/lit/ - Literature

Zizek, Laruelle, Sloterdijk, Badiou just to name a few.

>>18775601
>a pop-philosopher
>meme
>another meme
>20th century man
We're so OMG fucked if this is our best

Zizek is more than enough

>>18775622
Zizek is a neoliberal hack who hangs out with Judith Butler and Avital Ronnell

>>18775591
Why would you want to be a philosopher when physics and math exist?

>>18775591
I am coming, anon. Expect to be reading my work in a decade or so.

I'm going to save philosophy. But I'll work on it later.

>>18775647
Optimismpilled

>>18775591
Han?

>>18775638
philosophy is a different aspect of reality

>>18775591
I'll be brutally honest and say I think your average /lit/ poster is contrary to the board's self-assessment more well versed and philosophically inclined in the classical sense than the post-left academic. For how much I fucking hate the shilling on here it's clear the ones doing so have a good grasp on the ins and outs of their product. That we're in agreement as to the uselessness and vanity of e-celebs and redundancy of post-left academics like Chomsky makes me a fair bit hopeful for the future of philosophy. Even without selling you on my own brand of evropean-philosophical band-aid I can say it's not all lost.

>>18775591
Welcome to the Darkness of Our Times my friend, Philosophy ended with Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

>>18775615
Why do you consider Laruelle a meme? Any specific critique? I very much dislike the man but I feel like I can't just ignore him, especially in his critique of basic philosophical concepts and practices.

>>18776518
Not the anon you're replying to but can you summarize some of them?

I always assume Frenchmen are memes regurgitating old ideas in stupid French ways

>>18776518
NTA but he's practically Deleuze but without the schizophrenia. Too afraid to make statements about philosophy within the philosophical edifice, and to claim empiricism as immanently transgressive. While maybe not wrong it's exceedingly strange to claim that what in fact is a terse and strict deployment of philosophical ideas, in a philosophical manner, as non-philosophy. Seems like a transcendental reduction pretending not to be.

>>18776507
Ludwig "I dont need to give sources" Wittgenstein wasn't a philosopher, he was a scam artist, a clown that was really good at smooth talking and pretending to be obsessed with logic.

>>18776531
I think it would be better if I just link Ray Brassier's article on Laruelle's basic concepts, Laruelle is very difficult to explain and Ray is pretty much the only guy who has done him any justice. What I will say is that even if you hate him (I kind of do) you have to admit he is as far from a regurgitator as one can be, his ideas are pretty much totally originally excepting some obvious influence from Michel Henry.

https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/axiomatic-heresy

The section of Philosophical Decision is the most tricky for me.

>>18776539
LMAO.

>>18775591
If you look at the history of philosophy there are plenty of major gaps
>>18775647
I unironically believe it, here's hoping you bring transcendental idealism back from the dead

>>18775591
>What happened to philosophy?
Nothing.
>There doesn't seem to be any major philosophers in the past 20 years or so.
It is too soon to declare this.
>>18775615
Zizek isn't just a pop philosopher. Sublime Object of Ideology wasn't written for the public.

>>18775591

You were born in an age of massive technological and economic progress
You shouldn't be concerned with philosophy you should become a person of your own time

>>18776593
Das Man? Is that you? How did you get on 4chan?

>>18775647


>I part with the book with deep seriousness, in the sure hope that sooner or later it will reach those to whom alone it can be addressed; and for the rest, patiently resigned that the same fate should, in full measure, befall it, that in all ages has, to some extent, befallen all knowledge, and especially the weightiest knowledge of the truth, to which only a brief triumph is allotted between the two long periods in which it is condemned as paradoxical or disparaged as trivial. The former fate is also wont to befall its author. But life is short, and truth works far andlives long: let us speak the truth

>>18776507
exactly. there’s just people left babbling in the interstitial dump that we call “philosophy” for convention’s sake. some comment and write about philosophers who “did philosophy” when it used to exist, and others are deluded enough to think it’s still going on.

>>18776603
holy based

>>18775647
This but in 2 decades

>>18776545
I dunno, he says at the beginning that it doesn't amount to a kind of Rortian cynicism (i.e. metaphilosophy as "therapy," within an irreducibly pluralist, relativist framework that admits of no "finally real" transcendent term or grasp on transcendence, but naturalises all "philosophical" disputes to the irreducibly heterogeneous lived "real" on which philosophy is ultimately parasitic), but I read about half of it (plus about Michel Henry a bit) and it does seem like a kind of unoriginal blend with extremely unnecessary mystification with jargon.

It frankly does seem Rortian, in that Rorty is just taking the therapeutic elements in Wittgenstein and Heidegger and blending them with pragmatism.
>It follows that the object of non-philosophy is not the real, which is never an object, not even an unthinkable one, but the philosophical specularization of real objects.

Philosophical specularization reminds me of James' (i.e. a pragmatist) talk of there being no way to get out of the stream of experience, the stream can only fold and re-double to consider itself "from" itself, but there is no transcendence in that, only reflexive immanence. It reminds me too of Heidegger's distinction of the pre-ontological (everyday, taken-for-granted contact with the "real" or essential), the ontical (theoretical, scientific, i.e. non-"ordinary," analogous to Laruelle's philosophical), and the ontological (a modality of intentionality in which the coming-to-be and thus contingency of "realness" in things, or their "being," is understood as the condition of ordinariness AND of theoretical, scientific, etc. beings). And also reminds me of Wittgenstein's long and difficult efforts to distinguish between the pre-theoretical, pre-logical, pre-philosophical "way we do things," immanent to the actual doing of them, and on the other hand our attempts to talk about them and find their "core," what is essential in them etc., aka philosophy.

The phenomenology stuff is okay, I don't know I get the sense that both he and Henry are not saying anything that isn't already in Husserl but I tapped out past a certain point. Some of the "material phenomenology" reminds me of things like Adorno's negative dialectics, both in Henry and in Brassier's discussion of Laruelle's "kernel" that "resists or shatters conceptualisation." Which is all fine but like I said just feels like nothing new.

How does a return to immanence, in the way Laruelle seems to be advocating, REALLY escape being yet another pragmatist / critical theory / "flesh of the world" / fundamental-ontological / deconstructionist etc. etc. etc. "return to the immanently given as the basis of all discourse on transcendence?" I guess I should reread it twice or something and see if I can't wrench more out of it but for fuck's sake how many people are going to put this much effort in to genuinely give it a chance, and still I come out feeling like I have nothing new from it. No eureka moment.

>>18776732
Laruelle has always been my pseud detector. The “final boss” of philosophy reduced to fashion.

>>18776732
Jeez anon, if this is what the future holds for us we are doomed because i don't understand shit. If a person of culture could understand the gist of kant, hegel, schelling, schopenhauer...now what a person of culture, that is not a philosopher, can expect to understand beyond the other pop-meme philosophers previously mentioned?

>>18775591
Continentrannies seething in this thread.
Kripke is the best living philosopher and it is not particularly close.

>>18776732
Why did this "just stop doing philosophy bro" gimmick get so popular in 20th century? If I wanted to go back to "the real lived experience" I'd simply do so (and I do take breaks from philosophy every few months), I don't need a philosopher write hundreds of pages to convince me. The reason we all do philosophy (presumably?) is to rigorously establish some metaphysical results. This anti-philosophy philosophers don't make much sense to me.

>>18775647
Anxiously waiting for the new wave of Schopenhauer (PBUH) scholars

>>18776790
Kripke is one of the most lackluster analytic philosophers I've read.

>>18775627
I miss when he used to say hes not a commie

>>18776802
Anon, i find interesting this comment
>The reason we all do philosophy (presumably?) is to rigorously establish some metaphysical results
But let's be clear...who the fuck is getting this truths? What is the outcome for the society as a bulk? I have never, ever, heard of anybody holding metaphysical positions that are not fundamentally from another century. My knowledge of this century is almost zero and yet I see that somehow some thousands of people in the whole world are grasping some ideas (?), like the ones rooting from analyzing modal logic or playing tricks with language, while fundamentally the humanity as a whole has no access or understanding at any level of this knowledge.

I guess i have no more option to be basically stuck in my philosphers of reference of two centuries ago...

>>18775591
>Who is our Schelling? Where are are our Hegels?
nowhere, because they reached the end of philosophy, which will be sublated in practice with the victorious communist movement. there won't be any further development of philosophy besides that

This thread deeply saddens me. Lots of sad posts.
>>18775591
If Schelling were writing today everyone on /lit/ would sleep on him. Those are the facts. Do some soul searching once you accept those facts because it'll open you up to the relevant philosophers of the present day.
>>18775601
I'm too new to Laurelle to understand what's going on there. Badiou and Zizek seem interesting to me, Sloterdijk gives me bad signals (he feels like he's just making up stuff) but maybe I'm being harsh.
>>18776501
I can't tell who you mean by "post-left academic," since most academics are not worse than the /lit/ autodidacts, they know everything these autodidacts know and have decades more years of knowledge, you'll know this only if you know them personally though. It's easy to pretend they're stupid if you don't know them personally. I take it you don't know any such people. Anyway, if you meant academics in general by "post-left academics" I would say they're not as bad as you think.
>>18776732
Honestly (haven't read the other anon's link yet) I got similar vibes when I did very surface-tier investigation on Laurelle. He sounds like a Rorty type of figure, but Rorty I know better, and Laurelle seems to be posturing about doing something uniquely special but it doesn't sound so special at first sight. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll find out when I keep investigating. Just glad to know I'm not too crazy to see it like this.
>>18776802
The worst thing is that even if it had some sort of value when anti-philosophy began in the early 20th century, when people today are still saying "everyone before me even the anti-philosophers were ACTUALLY doing philosophy but I'm really moving past them!" by 2021, it just looks extremely antiquated and even uncritical, ironically.
>>18776790
I like Kripke but I do not think he is the best living analytic philosopher because he was so unsystematic in the end, as in, he never developed a more daring metaphysics after the 70s. It makes me sad because I think he had potential. Of the living analytics you need to read Kit Fine and Theodore Sider at the minimum to see how far we can go now. It's also worth reading the now-deceased David Lewis and David Armstrong.

>>18776840
>But let's be clear...who the fuck is getting this truths?
The philosophers who do the work and the people interested in their work?
>What is the outcome for the society as a bulk?
Even in ancient Greece philosophy wasn't for the bulk of society. Just the people who care about it do so.
>I have never, ever, heard of anybody holding metaphysical positions that are not fundamentally from another
Do you consider 20th century another century? There were some first class metaphysicians at the time.
>My knowledge of this century is almost zero and yet I see that somehow some thousands of people in the whole world are grasping some ideas (?), like the ones rooting from analyzing modal logic or playing tricks with language, while fundamentally the humanity as a whole has no access or understanding at any level of this knowledge.
Yeah, I agree. When technical philosophy is divorced of metaphysical aims, it just becomes useless abstract puzzles. Contemporary analytic philosophy is the prime example.
>I guess i have no more option to be basically stuck in my philosphers of reference of two centuries ago...
I wouldn't blame you if the alternative is either continental sceptics or useless analytic abstract puzzles.

>>18776732
Honestly I don't give a fuck about Non-Philosophy, Christo-Fiction, his weirdo Gnosticism, his jagging off about "Man", I only care about his criticism of Philosophy in the Philosophical decision and his interesting conception of the One (Michel Henry did it first but the absolutely immanent trancendental condition of thought forclosed to thought is still cool).

The Philosophical Decision is what worries me because it seems to have some real bite, at least from reading Brassier, Philosophies of Difference and Principles of Non-Philosophy. I am worried he may be right about Philosophy being ultimately arbitrary and circular.

>>18775591
DARK AGE

>>18775638
To understand existence beyond physics and math you bitch ass pretentious shit

>>18776539
oof

>>18778231
But that's what religion is for

>>18775591
This is Kali Yuga

>>18776838
You sure he's not just saying that? Didn't he have the picture of Stalin up to upset people that came to his home?

>>18775591
You can hate and seethe over him as much as you like but Jordan Peterson is the best we’ve got alongside people like Ken Wilber.

>>18775591
For starters, you don't have to be very smart to understand that random appearances are not guaranteed to happen with even distribution. This is basic probability theory taught at school. Then I should ask whether you have read all the previous ones.

>>18775647
Godspeed faggot

t. Philosophy major in this day and age

>>18775647
I will be the Hegel to you (Schopenhauer)

My lectures will be full

>>18775627
He constantly pokes fun at both of them. People with different views can still be acquaintances.

>>18775638
There's more to existence than describing it in that way. God I hate NPCs.

>>18779054
not in this case. it's like being friends with a child rapist, truly inexcusable, butler and ronnell are both pure evil.

>>18779120
Uhh he just keeps it purely academic. He's not a priest dude. Philosophers don't stop looking at people's work based on how fucked up they are (or were). Look at De Sade for example.

>>18779131
he "keeps it purely academic" when he's throwing his clout behind the open letter to get ronnell off the hook with columbia, after she got #metoo'ed?

what are you, president of his fanclub you fucking faggot?

There are a bunch of major figures still kicking about in analytic philosophy, though you probably don't care for them.

>>18779161
Lmao, cry me a river bitch and you're just a fucking moralfag. Please tell me more and of how much you care with the intricacies of #metoo. I'd make a letter too just to see you cry and seeth

>>18775647
>inb4 700 pages of schizo /pol/ ramblings

>>18775591
Why this fixation on the latest trends. Are you a woman OP? Philosophy is timeless.

>>18775591
Good way to find out is to see who's being cited the last few years in recent papers. That takes reading though. If they are French you'll have to know how to read it unless they've been translated. Scihub will get you the papers. Good luck

>There doesn't seem to be any major philosophers in the past 20 years or so
That's because you're not looking hard enough

>>18779271
Are you scared tranny?

>>18776501
>redundancy of post-left academics like Chomsky

This absolutely makes your whole post ridiculous. Please state what works of his you have actually read and why you think they are unworthy.

>>18775591
perhaps it has taken a new form. what, i am unsure.

I am here, don't worry about it.

>what is post-continental realism
>what is speculative realism
>what is object-oriented ontology
>what is speculative materialism
>what is transcendental materialism
>transcendental nihilism
>what is emergentism
>what is postanalytic philosophy
>what is post-philosophy
>what is philosophy of mind
>who's Byung chul han

>>18776539
Ywnbaw
>>18776507
>who are Quine and Kripke?

>>18775591
I NEED that volume on the far left.

>t. Unaware of the revolution going on in critical theory right now
No one who actually cares about philosophy says or even thinks this lmao.

>>18780300
>critical theory
Yikes

>>18775651
You can do it catbro

>>18776935
>I am worried he may be right about Philosophy being ultimately arbitrary and circular.
>only realising this now

>>18776864
>Sloterdijk gives me bad signals (he feels like he's just making up stuff)
explain? he has a number of clearly defined concepts. think bubbles and his exploration of religion

>>18780575
I haven't written anything since last week maybe tonight after my kafka job