biology is a big part of the story but it is just a part nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.12598218]

>>12597974
Nice bait.

[Anonymous No.12598227]

>>12598170
People like you cant recognize that academia is elitist and philosophers were never popular.
This isnt top 40 pop music you retard

[Anonymous No.12598249]

>>12598187
You've been attacked because you're mentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.12598320]

>>12598249

[Anonymous No.12598386]

>>12597649
Those are philosophical workers, not philosophers.

>>12597904
>you could use google to find some.
lol, and what query would you enter? "21st century philosophers"? Good luck with that, philosophers can't be found so simply via such algorithms.

[Anonymous No.12598404]

>>12598227
This doesn't really make sense, philosophy was in fact hugely popular in academia, they now struggle to fill their pitiful seat quotas, the lack of applicants in some places is so bad the top universities have zero continental philosophers on staff.

[Knight of Infinite Resignation No.12598467]

>>12597974
>conciousness
>science
good luck explaining conciousness using models made up and perceived by your conciousness

[Anonymous No.12598517]

>>12598467
good thing it's explicable by objectively operating and measurable material neurons that exist outside of any "models".

[Anonymous No.12598920]

>>12597649
none who will be read or remembered

[Anonymous No.12598977]

>>12598386
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:21st-century_philosophers&from=0

then what are all these guys?

[Anonymous No.12598987]

>>12597644

Because Philosophy was like science before we had electricity. It's been surpassed as a form of knowledge collection.

[Anonymous No.12598992]

>>12597649
>>12597667
This lad bit hard. Didn't read his Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.12599019]

>>12597695
>reality can basically be entirely explained by them
lol

[Anonymous No.12599020]

>>12597974
Science can't prove science

[Anonymous No.12599033]

>>12599020
be sure to tell that to your anaesthesiologist the next time they have to put you under

oh, and be sure to mention it to your smartphone and all of the science that went into inventing it :)

[Anonymous No.12599040]

>>12598517
>measurable material neurons that exist outside of any "models".

[Anonymous No.12599041]

>>12597974
Science can't explain any of these things, lumpenpseud

[Anonymous No.12599043]

>>12599033
I fully believe that the scientific method can be used to ascertain objective truth, but that doesn't change the fact that the scientific method can't prove its self.

[Anonymous No.12599048]

There are, I think people just hold modern philosophers to a higher standard than classical/ancient philosophers were held to, and by their inability to measure up to some ideal of the unbiased rational scientific Thinker all modern philosophers are discredited as cheap moralists, pseudoscientists, and academic frauds.

(Which is exactly what the Old Guys were!)

[Anonymous No.12599069]

>>12597644
>molymeme
>a philosopher

[Anonymous No.12599078]

>>12598977
bunch of worthless nobodies

[Anonymous No.12599102]

who was the last philosopher worthy of the name? nietzche?

[Anonymous No.12599114]

>>12599102
Chesterton, Adler

[Anonymous No.12599131]

>>12597644
>Why are there no modern day philosophers?

[Anonymous. No.12599143]

>>12597659
Just lurk more - you'll see the posts about current day philosophers.
Slavoj Zizek, Mark Fisher and Nick Land is three.

[Anonymous No.12599149]

>>12599069
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.12599181]

>>12599033
Don't we actually have a relatively poor understanding of anesthesia?

[Anonymous No.12599259]

>>12599102
It depends on what you mean by philosopher. If by philosopher you mean somebody like Plato who wondered about the nature of things and thoughts, guided by the rational principles of dialectic, you'll find one of those in any university. If by philosopher you mean a lover of wisdom, wisdom being that which is above all common knowledge, it might have been Hegel or Schopenhauer. If by philosopher you mean somebody who autistically classifies general ideas like Aristotle or Kant, then it might've been Austin or Searle, but I suppose there might be somebody out there whom I don't know about who's still doing it.

[Anonymous No.12599280]

>>12597644
You know the following people are still alive by the way;

Saul Kripke
Charles Taylor
Robert Brandom
John Seale
Daniel Dennett
Timothy Williamson
Will Kymlicka
Martha Naussbaum
Nancy Cartwright
Ian Hacking
Alain Badiou
François Laruelle
Iranian Hamilton Grant
Slavoj Zizek

And that’s just off the top of my head. It says more about you than it does about philosophy if you think there are no modern day philosophers.

[Anonymous No.12599289]

>>12599280
>Iranian Hamilton Grant
His first name is Iain, not Iranian.

[Anonymous No.12599308]

>>12599289
Fckin autocorrect doesn’t think Iain should be spelled with two ‘i’s.

But speaking of Iranian there is also Negarestani.

[Anonymous No.12599326]

>>12597644
cause reading is hard and i'd rather listen to some guy rambling in front of a camera for hours while i play video games

[Anonymous No.12599348]

>>12597644
One of the only real ones.

[Anonymous No.12599355]

>>12599289
it's so you don't get Iain Hamilton Grant confused with the Iranian version of him (>>12599308)

[Anonymous No.12599520]

>>12599280
>Daniel Dennett

[Anonymous No.12599547]

>>12599069
gib a ruh bernd

[Anonymous No.12599574]

>>12597644
what you mean by this post is:
>why are there no plato's or Nietzsche's
and the reason for that is that we've not had time to separate wheat from chaff. figuring out what philosophy will endure as opposed to what will be the domain of only dedicated scholars takes a long long time. there's plenty of philosophers with interesting things to read writing today, if you're looking for a household name one though then you're being dumb.

[Anonymous No.12599607]

>>12599520
Like, I think he’s wrong about everything but still even while being wrong he’s progressed the field by making good arguments for positions which aren’t correct.

That’s pretty different from Molyneux, who’s both wrong about everything and also provided nothing original or interesting. Speaking as somebody who read like half of UPB

[TSJ !ujoY1xUXb. No.12599612]

>>12599574
I think it's this guys.

[Anonymous No.12600102]

>>12597644
Molymeme, all jokes aside, is a philosopher.

He is trying to build stuff up from first principles. Just read him

>>12597651
slander

Besides those two, Molyneux is actually trying to do philosophy. To the degree that I know what philosophy is, he's doing it.

>>12597673
You get it

.>>12599574
you also get it. I think molyneux actually is. Universally prefferable behavior to me makes Molyneux the ubermensch, the creator of values without god.

[Anonymous No.12600125]

hey op how can i get paid to make e-celeb threads on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.12600333]

>>12600125
review the memes as they come into vogue

[Anonymous No.12600518]

there is no modern day

[Anonymous No.12600555]

> nobody has mentioned Alasdair MacIntyre
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.12600565]

>>12597974
> morality
I know anon is giving shit bait but its still hilarious that some people actually believe that

[Anonymous No.12600568]

>>12597667
Are you his bf? haha. Weird

t. International Banking Chad

[Anonymous No.12600571]

>>12597644
the elite got dumb

[Anonymous No.12600576]

>>12600565
morality is literally a byproduct of evolution

where have you been for the past 120+ years?

[Anonymous No.12601374]

>>12600555
Jesus Christ, I thought he died ages ago, but yeah he’s one of the modern greats.

[Anonymous No.12601388]

I think one important thing I've learned in adulthood is that the mediocre gather around the mediocre. This is how people who run the gamut from Anthony Fantano to Joe Rogan to Gavin McGinnes to Stefan Molyneux get popular: total hacks with entirely conventional thinking who the rabble flocks around, because mediocre feels comfortable with mediocre.

And it's another reason why populism doesn't work; the mediocre gather around the mediocre, not the great.

[Anonymous No.12601391]

>>12597644
*Blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.12601422]

>>12597644
>Why are there no modern day philosophers?

[Anonymous No.12601455]

>>12597644
I love molymeme.

[Anonymous No.12601564]

>>12597644
Varg

[Anonymous No.12601566]

Gianni Vattimo

[Anonymous No.12601573]

Roger Penrose has transcended science and philosophy

[Anonymous No.12601590]

>>12601573
SIR Roger Penrose

[Anonymous No.12601592]

>>12601564

[Anonymous No.12601598]

Destiny, the debater

[Anonymous No.12601604]

>>12601598
Aydin Paladin

[Anonymous No.12601661]

>>12597695
This mindset irks me. I had a lot of STEM roommates in college and they were always shitting on the liberal arts with this sort if arrogance. Just because you're in STEM doesn't mean you're necessarily very smart.

>hurr durr modern science can explain everything, we don't need philosophers, historians, authors, or artists anymore!!

You kind of sound like a philistine, but you're here, so I could very well just be misinterpreting what you're saying. Whatever the case, there certainly are some philosophical scientists out there, like Carl Sagan, who appreciate the full breadth of professions and interest areas.

I love Carl Sagan's worldview but that's because he isn't a cunt about it and acknowledges that we can never fully know or understand everything and that there will always be a margin for error. I also really like what he has to say about pseudoscience. But Philosophy is not a pseudoscience because there is no one correct way to live. Philosophy is the science of finding which worldview will serve you best for your brief and miserable time on this rock. Science is certainly good at explaining many things, but don't be out here asserting scientists have in effect replaced philosophers you fuck.

Also...

>charlatans

Uh yeah, ok bud, there are no charlatans in science, right?

[Anonymous No.12601665]

>>12601388
Who is great these days?

[Anonymous No.12601731]

The biggest philosopher of our generation is trans person.

[Anonymous No.12601754]

>>12597649
Yeah if anything we have too many philosophers. And as for the “muh profound Socrates” type there are still plenty of those too if you have half a brain and know of popular outlets to find their work.

[Anonymous No.12601776]

>>12601731
>"traps aren't gay" - contrapoints

[Anonymous No.12602426]

Molyneux is not doing philosophy lmao. He's a commentator, talking about current events. Either that or he's spending his time defending his shitty theory of ethics. If Molyneux's a philosopher, so are Fox News talking heads.

[Anonymous No.12602430]

>>12599102
Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.12602431]

>>12601731
Didn't know Truediltom was trans

[Anonymous No.12602435]

*Blocks your path*

And yes, 30-40 years is very recent in the ultimate scope of philosophy and should be considered “modern”

[Anonymous No.12602439]

>>12601731
Her thumbnails are so fucking cringey I never want to see any of her posts.

[Anonymous No.12602474]

>>12602439
t. tastelet

[Anonymous No.12602578]

>>12597659
Shelly Kagan

[Anonymous No.12602687]

people flock to stand up comedians for (((philosophy))) now

[Anonymous No.12602782]

>>12599143
>Mark Fisher
>current day
You are in for a heartbreak

[Anonymous No.12602927]

>>12597974
pack it up boys, the boomers got here

[Anonymous No.12602952]

>>12597644
>Why are there no modern day philosophers?

[Anonymous No.12603204]

>>12597974
my feelings

science get rekt

[Anonymous No.12603224]

>>12599280

>Saul Kripke
Very good. Classic.

>Charles Taylor
Idk

>Robert Brandom
Idk

>John Seale
Good. Classic.

>Daniel Dennett
Very good. Classic.

>Timothy Williamson
Idk

>Will Kymlicka
Idk

>Martha Naussbaum
Idk

>Nancy Cartwright
Mediocre

>Ian Hacking
Mediocre

>Alain Badiou
Crazy with some good insights here and there.

>François Laruelle
Just crazy


>Iranian Hamilton Grant
I know only by name.

>Slavoj Zizek
Pseud

[Anonymous No.12603228]

>>12599280
>Saul Kripke
Very good. Classic.

>Charles Taylor
Idk

>Robert Brandom
Idk

>John Seale
Good. Classic.

>Daniel Dennett
Very good. Classic.

>Timothy Williamson
Idk

>Will Kymlicka
Idk

>Martha Naussbaum
Idk

>Nancy Cartwright
Mediocre

>Ian Hacking
Mediocre

>Alain Badiou
Crazy with some good insights here and there.

>François Laruelle
Just crazy

>Slavoj Zizek
Pseud

[Anonymous No.12603253]

>>12597974
It can't explain why you're a faggot

[Anonymous No.12603254]

>>12603228
Cont.

>Sargon
Pseud

>Molymeme
Pseud

>Varg
Crazy

>>12602430
>Wittgenstein
A classic, but not alive anymore.

>>12597667
>Derek Parfit.
Very good. Classic.

>>12599143
>Nick Land
Interesting guy.

>>12601590
>Sir Roger Penrose
Great mathematical physicist. Good on philosophy of mathematics. Bad on philosophy of mind.

>>12601598
>>12601604
>>12601731

>Aydin, Destiny and Contrapoints
Three brainlets/pseuds

[Anonymous No.12603255]

>>12603228
>doesnt know Brandom or Nussbaum
Yeah who’s the pseud here buddy.
Also, Slojterdijk, Leiter, Hardt, Bealer, Jameson, Hartmann, Thomas fucking Nagel, MacIntyre, Clarke, Butler (inb4 kys), Singer, like holy shit should I keep going? Just look at NYU, Princeton, CUNY, UC Riverside, Harvard, Columbia, Chicago...it’s really not that hard. Also obviously everyone associated with the CCRU and the Object Oriented stuff is still kicking. If anything, academic philosophy is at it’s strongest/most versatile in terms of putting people who’ve made significant contributions into high positions. I mean, yeah, a lot of the shit generated can be ivory tower-tier but philosophy used to happen in large leaps. Now we have several worked bees making insights every other few years. Not saying this is better by any means, but only waiting ten years as opposed to 200 for a siginificant development is not a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.12603257]

>>12598467
>science can't explain consciousness because it requires using models made up and perceived by one's own consciousness
>this is why philosophy is better equipped for such a task
lmao

[Anonymous No.12603260]

>>12603228
Fuck Kripke

[Anonymous No.12603266]

>>12603255
>doesnt know Brandom or Nussbaum
I like Philosophy of Physics. I bet you don't know Ladyman, Maudlin etc.

>Thomas fucking Nagel
Meh.

>MacIntyre
Very good. Classic.

[Anonymous No.12603280]

>>12603260
I don't agree with most of his ideas, but his importance in the development of Metaphysics as a serious academic discipline in the 20th century is undeniable.

[Anonymous No.12603292]

>>12603280
Cont.
For example, I think Kant is wrong in almost everything he wrote. That does not mean he is not important or a classic.

[Anonymous No.12603302]

Now people like Zizek, Sargon, Molymeme etc. are popular, but not serious philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12603305]

>>12603260
Stay mad faggot.

>>12603266
I do, and I know enough to respect their domain and back away. Brandom’s work has most certainly impacted stuff in your own field of interests given that he’s the great successor of the patriarchs of pragmatism.

>>12603280
This. Anyone who says otherwise is a pleb. His influence cannot be understated. The man put Descartes back on the table a solid 200+ years after everyone thought the dualist project was done.

[Anonymous No.12603320]

>>12603305
I know Brandom and Nussbaum by name. I will search more about them. Thanks for the recommendation.

[Anonymous No.12603321]

>>12603302
People who discredit Zizek like this have only ever consumed his popular stuff. There’s definately been a hard transition in his work and approach right about the time those first Pervert’s movies came out, and especially by the time one was put on Netflix. But the man knows his shit and his early works/papers for journals are entrenched in the Lacanian end of the post-structural tradition; he knows his Marx; and he has an almost erotic fixation on Hegel and the subsequent scholarship. Unlike these other names, he has his roots and knows his shit. He’s just caught up in the popular image game right now.

[Anonymous No.12603335]

>>12603321
>People who discredit Zizek like this have only ever consumed his popular stuff.
Perhaps, you are right. I am very suspicious of pop-philosophers like Peterson, Varg, Molyneaux etc. The only exception is Dennett that has solid contributions even though he writes for the great public.

[Anonymous No.12603349]

>>12603321
>But the man knows his shit and his early works/papers for journals are entrenched in the Lacanian end of the post-structural tradition; he knows his Marx; and he has an almost erotic fixation on Hegel and the subsequent scholarship.

I usually don't take Continental Philosophy seriously. But I think there are good insights in the Speculative Realist tradition though.

[Anonymous No.12603372]

>>12603335
Honestly Dennett makes me cringe a bit more than Zizek because a lot of what Zizek does is kind of live-action shit post; otherwise he’ll just ramble aloud in academic jargon for fifteen minutes and nobody understands what the fuck he is saying. Like his views on rascist jokes. He could sit there and nuance his shit by walking us through Lacanian id and the petit objet a and all that (and believe me, pre-2008 Zizek would have), but now he just says “My nigger friend has a big black dick” and dumb shit like that because he knows that’s what people want to hear and if they take his point than why does it matter, etc. Dennett really tries to explain himself while also holding to philosophical terms and sometimes it works, and other times he leaves out major argumentative commitments that make him look like a dumbass (like all his stuff on free will).

[Anonymous No.12603388]

>>12603349
If that’s your slant, that’s fine, but there’s just as much literal day-to-day rigor and nuance that has to be sifted through in the contiental tradition as one could find in the analytic tradition, assuming we’re not dealing with an undergrad approach or a bonafide pop philosopher. I think thats why the pushback on Peterson is well-deserved; his biggest crime is assuming other disciplines aren’t as tedious and “learned” as those that he readily understands.

[Anonymous No.12603394]

>>12601665
me

[Anonymous No.12603415]

>>12603228
It’s strange, within academic political philosophy Charles Taylor is regarded as maybe the single greatest living philosopher, but outside of academia is basically totally unknown.
Here’s a basic summary of his work.
His book on Hegel is the single best one volume exposition in English, even if Zizek hates it. In 1989 he came out with his first masterwork Sources of the Self, which critiques the liberal theory of identity and posits a communitarian identity theory. His next important work is “The Politics of Recognition” (1992) where he lays what is necessary for there to be anything like justice for minorities within a multicultural democracy. This essay wasn’t just academically important but actually played a huge force in shaping policy within the Canadian government and Taylor has since served on committees that sought to determine what consistutes ‘reasonable accommodations’ for ethnic and religious minorities. Reading him and then looking at how the actual policy of Canadian multinationalism has played out is a fancinating thing. Lastly, his second masterwork is A Secular Age, which maps out a history of the secularization of the West from the reformation onwards. It consistutes probably the greatest work of catholic social philosophy written in at least 50 years.

Robert Brandom is mostly famous for being the leader of a group that revived Hegel in analytical philosophy and for his book Making it Explicit.

Tim Williamson’s book Knowledge and it’s Limits is widely seen in analytical philosophy as the most important advance in epistemology in the last 30 years. His basic claim is that knowledge can’t be analyzed into more fundamental concepts, but rather is necessarily basic in human psychology.

Will Kymlicka is the major philosopher of liberal multiculturalism. His book Multicultural Citizenship is the book that argued that the recognition of distinct rights for different mintory groups is not just compatible with Lockeian liberalism but is actually necessarily implied by it. I think he’s the most widely cited living political philosopher.

Martha Naussbaum is a scholar of the classics who has written extensively in ethical and political philosophy. Anybody who loves the Greeks should read The Fragility of Goodness. Her work deals with what conditions cause morally righteous people to do bad things, as well as the nature of justice in general.

[Anonymous No.12603417]

>>12603372
His last works are very cringe I agree. His positions on qualia are also very confusing. However, his concept of Intentional Instance was a brilliant idea, I think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance

Another philosopher that deals with the same issues, but in a more sober/academic way is Ruth Millikan

[Anonymous No.12603437]

>>12603415
The greatest academic prize in Philosophy is the Shock Prize.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Schock_Prizes#Laureates_in_Logic_and_Philosophy

The recipients still alive are Ruth Millikan, Thomas Nagel, Saharon Shelah, Saul Kripke and Dana Scott.

[Anonymous No.12603459]

>>12603437
They tend to give more emphasis on philosophers with more technical works. Rawls and Parfit are the exceptions, I think.

[Anonymous No.12603516]

>>12601731
>Plato
>Sade
>Wilde
>Rimbaud
>Wittgenstein
>Mishima
>Burroughs
>Foucault
>Ashbery

why is the fag mind so /lit/?

[Anonymous No.12603536]

>>12598053
>evolution as a purpose
>still thinking teleologically of evolution in the year of lord 2019

ya dun goofed

I suspect you haven't read much of "the literature" either. Or more likely you're baiting.

[Anonymous No.12603565]

>>12597644
Idk, why do no women want to fuck you?

[Anonymous No.12603829]

>>12597644

[Anonymous No.12603956]

>>12597644
Theres Zizek, Huemer, Land, Benetar, Butler, Negrastani, Badiou among a ton of others OP

[Anonymous No.12603967]

>>12597644

[Anonymous No.12603976]

>>12603536
The word purpose when applied to evolution has a specific sort of usage that's different than the normal definition. It just means 'this stuff led to reproduction or it wouldn't exist".

Everything an organism is and does has to come from this sort of evolutionary logic