/lit/ - Literature

>>13307150
Sloterdijk

Jesus Christ

>>13307150

>>13307166
The King of Pseuds

>>13307150
Donald Trump

>>13307178

>>13307150
Dugin.

>>13307191
probably this

>>13307150
Isn't Chomsky one of the most cited people ever?

ben shapiro

>>13307150
de Benoist

>>13307212
Yes. In spite of this I'm gonna say Kripke, though.

Badiou on the continental side of things.

>>13307212
Herodot is probably one of the most cited historians which doesn't mean he wasn't wrong on basically everything.

>>13307212
chomsky is retarded

>>13307191
Aye
>tfw Duginite

>>13307150

>>13307191
based and fourthpilled

>>13307150
Nancy

>>13307150
Habermas is still alive, you know.

Me desu

>>13307375
Based kripkebro

>>13307150
Zizek and Ranciere, no one else comes close

>>13307533
What about Zizek makes him a good philosopher?

>>13307496
absolutely this, its either habermas or kripke. searle comes close but i think he still falls short of those two

Hegel and Land

Land by a sinomile

>>13307496
Holy shit, I forgot that

Land is the best philosopher since Kant.

Its not even close.

>>13307496
this.
Was gonna post, asking why /lit/ constantly omits him.

>>13307535
He destroyed the most important intellectual figure of our times (who I still think highly of for telling me to clean my room) in debate, thereby acquiring the title for himself

>>13307191
he's not even a philosopher

>>13307150
Me.

>>13307191
>If we want to liberate ourselves from the West, it is needed to liberate ourselves from textbooks on physics and chemistry.

>>13307150
I really like DeLanda

>>13307596
The most amusing part of the debate was when Peterson lost it in the opening seconds by admitting that he’d never read a word of Marx prior to beginning his debate prep and that his entire preparation consisted of reading only the Communist Manifesto.

Agamben, Sloterdijk, Stiegler, Yuk Hui, Laruelle, Nancy, Balibar, Marion, Brassier, Grant, Groys, Alliez, Malabou, Vattimo, Negri, Lazzarato

Zizek is simply restating Hegel's philosophy in a more accessible way.If you think that Zizek is the best philosopher, then Hegel is the actual best philosopher.

Ted Kaczynski

>>13307150
Me

>>13307150
Joe Rogan

>>13307496
This. Will hear him in three days, probably.

>>13307150
J peterson

>>13307562
If hegel was alive we wouldnt be in this mess, and no redditors would be on this board.

The only living person I read regularly is Thomas Sowell. I think he's still alive.

I'm surprised no one said Peter Singer by now.

>>13307672
that was just enbarrassing

>>13307433
>>13308308
>>13308509
This.

>>13307150
tony... easy on the flakes...

>>13308761
fucking kek

Agamben

>>13307150
You know who. the man who solved free will, morality, religion, existence of God.

Sam Harris.

>>13308519
If hegel was alive my Dick woulb de big

Probably Alain Badiou. At least in terms of scope and originality he stands apart from anybody else on the continent. Whether or not he goes down in history as a philosopher of the first rank or more akin to a Thomas Reid or Fichte will be based on how volumes two and three of Being and Event are received.

At one point Butler probably was, but she’s been cursed by the success of Gender Trouble. Unfortunately she’s spend basically the rest of her career writing books meant to clarify and rebut misreading of her first success, rather than move on to any other projects. Also Joan Copjec completely btfo Butler with her essay ‘The Euthanasia of Reason’ which Lacanians see as an unrecoverable critique of Butler’s stance.

I struggle still to understand what exactly is original in Zizek that would qualify him as the greatest living philosopher. I understand how some of his readings of Lacan, Freud, Schelling, and Hegel are original and innovative, but to me this doesn’t constitute a whole original system. He’s a brilliant synthesist of thought, but I don’t think he’s a brilliant original thinker.

>>1330753
Sloterdijk is a good answer, but I don’t think the right one.

This isn’t a particularly famous person outside of certain circles of political philosophy, but I think there’s a good reason to think Charles Taylor is the greatest living philosophy.

His main subjects are modernity, community, secularism, and identity, and he has managed to bring in Hegel and the Hermeneutic tradition to bare in analytical political philosophy. If you are a catholic, A Secular Age is probably the most important book you could read today.

>>13307150

Taleb

>>13308999
>Badiou
Yeah but hold on he's like the aging old man in prometheus trying to look for some ancient answer across the galaxy only to prolong his life you know, he needs to relinquish his royal grasp at some point and our only (secret) hope is that someone is around to kill him and usurp before he withers fully.

>>13307150
unabomber

>>13309192
He is like more that 80 years old so I don’t think killing and usurping is really necessary.

>>13307150
meillasoux

rawls is dead, right?

Muhammad Taqi Usmani

>[Modernism is engulfing] the whole world in the tornado of nudity and obscenity, and has provided an excuse for fornication, and more so it has led under thunder claps to the passage of a bill in the British House of Commons to legalize homosexuality. It is in the shadow of the same modernity that Western women are openly displaying banners on the streets demanding legalization of abortion.

>Since wealth is the property of God, humanity does not have autonomy in this ownership but through the specific path He has instituted in the Islamic Shari ‘ah.

>>13309416
Then it grows more necessary every moment. Who wants a false monarch? It's the only thing worse than a decrepit one, even a pleb knows that.

>>13308999
Based reply

>>13307150
everyone else is a waste of time
>pic related: zoomer pseud acquiring an inevitable brain aneurism from the of flurry abstraction assaulting his underdeveloped prefrontal cortex
become man-in-man before you get a man-in-you

>>13307150
Oh lawd he comin

>>13307150
I'm surprised you didn't mention Nagel.

>>13307150
tigger.. easy on the malted medicine

>>13309858
>unilaterality
no

>>13307150
its certainly not negarestani or Chomsky

>>13309967
it's unilateral as there was only really One correct side to begin with. laruelle can perform a dualysis on your shitty 'philosophy' in over 500 ways, kid and that's just with philosophy III

>>13307433
>>13308509
He is an overrated motivational speaker at best

>>13307379
>Herodotus wrong on basically everything
Jesus Christ you sure are fucking retarded. Should have started with the Greeks

>>13307212
Sure, but mainly not as an analytical philosopher. He’s firstly a linguist, secondly a political scientist, and third as a cognitive scientist/philosopher.

>>13310196
He's fine, it's not like he's a Thucydidean or anything, he's just scientistic

>>13310005
Sounds like Badiou but flimsy. Would you mind elaborating?

>>13307494
Why though? I think he’s a good philosopher, but why do you think he’s the ‘greatest living philosopher’. It seems like he, like Zizek, is an intelligent commenter on Lacan, but doesn’t have the profound original contribution of somebody like Badiou or Deleuze.

>>13307680
Yeah, but of those who is the best one or two?

>>13307150
>ctrl+F
>stephen molyneux
>0 results

>>13309950
His last book is so profoundly embarrassing that it makes me want to reevaluate the work of his that people think is good. He’s exactly the reason why there are so many popular science commenters that dismiss philosophy out of hand.

>>13310279
this but unironically

>>13310293
You mean Mind and Cosmos?

>>13310005
Laruelle more than any other philosopher seems interested in making a ‘marketable’ philosophical movement than doing actual philosophical work. Already periodizing his own work, coming up with a snappy movement name, establishing an institute to reproduce his thought, it all speaks of intellectual charlatanism.

I can tell you in a couple sentences what Zizek, Badiou, or Judith Butler are trying to do and why, but I’ve never seen anybody be able to put simply what Non-Philosophy is or what questions it’s trying to solve are. If you could it would go along way to convincing me he’s not just a hack.

>>13310352
based and correct

>>13310346
Yeah, it was correctly criticized for being ‘ignorant of the literature’ on the topics it was dealing with.

>>13310279
Internet memelords are not philosophers

>>13310279
Right

>>13308921
Based and redpilled

Aleksandr

>>13310514
>agora-dwelling memelords are not philosophers

>>13307150
Adolf Hitler.

John McDowell babbyyy
where my sellarsian boys at

>>13311253
>agora-dwelling
Haha which is it, he's in the "agora" or he's an outsider who philosophy refuses to recognize? Trick question, it's the latter.

>>13309474
Thank god.

>>13307150
i want to pet him

>>13307163
Omg sooo based! Thank you Catholic sister/brother for schooling this ATHEIST...

Roger Penrose

>>13307379
He keeps getting proven right on stuff all the time lol

Everyone saying Habermas is wrong because the dude looks creepy

>>13310364
seethe

>>13310262
>>13310352
FUCK THEY ARE ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN HIM. explaining him is a bit difficult since his stuff doesn't really make philosophical sense. non-philosophy is sort of a perspective of seeing philosophy where you observe it's tautological structure and use it as material for speculation. shitposting aside, i still have a lot of issues comprehending his primary sources so i can't give a very cogent explanation. i know brassier has used laruelle's approach for his own transcendental nihilism, though the article i read of him explaining his interest in laruelle didn't have that much substance. in general, non-philosophy isn't really a substantial form of thought and places much more emphasis on form.

idk about non-standard philosophy. that shit is even more autistic. he is mentioning shit to do with quantum physics now. i honestly think it probably makes more sense if you instead try looking at the field mathematically. for instance,
this is a quote from someone talking about reverse-mathematics:
>Perform the following thought experiment. Suppose you are given two formal presentations of the same mathematical theory. The definitions of the first presentation are the theorems of the second, and vice versa. This situation frequently occurs in mathematics. Which of the two presentations makes the theory “true?” Neither, evidently: what we have are two presentations of the same theory.
what caught me is that in a way it is very close to the autopositional structure that laruelle babbles about. of course, unlike philosophers, mathematicians don't necessarily believe that the mathematical object has some ontological truth in the real world. this skeptical attitude though manifested itself with NON-euclidean geometry. the advent of which cemented the fact that euclidean geometry no longer has a justification for its 'amphibology' (i.e. its transcendence in making claims of the Real). not only that but within the realm of euclidean geometry, you see that it is unable of even comprehending the problematic, and you have to make a sort of Vision-in-One to step out of it. when you do so, you can now work on euclidean geometry as pure material as opposed to a tool to prove theorems with. this is what you do w mathematical logic and the like.

this also helps explain why he calls it non-philosophy. it isn't a negation of philosophy but really something that sort of goes beyond its boundaries. i think laruelle's stuff can also be better be comprehended if you contrast it with bachelard's philosophy of science (who i assume laruelle takes influence from). in it he coins non-cartesianism. this perspective is also influenced by the advent of non-euclidean geometry, but what bachelard takes from it is a subtly different. as opposed to take a radically different perspective, he instead sees this as a prompt that descarte's foundationalism should be abolished while still keeping the idea of a rational subject.

>>13310279
>>13310327
Kys

>>13312640
i ran out of space, but yeah... i am sort of taking a break from laruelle because my original interest in him was really to give me ideas on how to read mathematics and mathematical metaphysics (the branch of analytical philosophy langan is taking about). the issue though is that i find laruelle very frustrating to read, and it seems anyone influenced by him, when they talk about what he does, are equally frustrating. i just figured that i probably shouldn't expect to get much since i am just some 18 yo zoomer that has barely read any post-structuralist philosophy to begin with. however, seeing a there are plenty of people that have difficulty understanding him anyways maybe i should just say fuck it to the sources before him. still though, christ, philosophies of difference is a painful read

>>13312640
>>13312658
Well, it's a better explanation than I've got elsewhere. Good luck, anon.