/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17235404]

Post thinkers who you believe will play a key role in the next paradigm shift.

[Anonymous No.17235411]

>>17235404

[Anonymous No.17235417]

>>17235411
Nobody cares about this careerist hack.

[Anonymous No.17235420]

me

[Anonymous No.17235421]

http://orgyofthewill.net/praise/

[Anonymous No.17235426]

Fiat voluntas tua.

[Anonymous No.17235427]

>>17235417
Stop seething. Heidegger is an incredibly important thinker and arrived at very similar observations as Jung to the future.

[Anonymous No.17235429]

>>17235404

[Anonymous No.17235434]

Probably some kind of yootoober or blogger. Someone with is of followers on Twitter. That or talcott Parsons

[Anonymous No.17235450]

>>17235427
Oh yeah? Please explain how Heidegger and Jung arrived at similar observations. And also what his paradigm shift would look like and its tangible effects. Just being-in-the-world? Just bee yourself?

[Anonymous No.17235473]

my diary desu
>>17235450
bait these days is just really lame...

[Anonymous No.17235475]

>>17235404
easy

[Anonymous No.17235476]

>>17235404
Pic related goes in the same direction as Jung. In fact, according to Jung: "One day people ... will build monuments to Schopenhauer."

[Anonymous No.17235477]

F. Gardner

[Anonymous No.17235487]

>>17235475
This

[Anonymous No.17235498]

>>17235404
>next paradigm shift.


What was the previous one? did I miss it?

[Anonymous No.17235523]

>>17235498
I would think the last one happened with Einstein and modern physics.

[Anonymous No.17235526]

>>17235450
>"Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. So that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god. Only a God Can Save Us."
>"Philosophy is at an end."
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."
These are just a few remarks made by him in the Der Spiegel interview only to be published posthumously.

[Anonymous No.17235566]

>>17235523
>I would think the last one happened with Einstein and modern physics.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about world-ages, not scientific developments.

[Anonymous No.17235579]

>>17235526
Anon you realize I didn't ask you to post some vague, deep-sounding, pseud-delighting, quotes from an interview. I asked you to explain Heidegger's supposed paradigm shift. Is it just that "only a god can save us"? And this relates to Jung how?

[Anonymous No.17235601]

>>17235526
This is great. This is exactly how I've been feeling and thinking lately.
The scope of what is and what is to come is too great for our minds to handle, and worst of all, we keep sleepwalking towards this inevitable end too complacent in our gait to take a step back.
God help us.

[Anonymous No.17235602]

>>17235450
>Just bee yourself?
Yes. But they aren't yet ready face what they really are and instead they neurotically do everything to suppress it. Cleansing have been part of human history for ever but how many today are ready to admit that they are actually necessary and in deep down beneath the cultural conditioning they know it is the right thing to do.

[Anonymous No.17235604]

Me.

My paradigm shift will be the proclamation that all meaning is fiat

[Anonymous No.17235627]

[Anonymous No.17235638]

>>17235579
No you didn't you fucking retard, you haven't read Jung at all! You asked me to explain how his predictions and understanding of the future were similar to Jung's.

It's only "vague" because you either lack the ability or desire to intellectually question what he is trying to say. Because you can't even frame it as "these are quotes taken out of context" with your own thought from either impediment, you insist it is just vague.

[Anonymous No.17235681]

>>17235476
One can only hope.

[Anonymous No.17235698]

Marx, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson, Rosenzweig, Levinas and of course Jung

Also the Slovenian OCD man

[Anonymous No.17235779]

Foundationalism will also return.

[Anonymous No.17235870]

>>17235404
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhvTkGOAg3Q
It will be a revival of the alchemical hermetism as the new paradigmatic myth. In essence it was Jungs lifework to try to translate that centuries forgotten tradition into modern scientific language and too many Jungians have still shied away from that source material.

[Anonymous No.17235899]

>>17235870
It disgusts me how what Jung was doing has been turned into these handed-out phrases and terms such as "civilisation needs a myth to survive," I mean yes it's true but the actual meaning of the statement is entirely forgotten in the laziness of just putting it as, or allowing it to be taken as, "a le meaning and belief according to Jungian theory." And that's a better definition than is often used.

[Anonymous No.17235952]

>>17235475
honestly true. There was a right wing surge because the left focused on trannies. Real leftism will become popular again. Already happening

[Anonymous No.17235963]

where can i find out what icycalm is?

[Anonymous No.17235990]

>>17235404
Zizek posthumously. Mark my words. 5-10 years after his death there will be "neo zizekians". Now you laugh but screencap this.

[Anonymous No.17235998]

>>17235990

[Anonymous No.17236012]

>>17235990
>muh nothingness
Nah bro.

[Anonymous No.17236018]

>>17235990
I already am a Neo-Zizekian. I condemn and abhor the anti-Lacanian reform within orthodox Zizekian thought and believe we must return to the eternal moi

[Anonymous No.17236022]

>>17235475
>>17235952
Stupid rightoids, even IRL "friends" pissed me off so much that i'm reading all of Marx. Meaning, Das Kapital, all 4 volumes, Grundrisse, german ideology, Civil war in france, in addition ot the other books which i already read. Also, Rosa Luxemburg, Capital accumulation. We will read Marx and Hegel, master them, and them systematically crush unread rightoids "arguments".
By the way rightoids, i don't give a fuck that you are anti-judaism. It's not your anti-judaism which piss me off. It's your stupidity, and ignorance. You total ignorance of how Capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.17236028]

>>17236022
Holy... based..... How can one man be so based?

[Anonymous No.17236033]

Jason Reza Jorjani is a borderline schizophrenic, but some of his more reasonable ideas about the mythos/folklore of a nation are (while basically repeated) interesting.

[Anonymous No.17236035]

>>17235990
True, there already is a journal of Zizek studies: https://zizekstudies.org/
People don't know Zizek outside of some lectures they watched, but Zizeks philosophical project isn't something to easily dismiss

[Anonymous No.17236038]

>>17236022
holy based and wisdomPILLED

[Anonymous No.17236049]

>>17235404

[Anonymous No.17236097]

>>17235475
Unfortunately, this.
Marx is the final boss of the system. The creator of the most appealing illusion for illusion junkies. The creator of an illusion that tricks you into thinking it is the destruction of illusion.

[Anonymous No.17236119]

>>17236097
Do you mean Marx’s own philosophy or “Marxism”?

[Anonymous No.17236123]

>>17236119
Both.

[Anonymous No.17236130]

>>17235604
Welcome to 1750.

[Anonymous No.17236150]

>>17236097
>nothing is real bro
>it's all illusion
nice critique of someone who tried to analyze from a materialist point of view

[Anonymous No.17236170]

>>17236150
Is your misunderstanding of my post intentional?

[Anonymous No.17236178]

>>17235475
How will Marx play a key role when most people don't even understand what he wrote? I don't mean he's indecipherable, but that many people who proclaim to be "Marxists" seemingly haven't even read him.

Nevermind that even old Marxists have switched to Neoliberalism, essentially.

[Anonymous No.17236237]

F Gardner

[Anonymous No.17236243]

[Anonymous No.17236246]

[Anonymous No.17236247]

>>17236243
lol already forgotten

[Anonymous No.17236260]

>>17235990
zizek, baudrillard, etc etc
although i think shitposting as a postmodern "last rebellion" has already been diluted into safe consumerist dsa-type keychains
but hey we could be incel rightoids so lmao

[Anonymous No.17236425]

>>17236178
>I don't mean he's indecipherable, but that many people who proclaim to be "Marxists" seemingly haven't even read him.
It's easy. You buy the books, and you read. Page after page. That's how you do it.
>Nevermind that even old Marxists have switched to Neoliberalism, essentially.
Literal boomers have. But they had a good excuse: Capitalism was still working in the 1980s.

[Anonymous No.17236465]

>>17235404
>>>>>>

[Anonymous No.17236526]

>>17235411
this

[Anonymous No.17236547]

>>17235404
>paradigm shift

Sam Hyde in a 50 years or so.

[Anonymous No.17236556]

>>17235404
>paradigm shift

Sam Hyde in 50 years or so.

[Anonymous No.17236562]

>>17236022
Have fun getting fired when you try to unionize the Burger King you work at

[Anonymous No.17236579]

Heidegger, Eliade, Jung Gebser and Arnold Toynbee will finally get their due in the 21st century as the three main political theories collapse into one another leaving only the clearing where we’ll be able to live authentically

[I hate women No.17236585]

[Anonymous No.17236616]

>>17235990
I'm not familiar with Zizek's works nor ideas, but has he presented something new that hasn't been initially thought of by previous thinkers?

[Anonymous No.17236634]

>>17236049
This, alas it will be too late for any possibility of a change or reversal before the masses turn to him.

[Anonymous No.17236648]

>>17236243
This

And Mencius Moldbug

[Anonymous No.17236658]

>>17235627
Lindy

[Anonymous No.17236674]

>>17235411
um
he was a nazi, sweetie.
so, no.

[Anonymous No.17236691]

>>17236674
>so, no.
This, but only because he wasn't a real nazi.

[Anonymous No.17236709]

>>17236691
are there any real nazi philosophers?
i thought heidegger was like THE nazi philosopher

[Anonymous No.17236749]

>>17236674
Dunno mate, read an anthropology book by an extremely liberal hippy type and even he was using Heidegger’s work (ironically all the while decrying the disproportionate influence of western thought in the field).

[Anonymous No.17236758]

>>17236709
Heidegger was the philosopher who merely wished to use his allegiance with the NSDAP to climb the academic ladder. Explicitly nazi philosophers were people like Schmitt, Feder, and Sombart. We could also add Hitler's favorite philosophers as inspiration though they were dead by that time.

[Anonymous No.17236772]

>>17236758
>We could also add Hitler's favorite philosophers as inspiration though they were dead by that time.

sure, who were those?

[Anonymous No.17236798]

>>17236772
>In the Great Hall of the Linz Library are the busts of Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the greatest of our thinkers, in comparison with whom the British, the French and the Americans have nothing to offer. His complete refutation of the teachings which were a heritage from the Middle Ages, and of the dogmatic philosophy of the Church, is the greatest of the services which Kant has rendered to us. It is on the foundation of Kant's theory of knowledge that Schopenhauer built the edifice of his philosophy, and it is Schopenhauer who annihilated the pragmatism of Hegel. I carried Schopenhauer's works with me throughout the whole of the first World War. From him I learned a great deal. Schopenhauer's pessimism, which springs partly, I think, from his own line of philosophical thought and partly from subjective feeling and the experiences of his own personal life, has been far surpassed by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17236871]

>>17236798
i see, he had good taste and seemed like a well read guy.
Is that from timothy ryback's book about his private library?

[Anonymous No.17236882]

>>17235523
>>17235498
It was Freudian

[Anonymous No.17237807]

bumo

[Anonymous No.17237867]

F. Gardner

[Anonymous No.17238739]

>>17235426
sicut in caelo et in terra

[Anonymous No.17238773]

>>17235404
>all the posts itt thinking any of these people play a key role in the thinking of the modern person
Whoever runs a coorporate twitter account will play an infinitely larger role than any of these people. And it'll all be the same milquetoast faggot bullshit you've been getting from all fronts for the past hundred years, becoming exponentially more unabashedly pathetic as time goes on, as it's already proven to. There are no more "paradigm shifts".

[Anonymous No.17238797]

>>17235404
Saint-Thomas Aquinas

[Anonymous No.17238813]

>>17235404
Me

[Anonymous No.17238918]

>>17236246
Everyone is full of disbelief but it's true

[Anonymous No.17238930]

>>17235404

[Anonymous No.17238966]

None of you said his name. Bunch of pathetic losers.

[Anonymous No.17238974]

>>17236585
This thread is cringy to the extent that I actually want to vote for kanye to not look as dumb as other posters.

[Anonymous No.17238984]

>>17238966
As much as I'd wish he'd play a role, he hasn't in a pretty long time.

[Anonymous No.17239022]

>>17238966
>>17238984
W-who?
>>17238974
How so? You get a sense of anons' tastes.

[Anonymous No.17239050]

>>17239022
Uncle H

[Anonymous No.17239063]

>>17239022
When I for a split of second imagine that these people unironically post these writers and unironically talk about "paradigm shift" my breakfast wants to leave my body the same way it entered.

[Anonymous No.17239074]

>>17239063
>breakfast
disgusting. where the fuck are you posting from?

[Anonymous No.17239080]

>>17239063
I don't understand your issue. "Paradigm shift" is a concept in philosophy of science, introduced by Kuhn. Philosophy has changed its "paradigm" a few times already, which sometimes has brought previously underappreciated authors to the forefront. It seems more like there is a problem with your stomach rather than the thread.

[Anonymous No.17239089]

>>17239074
I'm from europe

[Anonymous No.17239092]

>>17239089
gay. europe is gay. except for if you're in the part that isn't, but that isn't really considered "europe".

[Anonymous No.17239110]

>>17239080
I got a lot of attention for some reason.
1.I didn't see a single scientist mentioned in this thread (there was one mention of Einstein)
2.There are infinite ways to divide reality into pieces. For this purpose we have language. The main principle behind devision of reality is usefulness and our mortality. However, there is no single universal way to divide it because different things can be usefull to us.
3.People in this thread want to devide intellectual history in paradigms but we have NO CLUE what will be usefull to us in the future. People are arguing about "correct parading" with each other without defining what does it even mean.
4.Historiography is not a science.

[Anonymous No.17239112]

>>17236150
>materialist dialectic

The development of the Hegelian spirit was never a historical moment. Marx has an absolute brainlet take and his idiocy killed millions.

[Anonymous No.17239115]

>>17239092
yes.

[Anonymous No.17239137]

>>17239110
As everyone itt seems to have grasped, scientism is the current paradigm. The next paradigm, therefore, cannot be scientism. Anyone loudly proclaiming themselves as a part of the tribe of scientism has a very low chance to become the harbinger of the next paradigm.

Science has never really managed to outgrow the foundations laid by Newtonian and Leibnizian causality. There have been attempts in quantum physics, yet those have not into a popular paradigm over these past 70 years. Seemingly the field of quantum physics lacks the vivacity to truly impact the world.

It is my belief that Whitehead's work contains clues that might lead us to a deeper concept of cause and effect, allowing us a better understanding of the workings of the brain (epistemology), and a better understanding of theoretical physics (metaphysics).

[Anonymous No.17239188]

>>17239137
You make a lot of baseless assumptions.
1. >scientism is the current paradigm
Where? To whom? To normies? To rabble? To the scientific community? We live in a very divided world, despite there being a united web and economic system. Everyone has their own bubble of beliefs. "Paradigms" do not flow in air. I don't completely reject your premise but it's naive to assume this. The world has changed and our life is too fast. We have no need for a paradigm anymore.
2.As I said before, historiography is not a science and it lacks instruments to universally divide history into paradigms. It can be done only retrospectively.
3.You seen to know analytical philosophy quite well. Last 70 years of analytic philosophy is a constant attempt to reject logical positivism. Everyone has failed so far.

[Anonymous No.17239190]

>>17239137
Not that anon, but I find your opinion interesting. Can you say more about why you think causality would be the important factor in the "paradigm shift"? I was thinking the subject/object distinction would be the essential thing, since our age places too much importance on the objective, as in materialism and related views which conceive the world purely as "the object", while thinking of life and consciousness as being merely anomalies, accidents, or "bumps" as Quine called them. And this over-reliance on the objective might be a reaction to previously dominant idealistic views such as Hegelian idealism, which in turn placed too much importance on the subjective. I think a perfect balance between the two would be transcendental idealism, giving proper dues both to the objective and the subjective. This would in turn open metaphysical/spiritual paths as with Schopenhauer and Jung. We might even manage spirituality scientific (or at least, more precise and rigorous).

[Anonymous No.17239225]

>>17235475
The gems in his thinking are so needed in today's age, yet the draw backs of his thinking are also exactly what is not needed in today's age.

[Anonymous No.17239233]

>>17235990
*SHHHHHHHLP*
*WIPES NOSE*
YESH

[Anonymous No.17239234]

oh i dont know, maybe a little known philosopher called jesus christ!

[Anonymous No.17239235]

>>17239137
Me>>17239188
I'm not a leftist but I will argue from a critical theory and power theory standpoint: whos paradigm are you trying to shift? Why is Whitheads writings not enought FOR YOU. You want everyone to like Whitehead? What are the goals of new paradigm? What's the point of this disscussion if you have no idea what will be useful in the future? Why do we need a new paradigm?
These questions are rhetorical.

[Anonymous No.17239242]

>>17236562
You just pointed out how and why our neo-liberal hellscape must end

[Anonymous No.17239258]

>>17235404
It is already underway

[Anonymous No.17239262]

>>17236556

[Anonymous No.17239266]

>>17239235
Not that anon, but nobody said what is enough/not enough for whom. The thread is for speculating about the next dominant scientific worldview, and we are having a light discussion offering our guesses to each other. Stop being so autistic and also stop reading that mind-poison.

[Anonymous No.17239280]

>>17239266
It 105 replies there were 2 scientists mentioned: Einstein and Whitehead. Everyone else is a philosopher or a writer. My original opponent was the first one who talked about scientific paradigms.

[Anonymous No.17239284]

duh
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMV0258fVlE

[Anonymous No.17239292]

>>17239280
Why are you willingly trying to misread my posts? By scientific I mean any rigorous attempt at understanding the world, not merely natural/empirical science. This is also evident given the nature of the thread and the authors other posters are posting.

[Anonymous No.17239309]

>>17239292
>Post thinkers who you believe will play a key role in the next paradigm shift.
This implies that paradigm will be shifted to more that one person. That means at least two.
You are not saying who are these (2) people. Without clarifying this thread makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.17239330]

>>17235404
Rousseau will dominate the west for 50 years. Lynch mobs, victim cults and youth worship.

[Anonymous No.17239334]

>>17239330
*50 more years. He's already the most influential thinker today.

[Anonymous No.17239338]

>>17239309
nig

[Anonymous No.17239341]

>>17239334
How so?

[Anonymous No.17239397]

>>17235404
>>17235475
>>17235476
Yeah that seems about right but how can these ideologies be combined? Sounds interesting as fuck. Post probable combinations

>>17235498
I would say sometime this past decade but the last definite major one was 1968

[Anonymous No.17239407]

>>17235404
>Post thinkers who you believe will play a key role in the next paradigm shift.

[Anonymous No.17239413]

>>17239341
Cancel culture is the new lynch mobs. You will get destroyed if you say the wrong words, have the wrong opinions or associate with the wrong people.

We worship the victim and not the hero. It's a race to the bottom. The more oppressed you are, the more people should listen to you. BLM, modern LGBT and modern feminism is just a giant victim cult.

We believe that people in their late 10s and early 20s are in their prime. We don't want to grow up.

[Anonymous No.17239417]

>>17239397
Marx is completely materialist while Schopenhauer is decidedly anti-materialist. You could combine non-marxist socialism with Schopenhauer pretty well though. Wagner and Mainländer have done it.

[Anonymous No.17239434]

>>17236022
You are not a marxist and you are not a leftist. You are middle class and you hate the working class. Steve Bannon is a marxist and the working class voted for Trump. Seethe more.

[Anonymous No.17239440]

>>17239258
>hates religion
>doesn't understand religion

[Anonymous No.17239445]

>>17235475
The problem with Marxism is that the good part (the analysis of capitalism) is surrounded with a mountain of garbage such as his opinions on family, religion, the ideas of all post-Marx Marxists and of course Marxist political movements. I unironically think the only way Marx can be made relevant is if its ideas are pushed forward by reactionaries such as what the French New Right did.

[Anonymous No.17239450]

>>17239188
1. I think it is self-evident that the Bayesian method in conjunction with the academic tradition of peer-review is the root cause of the material progress that western society has achieved over these past 2 centuries. I posit the products of the fields of biology, chemistry and physics as proof of this assertion.

2. I have a question for you on this point. What do you believe gives an argument epistemic value, and is it possible to think of valid epistemology outside of the scientific paradigm, according to you?

3. Logical positivism refuted itself. See Neurath's boat and Quinean epistemology to understand how and why.

Also, you are wrong. I'm more of a Neospinozist or Hegelian with an interest in mathematics and neuroscience than anything else.

[Anonymous No.17239456]

>>17239445
Freud heavily featured in the last paradigm shift and he also has a lot of bullshit amongst the gold

[Anonymous No.17239458]

>>17236425
I know of only one non-liberal Marxist in the West and he's a boomer (Michéa). All other Marxists are liberals, especially those claiming they are not such as leftypol.

[Anonymous No.17239484]

>>17239450
1.What has "material progress" to do with "paradigm shifts"? So you are talking about scientific community? Read my conversation with the other guy. You statement makes sense only in the context of Hegelian idea of progress.

2.I have no idea what are you implying but no, there is no valid epistemology outside of any paradigm.

3.I'm sorry but naive realism is also a part of a logical positivism.

I have met some Hegelians online and I'm scared of graphomania that may follow.

[Anonymous No.17239485]

>>17239190

I agree that transcendental idealism is one of the more likely ways forward for the current paradigm. The materialist worldview has led to an extensive crisis in spirituality as exemplified by the explosive growth of the amount of diagnoses of mental illness. This crisis of the sciences must be solved through metaphysics, not epistemology however. The subject-object distinction pertains solely to the relation between man and world (or in Heideggerian terms the Dasein-Welt distinction). This relation must always be slave to man's cognitive apparatus as its progenitor, and as such it can never transcend into the realm of Being. However, the current epistemological system is as mathematically complete picture of the cognitive apparatus as any system will get, so long as Gödel's proof of the incompleteness theorem holds. Therefore the next paradigm shift must happen on a deeper level, new light must be shed on the eternal debate of Parmenides and Heraklites, through the concomittant expounding of that which lies at the root of all Being, namely God, and of that which lies at the root of all becoming, namely causality. The only author that I know of whose works seriously addressed this matter is A.N. Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.17239493]

>>17239440
many such cases!

[Anonymous No.17239498]

>>17239450
Btw, Quine's two dogmas are not a means to an end. First one can be refuted by saying "except this one"

[Anonymous No.17239508]

>>17239440
>understood it better than you ever will

[Anonymous No.17239512]

>>17239484
1. If you are not willing to take scientism as the modern paradigm, you are not arguing in good faith.

2. Pray tell, how then do epistemological paradigms change over time? In my view it must be the case that the emergence of new paradigms over time necessitates the possibility of as-yet unknown but still valid systems of knowledge.

3. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/

Go educate yourself, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.17239526]

>>17239512
>unironically using the word "scientism"
cringe

[Anonymous No.17239528]

max stirner, Schopenhauer, and buddha

[Anonymous No.17239530]

>>17239512
Yes. I'm not an analytic philosopher. Doesn't matter. You have no idea what historiography is. And you can't answer any of my questions I posed to the other guy.

[Anonymous No.17239532]

>>17239485
I liked how you apply the incompleteness theorems to epistemology. According to the theorems, within a system of sufficient strength to prove arithmetics (which is the least we would want from an epistemological system), there are always statements the truth of which could not be ascertained. Would this not again point toward transcendental idealism, those undecidable statements being those which pertain to the noumenon? Of course, the undecidable statements are merely undecidable within the system. Were we to transcend the system (perhaps by some spiritual insights, or elevated levels of consciousness), then we would have access to the truth-value of those statements. Seems very Kantian-Schopenhauerian to me.

[Anonymous No.17239550]

>>17235404
>>17235411
>>17235475
>>17235990
>>17236049
Yes

[Anonymous No.17239552]

>>17239530
I haven't read the whole thread. Can you summarize the questions for me?

The study of history is a valid field of knowledge. Though I will grant that it is only scientific insofar as it makes experimentally falsifiable predictions, which is rarely the case. This is not a problem though. Knowledge (here defined as true, justified belief) must solely be judged by the causal chain it bears within the universal network of ideas. Whether some knowledge is genetically descended from the scientific method matters little if no internal contradiction is to be found in its causal chain. The scientific method is merely a means to the end of finding such knowledge, it does not hold a monopoly on knowledge, however much brainwashed anglo-saxon monkeys wish that it did.

[Anonymous No.17239554]

>>17239498
>First one can be refuted by saying "except this one"
I always disliked how Quine made excuses to try to dodge addressing Kant's analyticity, which are very immune to his criticism.

[Anonymous No.17239561]

[Anonymous No.17239564]

>>17239561
Now THIS is the prime cringe material. It's a shame I'm not shrek...

[Anonymous No.17239569]

>>17239552

1. >scientism is the current paradigm
Where? To whom? To normies? To rabble? To the scientific community? We live in a very divided world, despite there being a united web and economic system. Everyone has their own bubble of beliefs. "Paradigms" do not flow in air. I don't completely reject your premise but it's naive to assume this. The world has changed and our life is too fast. We have no need for a paradigm anymore.

I'm not a leftist but I will argue from a critical theory and power theory standpoint: whos paradigm are you trying to shift? Why is Whitheads writings not enought FOR YOU. You want everyone to like Whitehead? What are the goals of new paradigm? What's the point of this disscussion if you have no idea what will be useful in the future? Why do we need a new paradigm?
These questions are rhetorical.

No, historiography is not scientific. Please educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.17239570]

>>17236246
desu is understanding of what Marxism is, is dog shit. But his ability to find beauty and meaning in this hell world means he will play a part in what is to come.

[Anonymous No.17239585]

>>17239569
I addressed these points already. This discussion is done, no matter what information I give you, you will not change your point of view. Good luck in further philosophical endeavours, though I fear you will never achieve anything of note with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.17239591]

>>17239570
He already made his part by re-expoing Jung to the intellectual community. He was almost getting obscured since Campbell.

[Anonymous No.17239605]

>>17239569
Alright last point I guess.
I am not trying to shift anybody's mind towards my ideas, since I refuse the postmodern subjective premise that knowledge only holds value insofar as it is able to take over human brains. The pursuit of knowledge is valuable as an goal in and of itself. The goal of the future paradigm is to bring science back into God's light and away from the abyss into which it has leapt since the 1970's when postmodern thought took root in the world of ideas.

[Anonymous No.17239680]

>>17239605
Anon I think you might have missed this: >>17239532
Given that we hold similar views, I'd like to know your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.17239692]

>>17239561
I know everyone but everyone on the bottom row
Pls gib names

[Anonymous No.17239755]

>>17238773
This. It's over. Only control and struggle but never success.

[Anonymous No.17239771]

>>17235475
Dude has been stripped down to the absolute barest skeleton of his system, how is he going to matter in the future any more than he does currently with his legacy being the way it is?

[Anonymous No.17239775]

>>17239680
I'll respond in an hour or so. Busy right now.

[Anonymous No.17239798]

>>17236150
>when you realize materialism is peak illusion

[Anonymous No.17239805]

>>17235404
based

[Anonymous No.17239808]

>>17235404

[Anonymous No.17239826]

>>17239532
>then we would have access to the truth-value of those statements
In a formal system you still wouldn't. Spiritual insights or altered consciousness may as well be hunches from Kant's perspective.

[Anonymous No.17239848]

>>17239826
Well, the theorems concern the undecidiblity of certain statements *given only* the axioms of that formal system. If you go out of the said system, then you would have access to more axioms, which would allow you to decide the truth of more statements. But of course, this new, higher system, would have its undecidable statements if we follow the laws of logic, which is why the noumenon is said to transcend reason.

[Anonymous No.17239897]

>>17239242
and be replaced with a monarchy, obviously

[Anonymous No.17239929]

>>17239848
>which is why the noumenon is said to transcend reason.
Yeah, what I was saying is that break from reason also happens to break Kant's system, which is why he asserted noumena had to be unknowable.

[Anonymous No.17240002]

>>17236648
>Mencius Moldbug
Came here to say this. Unironically.
You are in on a rollercoaster ride my US friends.

[Anonymous No.17240054]

>>17239458
Then you don't know about former Guy Debord, Maximilien Rubel, or contemporary francis cousin, Charles Robin, Adrien Sajous, just to name a few.
Libertarian Marxism have almost nothing to do with LGBT Marxism.
Also, Michéa is, in my opinion, a little tainted by progressivists values.
True libertarian Marxists mostly aren't. They don't give a fuck about LBGT, and criticize them as being a diversion orchestrated by Capitalism in order to pull away proletarians from class struggle.

[Anonymous No.17240055]

>>17235411
I usually think lefties are full of shit when they call intellectual positions proto-fascist, and imo people like Adorno developed naziism into a full-on fetishistic obsession that allows them to justifies their own alt-totalitarian views. But. Having read Being and Time and a few of Heideggers lectures, I don't think you can get around the fascist philosopher label.

[Anonymous No.17240056]

>>17236758
holy God you're such a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.17240077]

>>17239262
>>17236556

Not specifically Sam, but MDE as a whole has already largely impacted the internet and comedy. As Sam and Charls shift into life advice and philosophy it will become more apparent in general discourse how much impact these guys will have.

[Anonymous No.17240155]

>>17239605
To be honest, I am really not so familiar with all of the analytics, so, after reading your thoughts, I thought that maybe I am indeed missing something but....this....
> I refuse the postmodern subjective premise that knowledge only holds value insofar as it is able to take over human brains
> The pursuit of knowledge is valuable as an goal in and of itself.
duuudddeeeee, a-a-and you think, tha-at, that, "paradigm" will shift towards THIS? My fcking sides hurt

[Anonymous No.17240240]

>>17240155
That sentence you quote says exactly nothing about what the paradigm itself will be like. Read it again.

[Anonymous No.17240280]

>>17240240
Haha, that's irrelevant. You are smart but naive. This world needs people like you.
I mean, there is nothing wrong with your thoughts but...I assume you are one of those people who think enlightenment was a success. We indeed have some antinomy.

[Anonymous No.17240343]

>>17239532
Technically speaking, ascertained is the wrong word to use here. The incompleteness theorem states:
For every logical system (X) which can contain all of arithmetics, it is possible to create sentence x'.

x'= as follows from the axiomata of X, this sentence is false.


Basically, the liar's paradox is true in every system that contains arithmetics.
That's a massive problem if you follow the rule of EFSQ, since every arithmetically complete logical system must then always contain a falsum, and therefore any answer at all may be derived from said system.

I do not think that the incompleteness theorem suggests that we must transcend to some type of spiritual plane to be able to escape subjectivity and/or necessary falsi.

Instead I would argue that the EFSQ rule and logic in general have always assumed that the universe acts through discrete logical nodes or events, as in Newtonian causality. I would propose a solution that is more akin to a mix of Leibnizian (lack of) causality and Whiteheadian occurences. But I haven't finished writing my thoughts on that subject, so instead of making mistakes I'll just admit my ignorance as to how this matter may be solved entirely.

[Anonymous No.17240770]

>>17239458
StupIDPol: Subreddit primarily focused on critiquing identity politics from a Marxist perspective.

[Anonymous No.17240869]

>>17235475
Can't wait to send the rich gulags and gas the jews

[Anonymous No.17241835]

>>17235566
You’re thinking on this is wrong. The massive leaps forward in physics fueled the economy of the 1940s and built our current world order. The decline of growth in physics has cannibalized the institutions that were built on a certain level of expected growth that was unsustainable. Those within the institutions that’s told the truth were selected against. Those that lied about growth were selected for. Fast forward to now we have institutions that are entirely pathological.

[Anonymous No.17242168]

>>17235899
Please expand on what you think Jung means by that. Are you saying his work on alchemy is more literal than often alluded to?>>17238773

[Anonymous No.17242322]

>>17239605
I really am enjoying your thoughts. What sources do you attribute most of your thoughts to?

[Anonymous No.17242332]

[Anonymous No.17242337]

>>17236648
>>17240002
lol the absolute state.

[Anonymous No.17242522]

>>17240343
I think I respectfully disagree, or at the very least I might be misunderstanding you. For the first theorem, Gödel constructed a function that, given the Gödel number of a statement, says whether the statement is provable or not (that is, returns 1 or 0), given the axioms of a system sufficient to prove arithmetics. The idea was that P is true, iff Prov(`P`) is also true (viz, if P is true, then it is provable).But then Gödel showed in such systems there are always propositions for which the said biconditional does not hold. That is, they are neither provable nor disprovable, or as I said, truth-value of which could not be ascertained. Given this result, I'm considering whether we could attribute such undecidable statements to the so called noumenal realm, where the laws of logic supposedly lose their power.

[Anonymous No.17242542]

>>17235990
The field of philosophy after Zizek's death will be known as post-zizekian.

[Anonymous No.17242553]

>>17236022
if you think being a good marxist is attacking the right then you are already a useful idiot

t. an actual prole unlike you

[Anonymous No.17243020]

>>17235990
>hæc est ideologia pura

[Anonymous No.17243041]

[Anonymous No.17243081]

kek

[Anonymous No.17243093]

>>17243081
meant for>>17243020

[Anonymous No.17243131]

Me

[Anonymous No.17243136]

>>17239434
Truly based.

[Anonymous No.17243142]

At this point? F. Gardner

[Anonymous No.17243175]

>>17236049
Based.
>>17236243
That guy's a massive faggot. If you believe this unironically you should get the rope.

[Anonymous No.17243183]

>>17235404

[Anonymous No.17243570]

>>17239434
Not at all. While it is not exactly identical, the majority of those earning less than $50k voted for Joe Biden. Like always really, is it not obvious that the GOP represents the interests of the rich or what?

[Anonymous No.17243692]

>>17243570
Hm.
That must be why every rich person, celebrity, CEO, powerful people in general are ostracizing Trump and his supporters. No?

[Anonymous No.17243782]

>>17240077
The more I think about it the more this sounds true. I know for a fact that they started the "coomer" meme a few years ago.

[Anonymous No.17243783]

>>17243570
>>17243692
Also on twitter you can see a lot of times biden supporters laughing at poor Trump supporters.
There was this one tweet with the picture of a house made out of sheet metal and a Trump flag and the libtard was making fun of them.
Not very pro-prole.

[Anonymous No.17243789]

>>17243183
He's going to be proven even more irrelevant. DUDE WHAT IS REAL LMFAO thinking is what has made people angry in the first place

[Anonymous No.17243907]

>>17239434
>Steve Bannon is a marxist
enlighten me, seriously

[Anonymous No.17244309]

>>17239897
If you enjoy being a slave, sure

[Anonymous No.17244341]

>>17243789
>t. Hasn't read baudrillard

[Anonymous No.17244378]

>>17244341
No one has read baudrillard. That's not the point

[Anonymous No.17244424]

>>17243782
Only in a very indirect way iirc. They came up with the term "coom" in one of their really early skits from 2013 I think, but it didn't have the whole "masturbation addict" meaning to it. It was just someone pronouncing "cum" as "coom" as a stupid joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS0jTbzd8Q8

[Anonymous No.17244798]

Girard and Jung. Herd behaviour and memes.

[Anonymous No.17245319]

Unironically Donald Trump.

[Anonymous No.17245349]

There will be no paradigm shift. It's bland, materialistic neoliberal capitalism all the way down. It's over.

[Anonymous No.17245433]

>>17245349
This would be worse than any conceivable apocalypse, if only because neoliberal capitalism gets colder, darker, and more alienating as it goes. Let's hope not.

[Anonymous No.17245441]

>>17235404
Very true
>>17235411
Somewhat true
>>17235426
Untrue
>>17235429
Conceptually true in that Malthus will play an extremely significant role
>>17235475
Hilariously untrue, Marxism died thirty years ago this year
>>17235476
His influences will impact it but the change will be far less pessimistic than Schopenhauer
>>17235990
Only in his analysis of modernity
>>17236049
True but not as true as his fanboys would have you believe
>>17236243
Lmao, you don’t actually believe this right?
>>17236246
He is one of the faux-philosophers holding back the next great development, the opposite of OP’s request.
>>17236585
True conceptually as egoism will factor greatly
>>17238797
Untrue
>>17239258
Lmao, see Peterson for how retarded this idea is.
>>17239262
Epic
>>17239330
We currently live in his world, his erasure will be central to the next great change
>>17239550
Possibly one of the largest roles
>>17242332
Sorry, Arabs won’t be involved
>>17243041
Yes in that he has increased interest in nationalism, populism and egotism, no in that he won’t be personally involved

[Anonymous No.17245505]

>>17235952
>Real leftism
There it is again

>>17236022
You sound absolutely insufferable

[Anonymous No.17245513]

>>17245433
It would BE the apocalypse. It IS the apocalypse. It’s just a very slow, lethargic, inflating rather than deflating one.

[Anonymous No.17245520]

>>17245441
>His influences will impact it but the change will be far less pessimistic than Schopenhauer
Anon I'm not sure what you have heard about Schopenhauer (le epic sadman!) but his pessimism would pale in comparison with the daily "redpills" anons spill on this very board. He might have been shockingly pessimistic for his time, when just a few decades prior Leibniz was arguing we are living in the best possible world, but those "pessimistic" aspects of Schopenhauer are common knowledge for most educated people of 21th century. At any rate, I posted him because of his metaphysical aspects. He opens the doors to spirituality with rigor and without falling victim to superstition or mindless speculation. Very much in the spirit of and aligned with Jung.

[Anonymous No.17245535]

>>17239262
based

[Anonymous No.17245544]

>>17245520
>his pessimism would pale in comparison with the daily "redpills" anons spill on this very board.
I hope you aren’t insinuate that I think those “redpills” are worth comparing to actual thinkers.
>He might have been shockingly pessimistic for his time, when just a few decades prior Leibniz was arguing we are living in the best possible world,
Leibniz may well have been right insofar as reality is only what must be.
>but those "pessimistic" aspects of Schopenhauer are common knowledge for most educated people of 21th century.
Exactly, it is part of what must be overcome.
>At any rate, I posted him because of his metaphysical aspects. He opens the doors to spirituality with rigor and without falling victim to superstition or mindless speculation. Very much in the spirit of and aligned with Jung.
Ah, then you’re correct.

[Anonymous No.17245564]

>>17235952
>There was a right wing surge because the left focused on trannies. Real leftism will become popular again.
It won’t, western leftism has been pozzed consistently since ww2 arguably for longer, that isn’t going to change.

[Anonymous No.17245576]

>>17239550
Your discord server =/= the world

[Anonymous No.17245777]

>>17238797
what did he write?

[Anonymous No.17245974]

>>17236758
While I agree with you - it's also worth noting he never condemned the party after the war either. Even after his wife basically begged him to.

[Anonymous No.17246029]

>>17245441
>How to be wrong, the post

[Anonymous No.17246068]

>>17235417
This is just factually untrue.

[Anonymous No.17246111]

>>17240869
this nazbol revolution now

[Anonymous No.17246127]

easy, spengler, just look at how many people are saying his name or his ideas, even without understanding him, classic way to tell something is gaining momentum, when your grandma is talking about bitcoin its about to moon

[Anonymous No.17246128]

>>17246068
True, some people still care about this careerist hack. Though not for long.

[Anonymous No.17246136]

William james
Bergson
Whitehead
TS Eliot
Aristotle
MacIntyre
Kierkegaard
Ellul
Hegel

positivism of any kind is going to fuck off, emotional teaching, practical wisdom and honing of moral and intellectual virtues coming back. people will realise individuals need to be reformed if society is going to be reformed. organicism coming back big time in terms of social identity, that we can only understand ourselves through interrelation, and that mass media is making valuable experiences and imtimacies second hand- individualism is both exalting and fragmenting the self. historicist hermeneutics that are fairer to people in the past, engage seriously with their ideas and understands them as part of a living tradition and harmony with the present- awareness that modern thought is brought about by modern living and our perceptions are temporary and will change with the times, as in the past. renewed respect for spirituality after people begin to take religious expression and existentialism from the past seriously and accept it as a fundamental human drive giving dignity to life and a pragmatic sense of communal understanding and conduct. end of science viewed as seperate from the subjective life, both science and emotional needs will be synthesised into a pragamtic code of wisdom.

[Anonymous No.17246233]

>>17245441
>midwit uses forced reddit meme

[Anonymous No.17246268]

Hobbes

[Anonymous No.17246593]

>>17235475
>retard who misinterpreted Hegel

wow so based

[Anonymous No.17246974]

[Anonymous No.17247059]

>>17235404
Pretty much any right-libertarian thinker.
Ron Paul(pbuh), Hayek, Von Mises, Schumpeter, Nozick, Friedman, R*thbard, R*nd, etc.
Once governments, their welfare systems, their social programs, and the dollar collapses, people will inevitably look back to these people as the standard-bearers of liberty and freedom.
The internet represents an important component of this too, as a place for knowledge, free speech, and commerce (Cryptocurrencies) mostly outside of the reach of government.

[Anonymous No.17247086]

>>17239407
What the fuck are you mad about?
We talk about books, authors, and philosophers all the time on /lit/ but it's also nice to read what anons think about how this philosophy will play out in the real world; this is a good thread you utter faggot.
also rent-free

[Anonymous No.17247103]

>>17246127
>popular in period of decline
>not part of decline

[Anonymous No.17247214]

>>17240077
Yes, yes, your pic related will be looked up to by generations of schizo memeservatives, long after the Rush Limbaugh types have been forgotten.

[Anonymous No.17247224]

>>17247059
lolbertarianism is a joke

[Anonymous No.17247252]

>>17247224
The only thing wrong with lolbertarianism is the fact that some forms of it are too idealize and they don't take into account that cronyism will creep into government, citizens will ask for "special favors", people will demand social programs, and government itself will start to balloon.
Otherwise everything else makes perfect sense, it's ethics, it's economics, it's law, all good.

[Anonymous No.17247378]

>>17242332
This

[Anonymous No.17247423]

>>17235404
E Michael Jones
People are waking up to the reality of Jewish Coom Oligarchs

[Anonymous No.17247424]

What is the IDW you may ask? The intellectual dark web (IDW) refers to a group of people who have been marginalized by the mainstream media and academia for their heterodox political views. They are usually politically liberal, but hold unorthodox opinions on race, gender, immigration or Islam that contradict the progressive orthodoxy. The movement grew out of the cultural backlash against social justice and political correctness in mainstream media.

Some examples include Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Andy Ngo, Tim Pool, Douglas Murray, Sargon of Akkad. The IDW is not about racism or sexism, it's about defending free speech at all costs. They are the true liberals imo and can be seen as a backlash against a sort of Cultural Marxism. The IDW has been often criticized by the left for being 'alt-right' sympathizers and even alt right themselves. But this is not true, as they are against racism and sexism.

Their objective is to provide a counter-narrative against the far left narratives being pushed by mainstream media. The IDW can be considered as an anti-establishment movement that comes from the center right perhaps, and although they are not 'part' of it, some dissidents in the alt-right have expressed their support for them. But this does not mean that members of the IDW themselves identify with or are part of the alt right. The IDW's core values are based on classical liberalism and freedom of speech. They often criticize the modern left for being authoritarian, intolerant and opposed to free speech as well as the alt right.

[Anonymous No.17247476]

>>17247424
Based
IDW is a pseud detector:
>If you engage with it, you're an intellectual
>If you react against it, you're a libtard.
Simple as.

[Anonymous No.17247508]

>>17245777
The: Summa Theologica

[Anonymous No.17247547]

>>17240055
You easily can, but at the sae time he's interest in National Socialism came from his philosophical principles. He even said

>The works that are being offered around today, [today being 1935] as the philosophy of National Social-ism, but have nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely with the encounter of planetarily determined technology and modern human beings), are fishing for big catches in the murky waters of values and wholes.

[Anonymous No.17247616]

>>17244798
Exactly

[Anonymous No.17247661]

>>17235579
pseud

[Anonymous No.17247665]

>>17236022
>>17236028
stop samefagging, seething retard

[Anonymous No.17247668]

>>17247059
i feel like i’m back in 2008

[Anonymous No.17247672]

>>17240077
Yes, the human ashtray on TRT and HGH is the paragon of wisdom and not someone grifting on white middle class failures.

[Anonymous No.17247705]

>>17246127
Fuck off shillcoiner

[Jesus No.17247714]

>>17235404
Biden, Merkel, Obama, Klaus Eat Ze Bugs

[Anonymous No.17247769]

Hegel (again)

[Anonymous No.17248041]

>>17235434
>talcott Parsons

underrated post

[Anonymous No.17248252]

>>17235404
SHARK WILL CHANGE THE WORLD

[Anonymous No.17248662]

HOW ON EARTH HAVE NONE OF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS EVEN MENTIONED RENE GIRARD

[Anonymous No.17248690]

Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.17248698]

>>17248252
thanks for the daily dose of cringe
keep thinking she's your friend

[Anonymous No.17249407]

Hitler

[Anonymous No.17249431]

>>17248662
There was a pic of him
>>17238930

[Anonymous No.17249500]

>>17246136
Based

[Anonymous No.17249536]

>>17246136
Kant and German romantics like Schelling might be a good bet too.

What are the problems in society that even the normies are waking up to:
>dead end jobs that lead nowhere
>that lack of meaning in society
>trivialisation of human relationships
>technology and the state’s ability to enslave
>expendability of the average person
>loneliness crisis and alienation

The next paradigm shift is likely to be a resurgence of romanticism in some form.

[Anonymous No.17249601]

>>17249536
they have not yet come to terms with the idea of directed desire though, which I think underpins all these notions. the modern state and mass media (and the individuals who make them up) can and will make you want certain things. drowning yourself in nihilistic hedonism is not "natural" or "life affirming", it is part of the rat race you are led down by symbols, messages and pictures to string you along. worship money and exchange it to worship yourself. wageslave and then ejaculate everything you earned so you need more. until people realise that living like caged chimps is not what they actually want out of life they can start questioning the conditions that accomodate their chimp lifestyle

[Anonymous No.17249611]

>>17235404
Jung was very influential on the previous "paradigm shift"

[Anonymous No.17249681]

[Anonymous No.17249693]

>>17247424
>The intellectual dark web (IDW) refers to a group of people who have been marginalized by the mainstream media and academia for their heterodox political views
What a shame. People shouldn't be marginalized because they have a view that society finds unpopular. Most great writers have those views.

That said,

>Some examples include Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, Andy Ngo, Tim Pool, Douglas Murray, Sargon of Akkad.

It is laughable to any of these people as intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.17249719]

>>17247424
>Cultural Marxism
Kys

[Anonymous No.17249742]

>>17249693
You might not like him but JPB is an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.17249768]

>>17249742
people on this board cant comprehend that there's a difference between being intellectual and being an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.17249774]

>>17249742
He's an academic. I would stop short of calling him an intellectual though. To be fair I have not read "Maps of Meaning;" maybe there's something there. But that book is also not why he's a public figure today.

[Anonymous No.17249838]

>>17236022
>and them systematically crush unread rightoids "arguments"
1. Learn how to spell
2. Learn how to think outside the right/left divide
3. Learn to hide your jealousy for your betters better.

[Anonymous No.17250445]

Impossible to predict, at least for me. Though if I had my say, it would be Robert W. Jenson.

[Anonymous No.17250677]

>>17249774
>I would stop short of calling him an intellectual though.
lol, Why?

[Anonymous No.17250734]

>>17235498
age of piscis, starting with the birth of jesus

[Anonymous No.17250772]

>>17249693
You’re right. The only non faggot that’s a part of the “IDW” is Eric Weinstein. He’s based as fuck. Has fantastic ideas. Hates boomers. His thoughts on embedded growth obligations are fantastic.

[Anonymous No.17250930]

>>17247668
kek, same.
Based DoomPaul poster.

[Anonymous No.17251113]

>>17235990

[Anonymous No.17251141]

[Anonymous No.17251290]

Nietzsche will change the game as soon as people discover that he's the most optimistic yet grounded philosopher ever and stop wrongfully believing that he was a pessimist or worse,a nihilist

[Anonymous No.17251330]

>>17235476
I really hope so.

[Anonymous No.17252443]

>>17250734
did the shift happen precisely at the beginning of the year? or did the age of acquarius start in the early 2000s?

[Anonymous No.17252687]

>>17242553
The right stands for holding up systems that continue to oppress people. He acknowledged that the proletariat could not seize power as long as slavery was still an institution in America. You have exposed yourself as a tool.

[Anonymous No.17252696]

I can't (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.17252716]

Calling it now, this guy's a sleeper.

[Anonymous No.17252731]

>>17235404
this

[Anonymous No.17252843]

>>17252716
who is that

[Anonymous No.17252852]

>>17252843
Rudolf Steiner

[Anonymous No.17252878]

>>17252852
Jung apparently thought he just regurgitated the indian texts plus some unfounded speculation. Is he really worth reading?

[Anonymous No.17252938]

>>17252878
>Is he really worth reading?
no.
His religious thought is sketchy and incoherent, and his influence on the 'Christengemeinschaft' denomination, IMO, made it heretical.
I find it very difficult to tell his beliefs apart from the Theosophists, and yet he must have approached his life's work on implicitly different axiomatic principles, if one is to judge a person or a belief system by its fruit.
Because of its proximity to theosophy, and its weirdness, I gave up the ghost on his spirituality. It doesn't make sense to me. But I found myself fascinated by his social thinking, by Social Threefolding, for example.
I would still not recommend reading his own works, as they're a bit antiquated and boring as fuck, but - just to name two more contemporary books by exponents of his social thought which built upon his concept of Social Threefolding;
Rudolf Isler - 'Sustainable Society'
Michael Spence - 'After Capitalism'
I'm reading through more, I have 'Steinerian Economics' by Gary Lamb and Sarah Hearn to read next.

As for Jung, I don't think Jung is in a position to criticise anyone else. While a heap of my family are into the whole anthroposophy thing, I'm not. For me, perennialism just clicks, and the perennialists were constant critics of a lot of people, psychoanalysts including Jung, Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Freemasons and other occult kooks (although a lot of the perennialists themselves were occult kooks).

[Anonymous No.17253051]

>>17252938
>and the perennialists were constant critics of a lot of people, psychoanalysts including Jung
Not sure which "perennialist" you have in mind but the criticism of Jung from the Traditionalists that I've read rest on the willful misinterpretation of Jungian terminology. Basically they take Jung's words, without regards to how he defined them, and criticize him by using their own interpretation for the words. Very superficial and amateurish.
>inb4 guenonfag spams the thread
>inb4 "I've read the whole bibliography of Jung but you should read guenon instead"

[Anonymous No.17253516]

>>17239561
How does Bodhidharma not conflict with all the others? Or at least make them meaningless in comparison?

[Anonymous No.17253551]

>>17252878
>Steiner
>Goethe fanboy
>Jung
>Reincarnation of Goethe
Not a difficult choice anon

[Anonymous No.17253586]

>>17253551
>Jung
>Reincarnation of Goethe
not bloody likely

[Anonymous No.17253992]

>>17247059
The Dollar will collapse.
Keynesianism was bad enough but it was at least rational, MMT will be the death of our government's economic system if it is seriously adopted.

[Anonymous No.17253993]

>>17235476
can I get a quick rundown on this guy

[Anonymous No.17254037]

>>17253993
Hinduism/Buddhism in a Kantian framework. Made important criticisms of Kant, synthesized transcendental idealism with Plato, one of the first Europeans to seriously engage with eastern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17254116]

Gilbert Simondon. His major thesis literally just came out in English, so I think there will be significant (re)evaluation of his work in years to come. He's essentially Deleuze before Deleuze, but far more rigorous and scientifically literate.

[Anonymous No.17254176]

>>17236049
Absolutely

>>17235404
Already happening

>>17236246
Yes, he's too popular not to. People get to Jung through him without reading Jung.

>>17239550
Yes


>>17235426
Soul

>>17252938
soulless

[Anonymous No.17254575]

JESUS CHRIST

[Anonymous No.17255379]

>>17240280
Why was the enlightenment unsuccessful?

[Anonymous No.17255387]

ITT: wishful thinking

[Anonymous No.17255407]

>>17238797
maybe something with his concept of grace

[Anonymous No.17255412]

>>17243789
This desu

No coincidence imo that the creators of the matrix are wackjobs, the ideas just attract that kind of person

[Anonymous No.17255432]

[Anonymous No.17255453]

>>17239692
Marcuse
>>17253516
he's the finale pill

[Anonymous No.17256588]

[Anonymous No.17257055]

>>17253586
>Carl Jung was certainly inspired by this aspect of his familial heritage, and delighted in taking his genetic pedigree one unproven step further by claiming that his grandfather was the bastard son of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: moreover, his delusions were exaggerated towards the end of his life when he came to believe he was Goethe reincarnated.

[Anonymous No.17257057]

>>17255432
kek

[Anonymous No.17257080]

>>17235475
obviously

>>17235476
I too want human annihilation

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.17257087]

me been doin it for a while

[Anonymous No.17257221]

>>17257055
I really am excited to read some Goethe but I heard, from here, that some translation/edition are really bad and since then I am not that interrested in it.
Do any of you guys know if my edition is good (pic related).
Any other better one and I know French; should I read Faust in French or English?
Thanks

[Anonymous No.17258361]

>>17235404
literally me

[Anonymous No.17259040]

>>17236585
yeezy season approachin

[Anonymous No.17259117]

I would say that the most influential thinker hasn't arrived yet, but will be someone influenced by the idealists, Nietzsche, and the philosophers of the early to mid-20th century. I think anti-foundationalism will become more and more relevant which will lead to some kind of crisis and then resolution (either being the expansion on the idea of anti-foundationalism or a reification of a form of foundationalism). Also, idealism will make a huge come-back. Scientism and reductive materialism will probably diminish in influence too.

[Anonymous No.17259143]

>>17257221
If you know French, buy pic related. It's basically the same price and I enjoyed it a lot more with the German version (learning the language at the moment). If you don't really want to learn German, it's much better.