/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16035695]

What is happening in western philosophy today? Any developments at all? Or are we only curating the works of historical thinkers without any new ideas?

[Anonymous No.16035713]

>>16035695
Nick Land
Mencius Moldbug
Horia Belcea

[Anonymous No.16035724]

>>16035695
I'll get back to you in a millennium then I'll tell you to start with 21st century x philosophers

[Anonymous No.16035731]

>>16035695
its kinda hard to say without hindsight.

[Anonymous No.16035733]

>>16035713
None of those people are philosophers.

[Anonymous No.16035751]

>>16035695
Enroll in a philosophy course if you are interested. Generally speaking philosophers don't cite works published before 1950.

[Anonymous No.16035754]

>>16035695
Just wait senpai, hopefully I'll get some good shit out in a few months

[Anonymous No.16035953]

818. It is astonishing to me that popularizing scribblers like Dawkins et al. still adhere to a fundamental difference between "facts" and "opinions" over a hundred years after relativity theory, in which observers moving with different speeds (i.e. everyone, since we are all ultimately "moving with different speeds") can't even agree on what time of the day it is, let alone on anything more complex. In modern physics, the time of the day or the dimensions of an object, or its speed, or any other attribute of it whatsoever, are a matter of opinion, dear popularizing scribblers! and it is a disgrace that you, who have taken it upon yourselves to explain modern science to the general public, still fail to grasp this, despite all the pompous titles you hold and academic chairs you occupy between you. Nietzsche had already grasped it several decades before relativity ("There are no facts, only interpretations"), and without any mathematics, but if you blockheads still fail to grasp it even with math you should be made to eat the stupid dogmatic books with which you are poisoning the public's mind in the name of a naive, simplistic "objectivity"! (On the other hand, relativity theory is "Continental", since it was created by a German, and after all it's "merely a theory", without which our spacecraft wouldn't function, among many other things, and that's why the "pragmatic", "realist" Anglo-Saxons like Dawkins and his ilk are still stuck on Medieval Newtonian physics lol — and that's a fact, retards!)

http://orgyofthewill.net/

This guy has solved everything.

[Anonymous No.16035970]

>>16035695
baudrillard, mark fisher, graham harman

[Anonymous No.16035973]

>>16035751
I don't think he meant the academic citation cartel

[Anonymous No.16035977]

>>16035713
>Alt right autists
No thanks

[Anonymous No.16035978]

Philosophy isn't in demand in an age of hedonism and godlessness.

[Anonymous No.16035993]

>developments
>philosophy
Pick one
Do you mean have there been philosophical books that others have enjoyed? Sure there’s plenty but it’s entirely subjective.

[Anonymous No.16035995]

>>16035978
>ancient greece

[Anonymous No.16036012]

>>16035995
Read Davidson you brainlet

[Anonymous No.16036022]

>>16035695
Postmodernism is still a hot topic
But ...the day of the philosopher as isolated thinker – the talented amateur with an idiosyncratic message – is effectively gone.
Philosophy has undergone professionalization. The transformation into a profession brings about many subtle changes to a field of inquiry, but one more readily identifiable component of professionalization is the increasing irrelevance of "the book" to the field:
>"research communiqués will begin to change in ways [...] whose modern end products are obvious to all and oppressive to many. No longer will [a member's] researches usually be embodied in books addressed [...] to anyone who might be interested in the subject matter of the field. Instead they will usually appear as brief articles addressed only to professional colleagues, the men whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be assumed and who prove to be the only one able to read the papers addressed to them."
Philosophy underwent this process toward the end of the 19th century, and it is one of the key distinguishing features of the contemporary philosophy era in Western philosophy.
Germany was the first country to professionalize philosophy. At the end of 1817, Hegel was the first philosopher to be appointed professor by the State, namely by the Prussian Minister of Education, as an effect of Napoleonic reform in Prussia. In the United States, the professionalisation grew out of reforms to the American higher-education system largely based on the German model. James Campbell describes the professionalisation of philosophy in America as follows:
(Cont.)

[Anonymous No.16036030]

Kant already solved Philosophy and his descendants, the logical positivists, already finalized everything.
There is no more philosophy to be done, it's solved already. The only thing to do now is speculate about the future with respect to materialist and positivist conditions.

[Anonymous No.16036035]

>>16036022 (cont.)
>The list of specific changes [during the late 19th-century professionalization of philosophy] is fairly brief, but the resultant shift is almost total. [...] No longer could the [philosophy] professor function as a defender of the faith or an expounder of Truth. The new philosopher had to be a leader of inquires and a publicizer of results. This shift was made obvious when certified (often German-certified) philosophy Ph.D.'s replaced theology graduates and ministers in the philosophy classroom. The period between the time when almost no one had a Ph.D. to when almost everyone did was very brief. [...] The doctorate, moreover, was more than a license to teach: it was a certificate that the prospective philosophy instructor was well, if narrowly, trained and ready to undertake independent work in the now specializing and restricted field of academic philosophy. These new philosophers functioned in independent departments of philosophy [...] They were making real gains in their research, creating a body of philosophic work that remains central to our study even now. These new philosophers also set their own standards for success, publishing in the recognized organs of philosophy that were being founded at the time: The Monist (1890), The International Journal of Ethics (1890), The Philosophical Review (1892), and The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods (1904). And, of course, these philosophers were banding together into societies – the American Psychological Association (1892), the Western Philosophical Association (1900), and the American Philosophical Association (1900) – to consolidate their academic positions and advance their philosophic work.

[Anonymous No.16036043]

>>16035973
Jesus. Why does philosophy draw pseuds with exponentially more power than any other field. And the mental gymnastics these people do.

[Anonymous No.16036052]

>>16035953
This guy's musings are like those of a precocious high school student

[Anonymous No.16036062]

>>16036035 (cont.)

The end result of professionalization for philosophy has meant that work being done in the field is now almost exclusively done by university professors holding a doctorate in the field publishing in highly technical, peer-reviewed journals. While it remains common among the population at large for a person to have a set of religious, political or philosophical views that they consider their "philosophy", these views are rarely informed or connected to the work being done in professional philosophy today. Furthermore, unlike many of the sciences for which there has come to be a healthy industry of books, magazines, and television shows meant to popularize science and communicate the technical results of a scientific field to the general populace, works by professional philosophers directed at an audience outside the profession remain rare. Philosopher Michael Sandel's book "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?" and Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" are examples of works that hold the uncommon distinction of having been written by professional philosophers but directed at and ultimately popular among a broader audience of non-philosophers. Both works became New York Times best sellers. So read those if you want some up to date pop philosophy, otherwise checkout philosophy journals by universities.

[Anonymous No.16036068]

Philosophy was solved by Wittgenstein, there is nowhere to go, just curating the museum of history as Fukuyama said

[Anonymous No.16036076]

If you define "philosopher" as "someone born at least 100 or more years ago", then of course you will not find philosophers now.

[Anonymous No.16036089]

>>16035953
>that endgame book
This guy crushes puss. And after all, isn’t that what philosophy is all about? Appearing intelligent to drunk sorority chicks to get them to blow you?
>>16036068
Based

[Anonymous No.16036102]

>>16035953
even the title sounds like twitter bullshit

[Anonymous No.16036160]

>>16036022
>>16036035
>>16036062
Based and a good answer
>>16035713
>>16035724
>>16035731
>>16035733
>>16035751
>>16035754
>>16035953
>>16035970
>>16035973
>>16035977
>>16035978
>>16035993
>>16035995
>>16036012
>>16036030
>>16036043
>>16036052
>>16036068
>>16036076
>>16036089
>>16036102
Cringe, not an good answer

[Anonymous No.16036318]

>>16036160

[Anonymous No.16036600]

>>16035695
>imagine trying to write anything post Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16037181]

>>16036160
stop advertising your own posts

[Anonymous No.16037212]

Seems like the new past time is making fun of Harman for thinking that OOO is in any way new

[Anonymous No.16037293]

>implying

[Anonymous No.16037337]

>>16037212
he admits right off the bat that he developed it from studying Heidegger