/lit/ - Literature

Pleased to meet you. My name is Deep&Edgy.

>>2103109
Fuck off

>>2103109
lol

>>2103109

but who are you? why are you relevant?

become your own you faggot

Zizek is a clown.

Can you name any contemporary, under-50 philosophers?

>>2103140
>Can you name any contemporary, under-50 philosophers?

No, I can't. That's the problem. That's why I'm asking.

Henry Kissinger

Well that's what I'm saying. You need to look at the field. Academia is overflowing with philosophers.

Read http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/

>>2103151

Nick Bostrom ?

>>2103100
lol nice question
i think theres a text out there from david graeber answering -almost- your exact question.
as relevant alive philosophers i would name agamben. but its true that nothing original is going on since foucault.
postmodern philosophers killed philosophy

Agamben, Habermas, Badiou, Judith Butler.

Nothing has happened in philosophy since Derrida died.

Alasdair MacIntyre

Judith Butler is crap. Try Martha Nussbaum.

>>2103192
true, if by 'something' you mean new paradigms or schools. but i think that theories have to be tested in practice and that is was is happening now. they did the theories some decades ago, now we are testing em. we cant expect to have new theories every decade or to leave em after two or three books.

>>2103212
That might be true. You made me a bit more optimistic, man.

Jürgen Habermas is still alive.

>>2103204
American philosophy is an oxymoron
America has been a good field for foreign philosophers; but im not sure about americans doing philosophy

>>2103100
This man

Kripke is alright

>>2103232
not for long he isnt

I don't know what you mean by relevant or good. Any 'new' philosophers are still answering the same questions that began philosophy. Basically anything good, from anytime, is relevant to every good philosopher now.

Singer?

There are plenty of philosophers, i think OP is more interested in public intellectuals. Of the current generation, Nina Powers, Richard Seymour and Mark Fisher have potential. Any of them could smoke Zizeck in an open debate.

Paul Feyerabend, Hilary Putnam, Nelson Goodman. awwww yea

bump

how is "existential" philosophy fairing now a days? i hear that linguistics is the new thing to study and discuss

Seems to me that all modern philosophical thought are merely fragmentations of previous thought that have been fetishized by their proponents to such a degree that they've become a massive turnoff for anyone with common sense. They are convulted language games that do little to answer the most pressing questions of modernity. This could also be said of politics, economics, psychoanalysis and critical theory. So many men and women with their heads up their assholes desperately trying to convince us their pursuits have any merit.

Object Oriented Ontology? Graham Harman.

Fuck the Copernican Revolution

>>2103666
examples?

Grant Morrison

>>2103204

Lol no. I don't believe that reading novels can realistically be effective enough to drastically change the world as she wishes. Nice try though.

Ray Brassier.

George Boolos, Kit Fine, Timothy Williamson, Christine Korsgaard, T. M. Scanlon, Bernard Williams, C. L. Stevenson, Peter Geach, Simon Blackburn, Allan Gibbard, Huw Price, Mark Schroeder, Frank Jackson, Jamie Dreier, Gideon Rosen, Stanley Cavell

>>2104340
assuming you wanna read analytic dreck, anyway

David Chalmers

>>2103646
>linguistics
>new in philosophy
You're trolling, right?

Anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:21st-century_philosophers
lololol
Although, I have to admit I've only read things by Critchley, Habernas and Zizek of those.

Ayn Rand. :3

>>2103100
philosophy only come up with questions it doesn't know the answer to, then BAM! someone comes along and invent psychology, biology physics and sociology

it probably because we've reached our capacity for questions.

>>2103100

i hate people who ask questions like this since they clearly are ignorant of modern analytic philosophy which is the only philosophy which is actually relevant nowadays. Of course only people who actually pay attention to philosophy in academia know this, and the general public is like: LOL WHEN ARE WE GONNA HAVE THE NEXT SARTRE OR FOUCAULT HERP DERP HERP DERP

>>2104439
>Analytic philosophy
>Serving your bourgeois masters

Cool ideology bro. 300 years from now and people will ridicule you like we do Malthus and Ricardo.

>>2104439
The general public don't know about Sartre and Foucault.

>>2104446

>mfw i'm an analytic Marxist and you're a close-minded illogical asshole

read some G. A. Cohen dickwad

>>2104456
>reading something written by a "cohen"
why don't you just go chop your cock off?

>>2103100
>or is this the new dark ages?
correct, we are currently in a philosphical and scientific dark age.

>>2104456
Lets try Analytic Marxism against core Marxist statements?

Arming the working class with theory to overcome its own position: no.
Aufheben: no.
Historical dialectic: no.

Marxists serve the bourgeoisie just as well as other sorts, go suck off a stalinist. I'll be over here struggling to transcend my social position collectively.

>Philosophy

>>2104489
i wonder what walt's gonna do

>>2104487
>Implying any Marxism deserves analysis.
Basic economics roody-poos.

Philosophy is dead. It has been replaced by science and facts. There is no more room in society for philosophy and its make believe 'knowledge'.

I try to explore philosophy along a new ``punchline'' (say).

I'd say taking in account the existential questionning, and then, dealing with modern scientific questions, nietzschean problems, and the fact people tend to relativize everything... you have some philosophical subject here, man

dave eggers

tao lin

>>2104629

Autistic philosophers?

>>2104505
Utility maximisation is discredited. Enjoy.

>>2104509

That's a philosophical statement you're making.

The dark ages are called 'dark' because at the time there was a loss of writing and/or records, therefore the ages are 'dark' as in we can't see into them.

It would take something catastrophic to put us into another dark age.

>>2104651
The UK is entering another dark ages now Mr Cameron's turned off all the street lights.

>>2104509
Scientific method is a philosophy. There is a sub-field of philosophy, philosophy of science, that works with and on it.

Philosophy's applying scientific and sociological methodology explicitly through experimental philosophy, another (nascent) sub-field. Scientific studies are also being cited in a shit-ton of current philosophy papers. You won't find many philosophers who won't claim the scientific description of reality isn't really, really fucking useful.

There's also ethics, aesthetics, logic, etc that can't be the direct subject of scientific inquiry.

>>2103140
>implying clowns aren't philosophically relevant

>>2104672
But that's all just a subset of sociology.