/lit/ - Literature

....21st century philosophy

what went wrong?

hol up

>>12252225
>>12252228
ahh the nietzchians of the 20th and 21st century

art and philosophy are dead

>>12252225
She was the best.

>>12252228
Rubin looks like he wants to put his thumb on Shapiro's ass

>>12252228
ahahahahahahaha I'm laughing so hard what a perfect photo and the context you've placed it in

Here's a thought, not only has the world's population greatly increased over the past 100 years, but the average iq and literacy rates have also vastly increased, and yet literature and philosophy have greatly decreased in quality.

If we ignore the literacy and other material factors rates for the sake of simplicity and assume that you are going to need at least an iq of 130 to be a good writer in any field of literature. 130 iq is in the 1 percentile and with a population of 7.7 billion or 7,700 million that means that there are around 77 million people in the world with the mental capacity to be a quality writer.

In the year 1900 the world's population was 1.6 billion or 1,600 million, if we project modern iq statistics onto this year the global average would probably be about 70, this means that a modern iq of 130 would be in the top 0.1%, and so the amount of people with a mental capacity to be a quality writer would be about 1.6 million.

This means that in modern times there is a pool of intelligent people 50 times larger, but still somehow literature and philosophy has gotten much worse, this gets even more extreme when you look back to the 19th century and so on.

What caused this?

>>12252228
It's not like that sorry bunch of faggots from op's post looks any better desu.

>>12252860
you havent read any of them

>>12252867
that's the kneejerk response you get everytime you comment on one of these clowns.

Actual philosophers being compared to dumbfuck nuTV talking heads doesn't give us a very good picture.

This is also fucking /lit/. The reason why the latter suck is because they don't fucking write. Their books are dogshit.

>>12252876
ok well have you read any of them?

>>12252854
>What caused this?
literacy of the masses

>>12252884
I read Deleuze in college.

>>12252867
He didn't miss out much desu.

>>12252854
>What cauaed this
late capitalism and memes

>>12252891
what have you read and tell me about it

>>12252897
>le late capitalism dude :(

>>12252228
anyone have the pic of this with the guenon quote

>>12252905
I will absolutely not jump through your hoops now anon. As far as I'm concerned, you're allowed to believe I'm clueless.

>>12252891
did you study philosophy as a grad student? if not I highly doubt you studied deleuze in undergrad

>>12252936
>study philosophy
i'm austrian and we talked about foucault/deleuze in 3rd semester psychology lmao.

>>12252854
intelligent people go to stem now instead of amusing themselves with dumb stories or with muh obscure lexicon that doesn't actually mean anything

>>12252344
yasss slay queen

>>12252239
I have yet to see a single person refute these lads. Few even dare acknowledge them.

>>12252239
who are these uncomfortable lookin dudes?

>>12253463
Iain Hamilton Grant, Graham Harman, Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier

>>12252225
can someone name everyone in this photo?

>>12253463
Le speedy guy's apprentices.

>>12253869
redpill me on them

>>12252228
I just knew you were going to use this fucking pic

>>12253923
They write self help and contrarian phamplets.

>>12253440
>>12253906
It's pretty weird /lit/ is so sceptical towards them, they basically all adopt Land's propulsion to explore the Outside in different ways.

>>12253872
Just a bunch of French fags desuu. Should have been a thread for post-WWII philosophers vs pre

>>12253906
>Le speedy guy

I'm ashamed to say it took me a few seconds too long to realize this referred to accelerationism. Especially given that speculative realism doesn't really explicitly connect to Land, unless you just mean having Deleuze as an influence.

>>12254026
Brassier and Grant is explicitly influenced by Nick Land. The speculative movement can be said to break with forms of representation - a continental broken-record - which is exactly what Land worked with.

>>12252239
>>12253440
brassier thinks harman is a pseud

>>12252228

>>12253872
Had to google it, apparently:

Deleuze, Lyotard, de Gandillac, Klossowski, Derrida, Pautrat

Maybe the order is off though, the third guy looks more like Derrida (at least in the picture in the OP, not so much in this other picture). The fifth guy just looks like some Sopranos character or something.

Also why do these Frenchies look so much like vampires? Deleuze is a long clawed Nosferatu, Klossowski is Dracula the bald version, Lacan is Dracula the charming version.

>>12252239
redpill me on these guys

>>12252854
It's an inability to come to a consensus - which is a direct result of the education of the masses.

>>12252854
Maybe their is some other quality that makes a great writer besides IQ. I am not denying that IQ is a factor but maybe something like emotional intelligence is lacking in the 21st century.

>>12252228
The pursuit of wealth and popularity above all else. They want to peddle their thoughts to the lowest common denominator because that's where the money is.

>>12252228
We let the (North) Americans pretend to be smart for too long.

>>12254259
They no like correlationism

>>12254545
>Related to 'anthropocentrism', object-oriented thinkers reject correlationism, which the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux defines as "the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other".
Who would like it? How fucking gimped does your idea of being and thinking have to be to propound such a preposterous position?

>>12254580
According to Meillassoux most modern and contemporary philosophers are correlationists.It kind of makes sense for Kantians of all kinds, Phenomenologists especially since they're pretty focused on subjectivity. That wikipedia definition is too technical though, it doesn't clarify necessarily. The concept amounts basically to saying that you cannot formulate judgments on anything without thinking about it therefore making it subjective, you cannot get at an outside. Meillassoux quotes some contemporary phenomenologists who says that it works like a transparent cage, you always see and feel an outside, but can never escape your condition.

With Nietzsche and Deleuze it's a bit more difficult, but the speculative realists for the most part accuse them of projecting subjective experiences (memory, habit, drive etc.) onto Being as such so maybe they're correlationists as well in some sense. I don't remember if Meillassoux criticizes them explicitly under this term, but he certainly is against their approach and Brassier says something similar.

>>12252225

Bump

>>12254212
Night at the Museum 2: Electric Stovealoo

>>12252239
brassier is a hack