[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 835 KB, 1009x407, 9872342.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17285730 No.17285730[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

You understand that these people are the modern iteration of what it means to be a philosopher right? If you disagree, I dare you to name one (1) contemporary, alive philosopher, worth reading, that's had an impact to society.

>> No.17285741

>>17285730
How has philosophy had an impact in society ever?

>> No.17285746

>>17285730
Read the Republic and check the division of labor part.

>> No.17285748

>>17285730
>Implying that there is a vacuum that absolutely must be filled in every generation
You're right, and it's me.

>> No.17285751

>>17285730
noam chomsky.

>> No.17285757

>>17285730
The right needs a type like this to run for office as opposed to an incoherent scatter brain like Trump. Its the only legitimate chance they have.

>> No.17285759
File: 103 KB, 363x471, 1561865062951.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17285759

>>17285746
>Plato was the first to come up with the idea of division of labor

>> No.17285764

>>17285730
The key is to have no impact.
>What have you contributed to society?
>Nothing. But I am not taking from it either.

>> No.17285778

>>17285759
I won't bother. Enjoy your memes.

>> No.17285789

>>17285730
And a bunch of feminists did. Probably more than all those combined, because they were the cause of those in the photo. You might not agree with them, but it is not like they aren't impacting anything.

>> No.17285806

>>17285789
As in without the feminists. They would probably be 'chilling' not having any 'impact on society' minding whatever.

>> No.17285811

>>17285730
Noam Chomsky

>> No.17285816
File: 48 KB, 618x621, gsgf341f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17285816

Nothing authentic will ever come to be again. The turning point was the moment men were given the technology and incentive to commercialize every single product, including philosophy.
From there on, every single work of literature, art or philosophy is first and foremost the result of an endeavor to produce something agreeable to an audience (large or small), rather than an innate and honest desire to search for truth or beauty.

>> No.17285824

Guys just read 1985 instead and it'll all make sense

>> No.17285839

>>17285757
>He uses long words to gaslight you
>He's just a nazi
>He said the poo poo words back in 1981
>Racism against whites doesn't exist, check your privilege
>He looks/dresses/eats/talks weird, what a loser
Any of these is enough to be beat. Politics has never been about being right.

>> No.17285842

This whole circle of contemporary pseudo-philosophy always boils down to contrarian cynicism versus naive positivist, most of it masked as some basic political commentary. Nothing new or interesting gets synthesized in those parts. Not to mention, since it's all done to make money, they aim to make their "ideas" sound more and more radical, in attempt to catch the retard's attention like tits on a billboard.

>> No.17285851

>>17285741
>

>> No.17285861

>>17285839
Okay, true to a certain extent. But, Trump has always been his own worst enemy. At least if you have a competent person on the campaign trail they likely won't self inflict their own wounds nearly as often.

>> No.17285864

>>17285851
Unironically? Marx is kinda obvious. You might way it was an overall negative impact, but it is silly to call him irrelevant. Dangerously silly.

>> No.17285899

>>17285864
Some people get triggered by his name.

>> No.17285956

>>17285730
Zizek

>> No.17285964

>>17285864
>>17285899
Marx is similar to Freud, in that they were right in many aspects to such extent that their "correct" ideas were essentially absorbed into western culture. For this very reason we only remember and criticize what they did wrong.

Marx's analysis of the untenability of capitalism is correct. He'd be rolling in his grave if he saw modern tech venture capitalists expecting geometrical growth within a few years, it's just not possible. However, his solutions were wrong. But how could he know back when he was still around?

This is why it bothers me to see the modern Marxist attempt old solutions to fix new problems.

>> No.17285966
File: 41 KB, 352x315, 1604383049914.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17285966

>>17285730
>impact to society
The two greatest philosophers of modernity, namely David Hume and Immanuel Kant, are not known outside of philosophical circles. They're of extreme importance, and yet the average idiot has no idea who they are. And I would challenge you to consider that though they might know the names of Plato and Aristotle (the two most important philosophers of pre-modernity), they probably wouldn't know what their philosophy amounts to, or understand their influence in anything. The truth is that """""impact to society""""" is a brainlet's way of measuring importance or brilliance. Ask the experts and smartest critics, or people working in the field, who was most influential, who was most original and sublime, and you get good answers. If you go around asking the idiot masses they won't know fuck all because they generally know fuck all. Good thing they're not the ones shaping history though, they're just cogs who embrace their status as cogs, which is sad to say.

>> No.17285974

>>17285730
gr8 b8 m8

I r8 8/8

>> No.17285988

>>17285730
I don't care, today's world is retarded so there shouldn't be expected to be popular non-retarded philosophers

>> No.17285996

>>17285964
Yes, that is a bit crazy. But most people aren't that kind of Marxists nowadays, anon. It is mostly about social sciences and explaining society through his theories, than implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

>> No.17286054

>>17285996
>It is mostly about social sciences and explaining society through his theories, than implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Tell that to the American, British and German activists trying to literally defund the police and promote hate speech laws. I'm not talking about the politics of "cop = bad", but the ingrained assumption that there's an irreconcilable class divide that slowly veered from rich vs. poor to safety vs freedom and collectivism vs. individualism.

The modern liberal thinks the only reason one can afford to be individualistic is if they're privileged, and the surge of "communities" as in Black Community or LGBT Community is a direct descendant of Marxist worker class collectivism.

Sorry for the rant.

>> No.17286082

>>17286054
But those people aren't going to overthrow governments, anon. They are just organizing themselves and thinking about their place on society. That is great, saves a lot of work to whoever is willing to listen to them and is in charge of making things that will affect those groups in one way or another.

>> No.17286126

>>17285966
Kant is literally me.

>> No.17286137

> You understand that these people are the modern iteration of what it means to be a philosopher right?
I sadly do

>> No.17286314

If you are honestly looking for living examples of wisdom lovers/seekers, try Sadhguru. He has the advantage of being fucking hilarious on top of being fantastic generally.

https://youtu.be/mIJmZbAr_-Q

>> No.17286338

>>17285730
>judging philosophers by impact to society within their own lifetimes
Guess Socrates was an abject failure then since he was such a non-person they literally sentenced him to death for shitposting

>> No.17286344

Also, he has written at least three really good books: Inner Engineering, Adiyogi, and Death, an inside story.

>> No.17286348

>>17286314
I love how his whole "love and peace" act goes out the window when the topic of Islam or Kashmir is approached.

>> No.17286357

>>17285741
Alexander had the necessary brains to conquer most of the known world at the time because he was tutored by the best philosopher, Aristotle

>> No.17286379

>>17285730

No one will quote JP in a generation. No one will even fucking remember Shapiro's existence.

>> No.17286393

>>17285730
>You understand that these people are the modern iteration of what it means to be a philosopher right?
Every generation has had their self help grifters and political talking heads. They just tend not to get remembered among the greats because their platitudes are short lived and of minimal impact.

>> No.17286426

>>17285757
A Jew will never run for president because they inherently see it as too risky to be the figurehead and fear a reactionary anti Jewish backlash

>> No.17286429

>>17285730
OP is right but for all the wrong reasons. Those gentlemen are acting like genuine philosophers because they're engaging in back-and-forth debate. However, based on the *content* of their debates, they are sophists, not philosophers

>> No.17286441

>>17285759
Just read the OP's question. And you might get it.

>> No.17286467

I don't know anything about Sadghuru's position on Islam or Kashmir but he seems to be doing a fuckload of good work all over the place. Do you find those positions to be so grievous as to discount the rest of what he's doing? I'd like to find an actual bone to pick with him but so far he's pretty steady, isn't it? Hello?

>> No.17286476

>>17286467
Do you want to know how I know you're Indian?

>> No.17286477

America is a terrible country

>> No.17286480

>>17285730
>Jordan Peterson
Not really. I mean, he’s got the most valuable things to say out of anyone in this image but he’s not a philosopher
>Dave Rubin
The homosexual male equivalent of a dumb bimbo. The guy is a total airhead who just repeats himself ad nauseum.
>Ben Shapiro
A man who would sell your newborn baby into sex slavery of it would keep one Jewish person alive for one more minute past their expected time of death

>> No.17286490

I'm not Indian, genetically or culturally. So I guess I don't care why you think you know I'm an Indian, Christopher.

>> No.17286508

>>17286490
I'm sure you'll figure out how to reply to a post properly some time, midwit.

>> No.17286534

It's all good man, I'm sure you're all sorts of busy with your own practices. Toooooo busy to argue. Peace, buddy boy.

>> No.17286541

>>17285730

Dugin. At least he actually does philosophy.

>> No.17286555

>>17286480

This is basically right. I don't know why people rag on Peterson so much just because he became a meme. He's a half-decent interpreter of mythology, taking a lot of good from Mircea Eliade. His self-help stuff is very much fluff, but the guy isn't an idiot, an compared to most Western faculty at last he doesn't knowingly talk bullshit

>> No.17286601
File: 41 KB, 475x395, 1600803594304.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17286601

>>17286555
This is Jordan Peterson:
>Slowly and painfully reads from the Book of Genesis in front of an auditorium
>Gets to the part about the flood
>"This was obviously written in anticipation of my upcoming new book, 'Clean Your Room', available now on Amazon Prime for just $34.50 plus taxes and shipping. Don't forget to like, comment, subscribe"

>> No.17286620

>Addiction specialist
>Develops a benzo addiction fully cognisant of how insidious and painful they are to quit.
>Cowardly tries to avoid the withdrawals by inducing a coma that nearly killed him.
>Comes back from Russia broke and conveniently has a new book on the way
A real genius and totally not a grifter guys.

>> No.17286733

>>17286620
>Person writes not in spite of a dark time in his life, but because of it, focusing the misery into productive work
This is how I know /lit/ doesn't actually write

>> No.17286774

Agreed. Bunch of naked naivety on display here. It's quite beautiful, actually. Comforting.

>> No.17286775

>>17286126
So true

>> No.17286821

>>17286348
Doctors don’t have compassion for diseases

>> No.17286845

>>17285839
optics is a meme anyway, you need someone unapologetic.

>> No.17286857

Easy. Will MacAskill. If you don't like effective altruism, Peter Singer. If you find him offputting, Martha Nussbaum, Nick Bostrom, David Chalmers, the list goes on.

If you want philosophers who are good but no significant impact on the world, then throw Nagel, Korsgaard, Sharon Street, Ned Block, and, up until his recent death, Parfit.

(most philosophers don't have much of an impact on the world; neither does almost anyone else)

>> No.17286870

>>17286357
More like because the Achaemenids were exhausted from fighting barbarians in Northern Central Asia (Turan).

>> No.17286895

>>17285730
these are pseuds bitching for clicks

>> No.17286909

>>17286733
Actions speak louder than words. He completely fucked himself, he has absolutely no authority to be giving life advice. The only perspective from which he could give any advice is in a "don't become like me" way, which obviously he would never do.

If you're going to swallow the self help bile of someone else, at least do the smallest amount of due diligence and verify they're setting a valuable example and standing by their statements. Otherwise you've been swindled.

>> No.17287135

>>17285751
>>17285811
Two votes for Chomsky

>>17285956
One vote for Zizek

>>17286314
One vote for """Sadhguru""" (LMFAO)

>>17286857
A bunch of people from the only person on /lit/ that actually reads

A shitload of replies calling Jordan and Shapiro pseuds, whining about how philosophy has never impacted society (=aka is completely useless), and a lot of regurgitation about Jordan being a junkie.
/Lit/ is the biggest pseud of all

>> No.17287142

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qnmaD6Kl1g&list=PLbc3HcTQSHOpFPK7vwOXE4fWeI_qdZpcf&index=11

The ridiculousness of the clickbaity titles matched up with the quality of the content keeps me laughing.

>> No.17287254

>>17285730
>these people are the modern iteration of what it means to be a philosopher right?
I don't think it was every different than that

>> No.17287258

>>17287135
to be fair, impact on society is a ridiculous metric for being a philosopher.