/lit/ - Literature

zizek of course

You and me, brother

>>11076081
This genius
http://research.gold.ac.uk/11135/

>In this paper I am concerned with instances in which carbon fiber extends performances of masculinity that are attached to particular kinds of hegemonic male bodies. In examining carbon fiber as a prosthetic form of masculinity, I advance three main arguments. Firstly, carbon fiber can be a site of the supersession of disability that is affected through masculinized technology. Disability can be ‘overcome’ through carbon fiber. Disability is often culturally coded as feminine (Pedersen, 2001; Meeuf, 2009; Garland-Thompson 1997). Building on this cultural construction of disability as feminine, in and as a technology of masculine homosociality (Sedgwick, 1985), carbon fiber reproduced disability as feminine when carbon fiber prosthetic lower legs allowed Oscar Pistorius to compete in the non-disabled Olympic games.

>>11076081
Noam Chomsky

>>11076081
I’m wondering, how were the greats perceived during their time? Weren’t a lot of them seen as retards or crazies? Is it actually possible that one of these clowns will be remembered in the future as a great thinker that was beyond their time?

One of these is not like the others

>>11076184
NOT AN ARGUMENT STOP BEING PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>11076184
Yeah, Molyneux is clearly an inferior intellect.

>>11076081
Harris is a one in a generation genious. He closed the is/ought gap in 8 tweet

>>11076176
both Socrates and Plato were revered by powerful aristocrats of Athens, Aristotle had his own school and taught Alexander the Great. This board is so illiterate and illogical its becoming painful interacting with any of you. Read a fucking book

>>11076209
Take off the rose colored glasses and take your own advice retard. Socrates was declared a retard and sentenced to death by 500 of his own peers. Doesn't sound like people were crazy about him.

>>11076208
Ayn Rand got to it first

>>11076208
>>11076257

>>11076217
>Socrates was declared a retard and sentenced to death by 500 of his own peers
Ah, well first off he was falsely accused of impiety for calling the Olympian gods a sham and pointing out that the Dorian morality was perverse and nonsensical logically, and then providing the people with Apollinian insight into the hidden god of the Mediterranean peoples, the Orphic god, and then the trial was actually decided by his unwillingness to defend himself, which he went out of his way to not do, and then even still with all of his efforts to prove he was a gift to Athens, they barely found the majority vote lying on the guilty verdict, so you're wrong. And of course his friends were all aristocrats and its stated in the The Apology that he refused to bring most of his family and friends to the hearing because he didn't want to make an emotional display, he was also asked to serve on two different important tribunals, once after the battle of Salamis and the other escapes my memory. So, you're absolutely wrong in every sense anon; both he and Plato were revered, so much so that Dionysius sought out Plato's advice and counsel from Sicily and so much so that Aristotle was asked to tutor the most powerful man on Earth for years.

That fucking smug mug. I cant stand it every time I see that pic.

>>11076209
>>11076217
>>11076276
Socrates didn't exist, Plato made him up

>>11076081
Thomas777 and Icycalm

>>11076081
Definitely this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL4Gq1Le2rQ

>>11076288
Wrong

>>11076288
Did Aristophanes made him up too?

If I had to guess, regardless of what any of us think of them:

>Badiou
>Zizek
>Land
>Butler

Completely unironically. See >>11076209. The greats are always popular and well respected, with some controversy stirring around them and their theories. In our current set up it's unpopular for communities like /lit/ to take popular intellectuals seriously, but Plato and Aristotle and Kant and Hume and Sartre were undoubtedly the popular intellectuals of their time. And who else would fit besides these? Sam Harris is maybe a possibility for holding out on the clash of civilizations narrative, or some conservative thinker like him.

>>11076318
Wrong
>>11076323
Yes

>>11076081
Broadly defining ‘our time’, Badiou and Deleuze. Refering even more broadly to the whole modern age as our time then sure Hegel and Marx.
>>11076176
Generally speaking, including Plato and Aristotle, most great philosophers were understood to be great in their own day. Even people like Hume, for whom few appreciated the full significants of his thought in his life, many still saw him as an important intellectual in his own day.

>>11076208
>genious
Very appropriate.

>>11076352
>>Land

Dude's a self-published schizo

>>11076352
What about Alisdair MacIntyre?

>>11076081
Probably Zizek if you mean 'our time' to be like, since 1990. But as Plato or Aristotle? No one. Plato especially is a peerless titan of western philosophy.

the set of metaphysical ideas is small and mostly exhausted by the ancients so no-one

>>11076091

>>11076398
At least to me, one thing that is necessary to even compete would be a broad focus with an interesting new perspective on multiple fields. MacIntyre revives Aristotle’s ethics, but he’s just an ethicist, not a well rounded philosopher.

Somebody like Kripke is a better candidate because he’s made innovative contributes to logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of language.

Of those listed in >>11076352 I’d argue Badiou is the only one who is close to this status. Butler is a very one trick pony, and outside of Gender a Trouble and Bodies That Matter, the rest of her work isn’t particularly well cited in comparison.

Though it’s pretty funny to me that even her lesser work has as many citations as all of Jordan Peterson’s work put together.

I’d also hit Zizek with being limited in his scope. He talks about a lot of stuff, but when it all shakes out I don’t think he’s doing to have many dramatic or innovative insights ascribed to him across different fields.


Land is a crank, sorry to say. He’s a interesting reader of Kant, but otherwise he’s just not the philopher King people make him out to be.

>>11076081
The question of who is the deepest thinker of our time is almost impossible to say at this time. It will take 100 years to see whose ideas stick around. I will say though that I highly doubt any of the men in the OP photo will.

So far in this thread I'd say>>11076129 Chomsky is the most likely to stand the test of time but I wouldn't really consider him part of "our time".

>>11076081

Sam>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stefan>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>John>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jordan

>>11076467
>Land is a crank, sorry to say. He’s a interesting reader of Kant, but otherwise he’s just not the philopher King people make him out to be

I believe it, but doea that necessarily mean he wont be remembered as a veritable profit? If he had a controversial following and claimed to predict what many other people saw coming as well, depending on how he's remembered it doesnt seem impossible at all that he could attain some kind of mythical status.

Maybe I'm just cynical but I really doubt the most popular philosophers of past centuries were actually the absolute best and brightest and didnt come by their reputation by a mix of circumstance and tact.

>>11076740
>profit

*prophet, sorry havent slept in about 20 hours at this point

>>11076081

Fucking no one, anyone who takes the philosophical process actually serious sure as hell isn't whoring themselves out to pop-discussion events or getting into tit-for-tat debates with other "philosophers" online. And as a result, no one will no about them, and hence we will be stuck with the same braindead, mediocre-at-best academics define modern philosophy for generations to come, as rampant consumerism continues to drain any vitality out of whatever genuine philosophical motivation is left.

>>11076352
Schoppy and Neetchan weren't that popular.
>>11076081
Agamben, Habermas, McIntyre, maybe Sloterdijk. Sociologist like Bourdieu as well. In general, continental philosophy is getting more and more irrelevant as time passes.
>>11076352
Zizek is an absolute meme, Land doesn't even deserve the meme status, Badiou is butthurt old Maoist that no one takes seriously, Butler is only read in America.

>>11076081
The Hitch, obviously. I wish he was still alive.

>>11076467
Moldbug and Land were predicting stuff 11 years ago that puts to shame any leftist theorist of the last 50 years

>>11076721
Sam>Peterson>don't know who Stefan is but I'm sure he's better than John>John

>>11076081
Try posting some actual philosophers. .

>>11076107
Sounds dumb.

There won't be any acclaimed philosophers for a while, nietzsche was the last one

>>11076209
A few Athenians and some rulers of neighbouring countries doesn't make they 'revered' or even known. Aristotle was a foreigner, just in that there is a limit to how prominent he can be.

>>11076081
John Greene, not because he's the superior writer, but because he's the most popular.

>>11076959
this tbqh

not
>Ray Brassier

>>11077055
isn't he just Land lite?

>>11076874
>don't know who Stefan is but I'm sure he's better than John
you'd be surprised

>>11077122
"kind of"

>>11076081
A few good posts in this thread listing some of the most brilliant philosophical minds of our time, but unfortunately I'd have to claim none of them are currently quite at the level of influence and groundbreaking work held by the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, or even Heidegger. The closest we have, as put forth by others in this thread, are probably Habermas, Sloterdijk, Agamben, Badiou, and Zizek on the continental side, and Kripke, Searle, Putnam, and Chalmers. Like someone else said, a large problem is very few contemporary philosophers attempt and succeed to produce a grand system from the ground-up that presents significant contributions to a wide range of areas.

The field as a whole has become too specialized, too narrow, too tied to an earlier thinker and paradigm (i.e. almost everyone is classified according to one of the truly great philosophers -- they're all Nietzschean, Aristotelian, Heideggerian, Kantian, and so on). Not that this is necessarily a bad thing at all, but it certainly makes it much more difficult to reach the level of one of those greats. For example, Korsgaard and MacIntyre are fantastic and important, but historically they will be seen as primarily updating the projects of Kant and Aristotle and Aquinas (who himself was also in the shadow of Aristotle!) for the contemporary era. Or in the case of Rawls and Singer, both without question extremely influential today, their works are too particular to a specific field -- political philosophy, ethics -- in comparison to, say, Kant's revolutionary work on epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, theology, aesthetics, etc., while also shattering the dominant paradigm of his time with his own brilliant system (we're pretty much all Kantians since).

If I had to only pick one name for continental and analytic, it'd be Habermas and Kripke, respectively. Although that could change with future English translations of Sloterdijk's work, I'm very interested in it and see monumental possibilities there.

>>11076081
I suppose Peterson is the most Aristotle-like, since he advocates self-improvement and temperance. He is also the only one up there with peer-recognized expertise (before he became a pop figure).

John Green will be remembered fondly by a new generation of adults that grew up with his edutainement and YA novels, kind of like Bill Nye the Science Guy.

The other two won't be remembered in 20 years.

>>11077171
Love me some Agamben.

Kanye West

>>11076276
Don't even bother my dude. I bet that guy doesn't even know about the Peloponnesian War.

>>11076081
George Grant

>>11076895
>Russel? Wittgenstein? Derrida? Who are those?

Honestly, Bill Burr

>>11077251
Yes, who are they?

john rawls

>>11077341
I agree, the veil of igorance and revival of social contract theory are simply brilliant

Me, but only after the AI assemble a full model of my 4chan shitposts and realize how ahead of the age I was

Peterson, yes. Green, yes; but not as a philosopher. Harris and Molymeme, no.

>>11076081

>Le Semicolon of Underaged Pseudointellectualism

yikes

Do you fags even realize how much time you're wasting with these guys?

*touches your stove*

>>11076081
Peterson stands a chance of being remembered like Jung if he writes something original, if he has something original to say.

>>11076200
Agreed

>>11076208
No he isn,t. He's very smart but clinges too much to his rational believes. He doesn't understand one thing about religion. I have read all his books and allthough he is very smart and especially well spoken he misses the point.

>>11076081
Whoever ends up the most cited by their peers in the end.

>>11076081
PLEASUREMAN

>>11076129
most likely pick right here

>>11076081
JP no question
even Harris hasn't had the publicity that JP has had

>>11078025
won't he crash and burn during the Bannon 2020 campaign?

>>11076288
brainlet - there is certainly proof for his existence, if he said anything that was close to what Plato taught is another thing.

>>11076721
Harris=Peterson>John (crash coarse is kinda ok)>Molynxxhxzh=literal sheit

>>11078367
but i would also place chomsky and Zizek quite high

>>11077171
>Like someone else said, a large problem is very few contemporary philosophers attempt and succeed to produce a grand system from the ground-up that presents significant contributions to a wide range of areas.
It's not a "problem", continental philosophy has consciously decided to do away with such systems since at least Heidegger.

>>11076081
I'm a Randian and I think Molymeme is a fucking hack. He does not belong with these 3. Inconsistent fuck is all over the place and his videos are over-grave bloated fuckers where he takes forever to get to the point and employs metaphor fucking constantly. It's obnoxious.
I'd actually like Sam Harris the most of these four if it wasn't for his socialist politics and determinist epistemology.
Jordan Peterson is ok but he's a fucking eastern mystic.
Molyneux is pro capitialism but is incompetent and contradictory. Also an AnCap, except when he's not.
John Green has a good head on his shoulders but is philosophically irrelevant.

>>11078409
assuming heidegger still counts as 'of our time.' maybe 1927 is too long ago.

but nobody really believes that nietzsche is completely irrelevant today. and so long as he isn't, neither is heidegger. and heidegger is real bridge imho out of western metaphysics and into eastern metaphysics and back again.

>>11078434
>I'm a Randian

>>11078434
I'm a Randian

more like randroid amirite?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=randroid

>>11078380
Molymeme=Zizek desu
Both shit on opposite ends. I fucking despise Chomsky but at least he is respectable.
Harris=Peterson>>Chomsky>Green>>>>>>Molyneux=Zizek

The left's blatant attempts to elevate their Marxist pet to stardom is pitiful

>>11078451
Rand is cool.
Androids are cool.
No issue here famalamadingdong

>>11076081
dare i say he's as good as your platos, your aristotles, your virgils

oobviously moly and sargon of akkad
based faggot milo coming in 3rd

>>11076081
Remembered, of that pic, from most to least
>Sam Harris, Jordon Peterson, John Green, Stephen Molyneaux

*blocks your path*

>>11076081
All of them
Which is funny since they don't even do the tertiary shit themselves, they have random humanity graduates write everything for them