/lit/ - Literature

What are the contemporary areas of philosophy/criticism? When I was in college, post-modernism a la Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze were still in vogue, as was post-colonialism. Have English departments moved beyond to areas like new materialism and object-oriented ontology?

>>11239356
not so much

>The first point belies my second, however, and my primary objection with where anarcho-nihilism takes its critique. Despite claiming to be nihilists, they just like every other post-left tendency cannot get past post-phenomenological concerns. Their interests are regressive and humanist to the core, as they are ultimately only concerned with recapturing some idealized and long-gone narrative of experiencing the world authentically — something which the primitivists have most astutely out of everyone ran with and taken to its fullest and most thoroughly regressive and repugnant conclusions. I’ve spoken at length and will continue to write further in my cyber-nihilist series about why holding onto humanism and the desire for authenticity is a useless endeavor, and a deeper critique of it would require a post of its own. But I will say here that ultimately, the post-phenomenological line of thought is a trite inheritance from Kant. It is only human to fear the Outside or Other or Noumena with irrational fervor, and do anything we can to hold dominion over the realm of phenomena that we’ve been given, but ultimately it is only denying us other possibilities by clinging to the familiar.

>We are, in a very Nietzschean sense, sickly to the core in trying to stave this off.

source
https://nyxus.xyz/

and she knew what a clownshow the interview with murphy was anyways.

https://twitter.com/NyxLandUnlife/status/1001902504668516353

frankly i i think like this slimegirl

start with the philosophers

are there any philosophers that have developed a working model for a desirable state(by modern standards)? Everyone I have read seems to be bumping into the old communist issue of "it sounds good on paper but does not work in reality" and instead of reworking their idea they just curse the world. There often also lack any defense from the external

So I have a question for all of you /lit philosophers. One of the things that I like the most in earing a philosopher (or not) is the vision of the quotidian that hey have. People that can see a philosophical point of view in everything! From movies, to tv shows and especially books. But also in day to day situations. How one accomplishes this? Is it all just about reading?

Am I just too much of a brainlet to understand it, or is there something just dumb about it? Here is my impression of every philosophy text I've read:

>author makes up their own definitions
>proceeds to make an argument with those definitions
>act like they've proven something with their argument, but in reality they haven't, because they were just arguing with definitions they themselves came up with

It all feels so circular to me. I have never really read a philosophy text and felt like I have actually learned anything new, because so much of it is just the author defining their own terms. The only times I feel like I learn something are when it's combined with science, say, how our sense of disgust influences our political leanings. But most of the time I get absolutely nothing out of it.