/lit/ - Literature

Nick Land is a bit of a meme, but at least he has a body of literature to his name that does something resembling philosophy. Other than Land, who are some contemporary, living philosophers who have published high-level philosophical writings? Something like pic related, like MacIntyre's "After Virtue" and his other works.

Alasdair MacIntyre is the greatest living philosopher.

Alasdair MacIntyre is still alive.

>>11771185
*blocks your path*

Alasdair MacIntyre is still alive.

>>11336154
Land wishes he were smart enough to read the Cliffs Notes of Alisdair MacIntyre. Land is a pseud, which is by now self-evident since he's devolved into a Frogtwitter fuckhead.

>>11326902
>he got tricked into forgetting classical wisdom because the enlightenment wrongly rejected it, failed to ground itself properly, and then led its followers into a blind alley of despair and meaninglessness through its own failure

Must suck to be you bruh.

>>11317989
>The educators in Ontario have already decided that the goal of the education system is to indoctrinate children from from kindergarten-- from kindergarten-- into a ... communitarian, equity-oriented ethos.

Please leave communitarians out of this. We aren't what you think we are.

Aristotle or Nietzsche, which way will it be, Western man?

Read Alasdair MacIntyre

How do I start with Alasdair Macintyre? Book progression + what are the prerequisites.

Also discuss his work ITT.

>>10534892
Why don't you fucking prove it, cucklord?

Are there any other really good, rigorous philosophers from the 1980s onward that I should be reading? My baseline for this is pic related. Anybody in the last 35 years or so who's up to MacIntyre's standards?

I am all in favor of banning discussion of meme philosophers without serious treatises. That includes Peterson, Harris, Rogan, Molyneux, etc., anybody who hasn't written something rigorous. If all you have is podcasts and YouTube videos, get the fuck out.

Ironically this means we could still discuss Land since he did write Fanged Noumena.

>>9983405
Why, neomedievalism, of course.

>>9876213
>he doesn't know

>>9585741
>Christianity invented the innocence of the victim. Nobody gave a shit before, everyone was like: "Fuck that guy".
That doesn't seem to tackle my point. 1. Would you say Christianty is a necessary condition for our modern concern for the victim. Why? 2. Why should we care about the victim anyway? (That second question is not an attack on Girard's position, but rather a manifestation of my ignorance on his position)
>Re-read the part about Nietzsche being mad at Christianity introducing this concept.
Maybe I'm being dense, but yeah Nietzsche and Christianity disagreed. But why should we choose the peaceful truth of the victim?
>go ask every single culture why they worship the victim so much before taking its life
This seems like an unjustified generalization. To pick a contemporary counter-example: surely ISIS doesn't worship the homoseksuals nor did there take a whole lot of worshipping place during the shoah. Maybe we're not on the same page about what 'worship' is. Are you perhaps referring to phenomena like the public exucution. In that case the homoseksuals are in a way worship, but when it comes to the shoah haben wir es nicht gewußt.
>Read Homo Sacer by Agamben.
I might, but my reading list as of now is rather long. I want to get a strong basis before tackling the contemporary theorists.
>Girard was perfectly aware of the challlenges and limits in researching this in a scientfic manner.
That's cool.
>Scapegoating accomplishes fuck all in regards to the causes of whichever crisis it alleges to solve.
>The Gospels hit the nail on the head by showing people that they can stop the scapegoating, Jesus teaches us the divine way of stopping to be spooked retards who punish the innocent over our own failings.
So it's a matter of efficiency? Efficiency ain't morally neutral. Now the real question should be: to what end ought we to be efficient. I don't think Jesus or Girard can answer that question. Doesn't the question of efficiency become trival, or at least secondairy, in the light of that question?

Why is MacIntyre such a fucking retard?

> hurr durr we need to return to virtue ethics to fix moral discourse of modernity
> hurr durr we need to bring back Aristotle's functional concepts and telos to have common ground

Like, how do philosophy professors at universities even take this guy seriously?

“Imprisoning philosophy within the professionalizations and specializations of an institutionalized curriculum, after the manner of our contemporary European and North American culture, is arguably a good deal more effective in neutralizing its effects than either religious censorship or political terror.”