/lit/ - Literature

>>20118541
Among philosophers today, materialism is actually becoming increasingly less held. And it's not because they're converting to theism or anything. These are atheist but honest smart people, smarter than the scientistic pseuds anyway, but they feel consciousness is not reducible to the material. Why don't you take them seriously yourself?

>>15553455
In the case of continentals I'm pretty sure Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Derrida will be historically studied in the future the way 19th century or early modern philosophers are. With time (this is already happening) more attention will also be paid to Deleuze, Baudrillard, Badiou, and the people they've inspired. I'm guessing people will be reading phenomenologists, existentialists, and poststructuralists for some time.

In the case of analytics one of two things will happen. Option 1: Past big-name analytics become gradually forgotten. This was the fate of most of the 19th century post-Hegelian philosophers, the ones that weren't doing life-philosophy or leftist political philosophy. A lot of their work was proto-analytic, but analytic philosophy was so focused on being ahistorical that they quickly forgot them. The earliest analytics (like Russell and Carnap) cite them a lot, but this stopped around the 1950s or so. Option 2: Some analytics become remembered once they're packaged as systematic philosophers. Expect to see Quine, Putnam, Kripke, Lewis.

Chalmers has a shot at greatness. It depends on where analytic metametaphysics and systematic metaphysics goes from here. He wrote a book called Constructing the World, which is part of an emerging movement in analytic philosophy that seems to be a little more open to systematicity. He's not the only one (another example is Ted Sider's Writing the Book of the World).

>>14147265
Good thing qualia do exist.