/lit/ - Literature

>>14014665
You could replace philosophy with any other discipline and wouldn't be far off. This means something is fundamentally wrong in our inquiry. This could very well be the task of philosophy to solve. I know what is wrong, but I don't expect it to enter public awareness until after a few decades.

>>14014665
Have patience. I am going to change that.

I think philosophy will definitely take a cognitive/neuroscientific turn (*real* philosophy, that is; not the ideological intersectionality bullshit). Advances in neuroscience will inform us of the cognitive and perceptive architectures that underly all belief systems and philosophy will have to incorporate this newfound knowledge. I think the predictive coding models of perception/cognition/consciousness hold great promise.

I think there might also be a revival of existential concepts of the 19th century as nihilism continues to become more widespread. Perhaps more people will turn to philosophy to fill the void in the coming decades.

>>14014742
>neuroscience will inform us of the cognitive and perceptive architectures that underly all belief systems

self-refuting

>>14014742
>technology will save us

It won't. OP's observation is telling of the technocrats' fallacy.

>>14014735
I trust you, not sarcastic.

>>14014665
Nothing has changed. We know everything we will ever know and we have always known. All we can do is search for the right questions. Philosophy is not an academic pursuit and academics that parade themselves as philosophers are just that, paraders.

>>14014742
>Advances in neuroscience will inform us of the cognitive and perceptive architectures that underly all belief systems and philosophy will have to incorporate this newfound knowledge. I think the predictive coding models of perception/cognition/consciousness hold great promise.

>think there might also be a revival of existential concepts of the 19th century as nihilism continues to become more widespread.

We already did that? We already tried that, the general concensus is that such a system will always remain incomplete (see: German Idealism). That’s why the linguistic turn happened in the first place. Even if hypothetical “completeness” was possible, we realized that the very medium with which we conceptualize it (language) allows us to rationally decompose it. The question isn’t “how do we know?”, but “what to we mean by knowing?”. No neuroscientifuc data will answer that question in any novel way that isn’t already subsumed as a derivative of Kant. “We have innate mental structures and laws that govern how we organize and create knowledge.”. How revolutionary

You're just dumb, son.

>>14014742
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334235983_More_than_a_scaffold_Language_is_a_neuroenhancement
hmu when your phil of lang prof assigns papers like this and then says "help me understand what neuroenhancement means" its not that lit bro

>>14014940
>psycholinguistics catches up to Heidegger after almost a hundred years

>>14014987
yeah the homie was moving that way in discussion but i dont think he's read heidegger lol
unfortunately the paper itself is not nearly that cool and roughly consists of dove spamming jstor links and refusing to commit to anything concrete

>>14014665
Autism... So what, you're saying humanity isn't ready for analytical philosophy? Perhaps. But having already outlined our technical epistemological limits, it would seem that dealing with what lies within those limits (by applying logic in analytical fashion to empirical discovery and societal policy) would be the ideal new focus of the discipline.

Aside from first getting acquainted with philosophical concepts however, I think we have to temper the desire for 'new and exciting'. The excitement of discovery is going to be the province of science from now on, but philosophy still has an important role to play in figuring out how those discoveries should be applied to our condition.

>>14014665
>Sokal

I am disappointed in you anon

>>14014731
What is wrong?

>>14014742
You have a layman's understanding of neuroscience.

>>14014665
That's because philosophy is dead, long live science. The Next Big Thing that will completely replace all of philosophy is a scientific theory that is massively interdisciplinary: the science of human creativity. It is the arrival of psychology as an actual science, as opposed to the pseudo-scientific alchemy that it is today.

https://old.reddit.com/r/Tao_of_Calculus/comments/9rpnrl/space_taoism_101

https://old.reddit.com/r/omniqueryinitiative/comments/diul7h/influence_as_confluence_bergson_and_whitehead/

The Omniquery Initiative. There's No Stopping Our Science of Science. Ever.™

>>14014940
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334235983_More_than_a_scaffold_Language_is_a_neuroenhancement

>What role does language play in our thoughts? A longstanding proposal that has gained traction among supporters of embodied or grounded cognition suggests that it serves as a cognitive scaffold. This idea turns on the fact that language—with its ability to capture statistical regularities, leverage culturally acquired information, and engage grounded metaphors—is an effective and readily available support for our thinking. In this essay, I argue that language should be viewed as more than this; it should be viewed as a neuroenhancement. The neurologically realized language system is an important subcomponent of a flexible, multimodal, and multilevel conceptual system. It is not merely a source for information about the world but also a computational add-on that extends our conceptual reach. This approach provides a compelling explanation of the course of development, our facility with abstract concepts, and even the scope of language-specific influences on cognition.

Fucking based and STEMpilled! Language is a programming language like any other. Most people fucking suck at programming themselves, and are programmed by others.

Here's a selection of the most outstanding books on the nature of creativity I can find. You can safely ignore the pomo philosophers (who are included only to bait pomos into reading the other books which are actually decent.) Whitehead is key.

>>14015156
>no account of how language is neurologically realized differently from a memory or skill like fishing
yeah definitely super Scientific huh, super STEMpilled bro! just because someone runs an MRI study doesnt make them cool jesus

>>14015210
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From

>>14015116
The root of the problem is misplacement of core facts. There is nothing "there" in the universe to be scientifically/analytically "arrived at" as a final destination. Analysis, science, deconstruction have become backbones of man's search for meaning, but there is no answer to be found in them.

We need to take a step further from analysis to creativity. We need to re-locate humanity's place in the universe as a core component of it, not merely analyze the universe as a "separate" fact. We need to incorporate the observer as a critical component of the whole.

For example a typical mistake for our present way of thinking is this:

>Advances in neuroscience will inform us of the cognitive and perceptive architectures that underly all belief systems

1. This will never happen. Science is not capable of this or ever will be.
2. It shows this condition of ours to arrive at the total/final fact via analysis.

Belief is an analytically inexhaustable thing. We should be asking how beliefs shape our science, ideology, world-view etc. not the other way around. I think there is total open-ended freedom waiting for us once we acknowledge the fact that we actually participate in the universe, not merely look at it through the window removed from action.

I think we will be able to achieve this kind of state for example when gravity could be explained from totally separate angles that are both valid theories and that don't invalidate eachother. The current state of inquiry is usually to have several competing currents that clash against eachother until one slowly wins out and completes the theory. Instead, we should reach a point where we have an x-amount of competing currents that all arrive at a complete theory with the same conclusion.So we would need to support two completely opposite poles of inquiry into the same object until they are complete and valid instead of one being subsumed or destroyed by the other the moment one or the other gets headway. This is the kind of exercise which I not only believe is doable but that will actually show the more imporntant fact. The importance of an observer participating inside the universe and radical free will. It's going to take another industrial revolution or bigger type of leap to get there though.

>>14015419
>>14015419
For example you will see that when you have two opposite currents dealing with the same object arrive at a similar problem and one has a better solution, the other current will quickly get discarded as being false. There is never any time for the opposite side of inquiry to recover or work out its problem from its own framework. Of course, you have marginal individuals who still try to push the project forward, but all the momentum is typically lost. We need to reach the level of maturity where we afford a line of thought more time to consolidate into a complete theory before abandoning it. I think Western thought is fruitless/reaching a dead end, precisely because it abandons different frameworks almost in a darwinistic fashion. Western thought is darwinistic, analytical, based on deconstruction and atomization and capitalistic. I think at this point it can't produce new insights, outside of increasing atomization within it's own conditions and it is obvious people are starting to feel discouraged by that. It's essentially a dead end for a way of thinking and we have to get over it.

>>14015142
>Ontological physicalist and expounder of scientism links Reddit posts
What a surprise. Since you've already linked it, might as well take the time to go back.

>>14014843

>Philosophy is not an academic pursuit and academics that parade themselves as philosophers are just that, paraders.
>Philosophy is not an academic pursuit

Wow thanks anon that really opened something up for me

>>14015419
>We need to take a step further from analysis to creativity. We need to re-locate humanity's place in the universe as a core component of it, not merely analyze the universe as a "separate" fact. We need to incorporate the observer as a critical component of the whole.

>Belief is an analytically inexhaustable thing. We should be asking how beliefs shape our science, ideology, world-view etc. not the other way around.

I would just like to say that you are a fucking mental giant and true intellectual warrior. Rock the fuck on, my friend.

>>14015419
Thank you for the reply, I’ll have to marinate on that

>>14015674
Wittgenstein said that philosophy wasn't an academic field though; it's more like an activity.

Here's the updated Omniquery Canon of Human Creativity.

Henri Bergson: Creative Evolution
Henri Bergson: Key Writings
Alfred North Whitehead: Science and the Modern World
Alfred North Whitehead: The Concept of Nature
Alfred North Whitehead: The Aims of Education
Alfred North Whitehead: Adventures of Ideas
Alfred North Whitehead: Process and Reality
Elizabeth M. Kraus: The Metaphysics of Experience: A Companion to Whitehead's Process and Reality
Isabelle Stengers: Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts
Gilles Deleuze: Difference & Repetition
Gilles Deleuze: Pure Immanence
Yuk Hui: Recursivity and Contingency
Bertrand Russell: The Conquest of Happiness
Bertrand Russell: Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy
Terrence W. Deacon: Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter
Douglas Hofstadter: I Am A Strange Loop
George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez: Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being
George Lakoff and Mark Johson: Metaphors We Live By
Stuart Kauffman: Humanity in a Creative Universe
Stuart Kauffman: Investigations
Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking: The Grand Design
Nassim Taleb: Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
Martin Seligman: Authentic Happiness
Teasdael et al: The Mindful Way Workbook
James Carse: Finite and Infinite Games
Robert Wright: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny
Douglas Rushkoff: Media Virus!: Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture
Nietzsche: The Portable Nietzsche
Carl Sagan: The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene
Richard Dawkins: Unweaving The Rainbow
Richard Dawkins: The Extended Phenotype
Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker
Stephen Jay Gould: Bully for Brontosaurus

>>14015419
>>14015457
I could hadly agree more. Wish I had time to discuss this more indepth right now but I've wasted enough time here and I have stuff to do. I might post a new thread about it later.

>>14015457
Could you provide specific examples of what you're talking about?

>>14014665
>philosophy before language standardization
>"What are the cognitive implications of using familiar words in creative ways?"
>"I don't know, but we just invented a hundred new words thinking about it!"

>philosophy after language standardization
>"what if we use these old words in strange ways to express new ideas?"
>"only sexist racist bigots use words with such disregard for grammar"

>>14016316
I find it interesting that he believed himself to have refuted Frazer's "The Golden Bough" by attacking Frazer's methods without proposing any alternate facts. I consider criticism without substantive facts to be weak deconstruction.

>>14014665
There needs to be a standard were basic truths and their arguments for and against can be rigorously verified through consensus and peer reviewed like in science and then progressively built up into axiomatic quasi-dogmas otherwise philosophers will just start from subjective intuitions and be blown in the wind by intellectual fashions

>>14017989
Your panel will consist of subjective gatekeepers.

>>14017989
Authoritarian rubbish from a bureaucratic mind.

>>14018033
'natural sciences' is gatekeeped by academicians otherwise your open to flat earthers and creationists etc.

>>14017989
>rigorously verified through consensus and peer reviewed like in science
nigger that is not how science works, it works by independent replication of studies, which cannot apply to philosophy

>>14018099
No you faggot, you colossal smoker of penis, flat earth can be proved wrong by anyone who wants to conduct the experiments themselves. A bunch of people in universities saying 'this is how it is' is not how science works, that is a priesthood

>>14018102
there is nothing stopping you from conducting your own theories of experiments but you wont be taken seriously and if it goes against the grain your good as a crackpot take langan for instance.

>>14014843
>I trust you, not sarcastic.
Thank you. I'm of a similar opinion as >>14014735

>>14017025
>Richard Dawkins
Considering adding The God Delusion to the list.

>>14017989
>standard
>basic truths
>and their arguments for and against
>can be rigorously verified
>through consensus and peer reviewed

want to know how I know you've never read any philosophy in your entire life?

>>14017989
>rigorously verified through consensus

>>14018377
you deny that truth can be arrivedd at through dialectic?

>>14018376
I haven't read it, mostly because It would be preaching to the choir. I consider myself the sith apprentice of Dawkins, the girl who intends to actually deliver on the promise of a cure for religion. This requires out-competing all religions in every way, to create a memetic movement of movements...

Whitehead, who is Our Guy, had a speculative scheme of divergent memetic dreams.

Whitehead is truly the Shrek philosopher: layer after layer. He is talking about the educational process, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, and poetry all at once using the framework of creative evolution. He is talking about himself: his work is to opensource the workings of his own imagination to the fullest reach he could, hoping to inspire other students of creativity to surpass him. His work isn't so much the a "philosophy" as a static product but a project, the initiation of a porcess of process-relational self-organization that would evolve and tendrilize through the world of ideas and experiences, converging on a distinct Event: the arrival of Whiteheadean's vision as a science and technology of universal creative evolution. This Event has been imagined as a memetic singularity or metasystem transition: https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/singmem.php

This Event is also convergent upon Dawkins' vision of a "cure for religion."

TL;DR Whitehead was a futurologist with a vision of a singularity so holistic and synthetic that it makes Ray Kurzweil look boring in comparison.

>>14017025
lmao, Guenon and Parmenides retroactively refuted all these clowns

>>14019184
>>14019165
No, Whitehead is not /our guy/, far from it, he was a typically reductionist Anglo retard who wanted to force religion through the cheese grater of Anglo Analytic autism while making all sorts of unjustified and unsupported metaphysical conclusions (such as when he claims there are only events and not entities, ignoring that this is completely absurd because events can't be self-aware like we are, and so this is demonstrably false). You are just the same Whitehead spammer who has been repeatedly btfo for months now. This namefag posting is just your new gimmick that you thought would allow you to shill Whitehead without being connected to your previous failed endeavor of doing the same.

>>14014665
I blame critical theory and reducing everything to power struggles. Philosophy has to be burned down. All of academia has to burn. It's a dead end, and there's no escape from it. It's a corpse that's overdue for burial.

>>14019165
are you girardfag?

>>14015107
>Sokal is best criticism of continental philosophy

Sokal only addressed "postmodernism," which is a category for the most part cooked up by conservatives and scientists to refer to the 20thC French philosophy they think snooty leftists read.

Continental philosophy encompasses also: Phenomenology, Existentialism, Idealism, Bergsonism, Deconstruction, as well as any other philosophy that doesn't use standardized language.

>Analytic Philosophy
Basically just philosophy, done with a formal language system. Ever notice that analytics all seem to use similar buzzwords? It's because they're all working within a shared linguistic framework. The same cannot be said about Continental philosophy. A Heidegger scholar will likely find a Deleuzean incomprehensible.

>no hope for philosophy as an academic field

That's close to accurate. Philosophy departments (in the US) have adopted the same publish-or-perish approach that already corrupted the sciences. Professors are pushed to publish before they have anything to say, and thus has sprung up an academic mill that publishes professors' (immature and vapid) work, provided it has the right citations.

In my experience a philosophy department at a college-university will be valuable to the extent that it (1) hires professors who care about ideas (and this is more radical than you'd think); and (2) does not pressure professors to publish before reaching matirity.

The best philosophy today will likely be written by professors at smaller, or unrecognized schools, where there's less emphasis on funding. Sadly, many of those schools are eliminating their philosophy departments.

>>14018396
I deny the very concept of truth and dialectic.

>>14019242
he is whiteheadfag in disguise

>>14019195
You mean that mystic-y dude that endorsed street shitting and that other guy whose extant literature can be reduced to a small pamphlet that says everything is actually one thing? Wow anon I am completely completely convinced! How could we ever be so foolish?!

>>14017908
string theory. read woit and hossenfelder

>>14019536
and smolin

>>14019195
Guenon is not a philosopher, he's a religious historian, and you have no understanding of Parmenides whatsoever if you associate him with Guenon.

>>14015419
Great post. I've come to the same conclusion that until we cultivate a system of inquiry that accounts for the effects of observation. I'll think about your proposition.

>>14017244
Please do