Contemporary philosophy

[Anonymous No.16122160]

This board revolves around Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Marx, and a few other dead men.

Can we discuss 20th century philosophy once in a while? Who is worth reading?

[Anonymous No.16122183]

There is no one stopping you from discussing 20 century philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16122202]

I'll give a few suggestions

Bernard Williams
Derek Parfit
Philippa Foot
PF Strawson
JL Mackie

[Anonymous No.16122979]

>>16122160
John Searle
Todd Moody
David Chalmers
Simon Blackburn

[Anonymous No.16123980]

>>16122160
Dude I constantly see discussions of 20th century philosophers, do you even lurk?

[Anonymous No.16123991]

>>16123980
Mostly the pseud ones and "internet famous" grifters that aren't taken seriously in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16124000]

Horia Belcea

[Anonymous No.16124062]

Modern philosophers are all shit. Trust me I've read none of them.

[Anonymous No.16124452]

>>16124062
based retard

[Anonymous No.16125227]

>>16122202
Based analytic reading list. I'd also add Alasdair MacIntyre.

[Anonymous No.16125259]

>>16122160
There's a fuckton of 20th century philosophers discussed on there like Foucault, Heidegger, Schmitt, Freud, etc.

[Anonymous No.16126196]

>>16125259
Those are all pseuds, though.

[Anonymous No.16126286]

I start feeling like I'm morphing into the Guenonfag but for Sloterdijk because I'm shilling him so hard recently.
But seriously though, best German thinker since the last few decades and still writing stuff.

[Anonymous No.16126296]

>>16125259
>Foucault, Heidegger,
Cringe
>Schmitt, Freud,
Based

[Anonymous No.16126297]

>>16122160
Albert Camus - The Myth of Sisyphus
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice/The Law of Peoples/Justice as Fairness
Michael Walzer - Just and Unjust Wars
Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent

[Anonymous No.16126319]

>>16125259
In that sense then we can also add the Pragmatists (James et al), the Vienna Circle, the Frankfurt School, etc since they were all present in 1900-2000, but I'd hardly call them contemporary. It's not even about time period - John Rawls's theory of justice written in 1971 is contemporary, Foucault's Discipline and Punishment written in 1975 is not. The point is that contemporary work addresses modern issues or at least incorporates the latest themes, events, findings etc.

[Anonymous No.16126532]

>>16122160
My Phd thesis

Legit though, who si worth reading depends on what you're in to. I honestly suggest, if you know a topic you like getting an oxford or cambridge introduction/companion to that and going from there.

I won't give any recs though, I my PhD was philosophy of medicine and it's niche and doesn't deal with any big questions people tend to like. Saying that, Stegenga's Medical Nihilism was a great book, even if it the conclusions is about 10x too strong for the arguments made. It'll open your eyes to current medical standards too, in a scary way.

[Anonymous No.16126561]

>>16126532
Interesting. Summary of thesis? I've been reading a lot of pop-med lately, a lot of it very critical of the whole establishment. Especially the field of psychiatry, which at the moment seems more like a farce that will be ridiculed the near future. (See The Myth of Mental Illness by Thomas Szasz, Madness Explained by Richard Bentall, etc.) In one book (think it was Bill Bryson) there was a statistic that for most of history, if you visited a doctor you were more likely to do more harm than good - even today the iatrogenic nature of medicine is a problem. The scariest book though was Bad Pharma. I don't think I'll ever be able to go to a doctor and accept pills after reading this.

[Anonymous No.16126621]

>>16122202
>>16125227
Don't forget G.E.M. Anscombe. She's pretty important to the understanding the works of both Phillipa Foot and Alasdair MacIntyre since she was a big part of the revival of virtue ethics.

[Anonymous No.16126661]

>>16126561
Ive read a few of those, bad pharma and other Goldacre books are actually what got me into my field.

My thesis essentially argues that despite having lofty ideals for the standard of evidence we use to support medical decisions (those Evidence Based Medicine suggests we should use), the quality of evidence that supports most medical decisisons is actually pretty low. For instance, the evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials that purports to recommend certain treatments for different ilnesses actually don't do as much to show a treatment is effective as people often think they do. There are many ways an RCT can show what appears to be a positive treatment effect other than that a treatment is effective. For instance: chance, results fishing, insufficient placebo coltrolling or double blinding.

[Anonymous No.16126681]

>>16115885

[Anonymous No.16126693]

>>16125259
Don't forget the wave of "Deleuzeans" that hit this board

[Anonymous No.16126714]

>>16126196
Sorry, should've added some womyn

[Anonymous No.16126786]

>>16126661
Have you read Annemarie Mol?

[Anonymous No.16126792]

>>16124000
based

[Anonymous No.16127048]

>Contemporary Philosophy
>”20th century“

[Anonymous No.16127150]

>>16127048
Worthless post but yes, many consider contemporary philosophy to start at the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.16127150,1]

Think reading from the post-structuralists is super important in understanding the contemporary.
Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault are all must reads. I think David-Harvey is also a must-read.