/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17689122]

why is philosophy from the last 100 years so irrelevant and shitty??

[Anonymous No.17689130]

>>17689122
Because there's nothing else left to discover, except maybe in the realm of science

[Anonymous No.17689132]

Mass literacy allowed too many people to try

[Anonymous No.17689224]

why is philosophy so shitty in general? I havent read a word of kant but why the living fuck would I need some aristocrat from the middle ages to tell me about whether or not a table or bird is real? like man wtf

[Anonymous No.17689266]

>>17689224
philosphy is unavoidable but it used to be interesting. i blame neol*beralism am*rikkkans and fr*nce.

[Anonymous No.17689282]

>>17689122
death of religion

[Anonymous No.17689291]

>>17689224
fucking midwit

[Anonymous No.17689318]

Nothing really left to say that can escape academic wank territory

[Anonymous No.17689322]

Philosophy that is not irrelevant and shitty is called science

[Anonymous No.17689334]

>>17689322
not for long esoteric fag

[Anonymous No.17689346]

Because the greatest writer of the 21st century hasn’t started writing his masterpiece yet, me btw

[Anonymous No.17689360]

everything is shifty in the last 100 years, most intellectual/artistic communities thrive on innovation and we hit a point where there wasn't much innovating to do aside from intentionally doing stupid shit because no one decided to do that on purpose before. pretty much the only exception is that music kind of bounced back a little bit because of technology like electric guitars and computers for electronic music but its still nothing compared to the baroque era

[Anonymous No.17689524]

I think the answer is to be found in the art we pursue. All of it has an atmospheric feeling to it. It's like there is no clarity or distinction to what it is trying to depict. Also, we might be suffering from the same problem the schoolmen had, which was a deliberate focus on autistic mini-questions, only now the treatment of them comes with a needlessly complex symbolic apparatus.

[Anonymous No.17689555]

>>17689360
i make electronic music and i try to take it seriously and its all about "be original" but it is so goddamn hard to be original AND good. sometimes it feels like everything amazing has already been done. now it feels like everything that is "new" is on some level of irony, unless it is technology

[Anonymous No.17689568]

>>17689555
either that or im a midwit who will never make it, either way, my point still stands, feels like the only way forward in music is more aggressive and computerized sounds, which feel like earrape to me

[Anonymous No.17689571]

>>17689122
Because philosophers started to formalize their study, which made it unappealing to dilettantes.

[Anonymous No.17689573]

>>17689122
It's not?

[Anonymous No.17689578]

>>17689122
it's not real, even science isn't real anymore. Only math and physics are real.

[Anonymous No.17689585]

>>17689122
The process of a midwit: reads something he doesnt understand - feels inferior and dumb - comes to /lit/ to make a thread about how what he read is very bad and the problem is not with him - compensates for his inferior feelings

[Anonymous No.17689589]

>>17689122
cause steers and queers >:(

[Anonymous No.17689602]

>>17689322

[Anonymous No.17689604]

Everyone itt should list which philosophers from the past 100 years they've read before posting their opinion.

[Anonymous No.17689609]

>>17689573
prove it

[Anonymous No.17689616]

>>17689585
>The process of a midwit: reads something he doesnt understand - feels inferior and dumb - comes to /lit/ to make a thread about how what he read is very bad and the problem is not with him - compensates for his inferior feelings

[Anonymous No.17689626]

>>17689555
I dont really follow electronic music but it really wouldn't surprise me if that well is already dry too as far as innovation goes, and everything being "ironic" in order to stand out sounds about right, it seems that's usually how creative trends rise and fall. I have no idea where things will go from here as now that electricity and computers are integrated into our culture, I have no idea what possible technological innovation could breathe new life into music the way computers and the electric guitar did. it seems like humanity has hit a real road block where the only thing left is the most absolute extreme hurdles, no more small innovations building us up bit by bit, like all the questions are answered except the really really big ones and we arent going to be answering those any time soon. Im almost certain the only thing we can feasibly do at this point to truly innovate is to branch out into space and acquire absurd quantities of resources to do extreme feats and explore the frontier to open the door to more potentially accessible unknowns

[Anonymous No.17689643]

>>17689626
what kind of electronic music? I imagine not house because it's terribly unoriginal. white boys doing carl craig/detroit cosplay shit. or if you mean being original with your approach via granular synthesis or whatever you're basically just playing art gallery approved noise.
>>17689626
>everything being "ironic" in order to stand out sounds about right
if everything is ironic everything is sincere, welcome to the present age.

[Anonymous No.17689658]

You haven't read Nick Land or Mencius Moldbug.

[Anonymous No.17689691]

>>17689609
http://www.revoltlib.com/anarchism/the-sacred-conspiracy/view.php?action=display

https://americanfuturesiup.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sontag-the-imagination-of-disaster.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-_de5n5XvAhWZG80KHWHnBYcQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0QaifNuVqS0rIPrJ2eE51m

http://biopolitics.kom.uni.st/Shulamith%2520Firestone/The%2520Dialectic%2520of%2520Sex_%2520The%2520Case%2520for%2520Feminist%2520Revolution%2520(139)/The%2520Dialectic%2520of%2520Sex_%2520The%2520Case%2520for%2520Feminis%2520-%2520Shulamith%2520Firestone.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiE__rhoJXvAhWbGs0KHRxkDLUQFjAEegQIFhAC&usg=AOvVaw2LUVZPK-TOt2NDJThCPhtq

[Anonymous No.17689718]

>>17689122
The logical positivist project led to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and eventually to a theory of computation. It only seems irrelevant because you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.17689788]

Pretty rude to Nick Land OP. He will be the only relevant philosopher in 100 years. He is being ignored now the same way Nietzche was in his time.

[Anonymous No.17689807]

>>17689788
Neck yourself

[Anonymous No.17689818]

>>17689122
>t. Never heard of Heidegger

>>17689130
>>17689132
>>17689322
>>17689578
>t. Children

>>17689604
Average is probably 0 or 1. Average age in this thread is probably like 17 honestly

[Anonymous No.17689845]

>>17689818
>Heidegger
>not shit
lole

[Anonymous No.17689863]

>>17689818
>Average age in this thread is probably like 17 honestly
the average age in this board is unironically 15

[Anonymous No.17689960]

>>17689334
>picrel
I don't disagree, but how the fuck could someone think this and yet not think homosexuality is a mental disease?

[Anonymous No.17690015]

>>17689818
you can barely post let alone think, pal

[Anonymous No.17690028]

>>17689960
There is no tribe of armed angry gamers ready to fight to defend the clan. A more apt comparison would be if they attempted to label streamer culture a mental illness.

[Anonymous No.17691023]

>>17689224
>Kant
>Middle Ages

[Anonymous No.17691046]

>anons post that science made philosophy irrelevant
>I know multiple scientists that made a name for themselves using philosophy to change how my field operated
Unless wildlife science and ecology are suddenly not a science and we've become a /sci/ freshman board, I'm going to stick with my ideas about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17691074]

>Kant
>Middle Ages

[Anonymous No.17691088]

>>17689604
I read the first three chapters of The Stranger while visiting the library in my brothers rehab

[Anonymous No.17691093]

>>17689122
Philosophy as a whole is pretty much by pseuds for pseuds. It's all meaningless mental masturbation. Consuming and practicing philosophy is how insecure midwits inflate their egos.

[Anonymous No.17691099]

>Philosophy as a whole is pretty much by pseuds for pseuds. It's all meaningless mental masturbation. Consuming and practicing philosophy is how insecure midwits inflate their egos.

[Anonymous No.17691241]

>>17689960
Because anyone who truly cares about aesthetic beauty realizes that homosexuality is the objectively correct worldview

[Anonymous No.17691378]

>>17689863
>the average age in this board is unironically 15

kek
but true

[Anonymous No.17691485]

>>17689122
If you really want to weep, read how literary criticism fell into nothing. We went from based Northrop Frye to goddamn Eve Sedgwick....

[Anonymous No.17691505]

>>17689960
Even in current textbooks they admit that declassifying it was a political and not scientific decision.
>>17690028
>There is no tribe of armed angry gamers ready to fight to defend the clan.
Well, they're only armed with keyboards, but GG was a thing after all. That said modern consoomers have no spine, so maybe you're right.

[Anonymous No.17691552]

>>17691046
expand on how they used philosophy, anon? i want to keep it in my pocket to argumentatively shank people

[Anonymous No.17691585]

>>17691552
NTA but philosophy and logic basically, in a huge nutshell, meta-science, in that they inform the way you organize information and general worldview.
I've got a good concept here but it feels like it's on the tip of my tongue, sorry if it's too spaghetti.

[Anonymous No.17691663]

>>17689122
The professionalization and specialization of philosophy could be a factor.

>Professional philosophy has strayed so far from its roots that Socrates wouldn't stand a chance of landing tenure in most departments today. After all, he spent his time talking with people from all walks of life rather than being buried in the secondary literature and polishing arguments for peer-reviewed journals. Yet somehow this hypertrophy styles itself real philosophy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17691690]

Why are posts from the last hundred weeks here so irrelevant and shitty??

[Anonymous No.17691691]

>>17689122
You mean to tell me Heidegger, Guenon, Ellul, Junger, and Foucault are shitty?

[Anonymous No.17691707]

>>17691690
Yours are the worst

[Anonymous No.17691729]

>>17691690
Desu the lockdowns made everything worse

[Anonymous No.17691747]

>>17691552
They used high level philosophical concepts like explaining what you mean when you write "habitat", not assuming that natives had the best environmental practices, and realizing that you can't restore a river to what it used to be if there's a giant city around it. These problems still persist today.

[Anonymous No.17691769]

>>17689122
i feel it's largely inaccessible and what good philosophy has been produced is often sequestered or cloistered and it rarely has any champions in the media that would bring it directly to us. i'd also argue that we are in a time of dialectic conflict that people have different feelings about.

[Anonymous No.17691836]

>>17691769
>largely inaccessible

Not wrong. To "get into" philosophy nowadays without a formal education requires a lot of you. Being very familiar with all of Hegel, Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, Saussure, Lacan is not easy and takes literal years. It's understandable why the vast majority of non-philosophy students haven't read any of Deleuze, Adorno or Derrida (e.g.) beyond some half-hearted attempt, where they maybe took in 5% of what was said.

/lit/ doesn't have any idea what's happened in philosophy since Nietzsche. Doesn't stop them wading in with total ignorance, though.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.17691844]

>>17691729
The stormfront invasion made everything worse

[Anonymous No.17691856]

>>17691836
>/lit/ doesn't have any idea what's happened in philosophy since Nietzsche
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.17691879]

>>17689122

Greatest philosopher of our age
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb

[Anonymous No.17692089]

>>17689122
Nietzsche ended philosophy. All of postmodernism is just poorly rewriting Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.17692093]

>>17692089
All anti-pomos are poorly rewriting Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17692096]

>>17692093
>anti-pomos
No such thing. Peterson is not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17692111]

>>17692096
Jordan Peterson was more insightful than any of the pseuds who came out of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.17692120]

>>17692111
trips of oof

[Anonymous No.17692127]

>>17689132
Phil died because of what Nietzsche talked about and that is not because of mass literacy. I advise you read books

[Anonymous No.17692130]

>>17689122
>he hasn't read Tartaglia

[Anonymous No.17692137]

>>17692111
based

learned more from 12 rules for life than i did from pretty much any "philosopher"

[Anonymous No.17692149]

>>17692137
>>17692111
Everything good in '12 rules' is appropiated from Nietzsche. It's not an original book, it's a predigested meal for minds too childish to comprehend actual philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17692153]

>>17692149
>actual philosophy

Nothing of value. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.17692170]

>>17692153
If actual philosophy contains no value, then so does '12 rules', since there is not a single original idea in '12 rules'.

[Anonymous No.17692186]

>>17692096
The dumb retards who think 'postmoderns' are 'deconstructing' 'metanarratives' and 'inventing their own values'

[Anonymous No.17692193]

>>17692186
Your speaking of Peterson, petersonians, peterson-likes, etc. We don't have to go into the subcategories, the important fact is that none of those people are philosophers.
And when I speak of postmodernists, I don't mean the style, I mean the period.

[Anonymous No.17692207]

>>17692193
No they existed before Peterson was famous, and it has nothing to do with these people being philosophers or not retard

[Anonymous No.17692211]

only academic philosophy OP.
U need to start reading McKenna, Watts, Zerzan

[Anonymous No.17692215]

I think the only """philosopher""" /lit/ has read from the past century is Jordan Peterson. Says a lot.

[Anonymous No.17692222]

>>17692215
Who do you read or suggest others to read?

[Anonymous No.17692251]

>>17689122
A hundred years ago you would have said the same. That is in fact what happened. People were real tired of German Idealism and some aspects of Kantianism in the later parts of the 19th century. If you keep going back it just keeps happening. When early modern philosophy was new, this was the attitude everyone had toward the now-passé scholastic philosophy. Full appreciation always comes a hundred years or more too late. In a hundred years you'll see people yearn for 20th century philosophy because they'll start making connections between analytic and continental philosophy that a hundred years from now will just be obvious insightful common knowledge, and whatever shows up in a hundred years will probably be derided for being comparatively soulless. Once people realize, for example, that Carnap and Deleuze say the same things, they'll have new people to complain about.

[Anonymous No.17692285]

>>17689643
Not either of those anons but I think that there are interesting and boundary pushing things being done that aren’t necessarily granular or ironic, if you look for it. For instance, there’s this artist, Goncalo Penas, I really like—his music will never be commercially viable in a million years, and probably only other electronic producers like myself will find his work beautiful, but I think it’s real artistry and in the end you can find all kinds of serious musical quality if you look for it. The real travesty is how much garbage has flooded the internet so that the gems are hard to find.
https://youtu.be/gdlc4r9vFLc

[Anonymous No.17692304]

>>17689122
Because bugmen and proto-bugmen should never have been allowed to do philosophy

[Anonymous No.17692345]

>>17692304
you're just as much of a bug

[Anonymous No.17692376]

That Ayn Rand chick is pretty based, although her anti-God statements are cringe.

[Anonymous No.17692532]

>>17692127
Nietzsche created postmodernism

[Anonymous No.17692546]

>>17689578
Science realism is debunked

[Anonymous No.17692553]

>>17689818
>>>t. Never heard of Heidegger
You mean a nazi worshiping a jew whore? ew , why can't atheists think?

[Anonymous No.17692577]

>>17691836
>very familiar with all of Hegel, Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, Saussure, Lacan is not easy and takes literal years.
Which is normal, since those bugmen are integral of the atheist canon and academia is atheist. You cant expect from the atheists to change their teachings, because they would cease to be atheist, and they hate that.

[Anonymous No.17692613]

>>17689122
Quine, Sellars, Kripke, Brandom, the Churchlands, Rorty, McDowell, the list goes on. Just admit that the symbols scare you anon.

[Anonymous No.17692653]

>>17692532
Stirner created postmodernism actually, but Nietzsche is close second.

[Anonymous No.17692672]

>>17689122
"The fate of the transcendental lies in empirical hands now. There is no way, short of begging the question against science, of securing the transcendental against the empirical."
"And this is just to say that BBT [Blind Brain Theory], in explaining away the first-person, also explains away Continental philosophy."
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/zizek-hollywood-and-the-disenchantment-of-continental-philosophy/

"Everything is natural. But this is meaningless if ‘natural’ is a barrel-wide thong, so let’s stipulate another criterion: Naturalism entails openness to the possibility that intentionality is illusory. If you cannot bring yourself to believe that this is a real, empirical possibility, then you are a transcendentalist plain and simple, one of those kids who dresses cool, but slips away as soon as some jock cracks the Jack."
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/another-goddamn-anti-transcendentalist-manifesto/

[Anonymous No.17692943]

>>17692222
>suggest others to read?
Leo Strauss, "Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the Oeconomicus", "Xenophon's Socrates" and "On tyranny"

[Anonymous No.17692961]

>>17692613
>Brandom
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/the-eliminativistic-implicit-ii-brandom-in-the-pool-of-shiloam/

[Anonymous No.17692967]

>>17689122
It's filled with fun and relevant thoughts about the world you live in
Just go back your Platonic cave and cry into your wankrags, frogger

[Anonymous No.17693034]

>>17691663
> Ancient Greece is a wholly different place from today's 21st century industrialized nations.
Groundbreaking conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17693060]

>>17692672
>>17692961

[Anonymous No.17693182]

>>17693060
>he has no idea what consciousness is
I'll retort with Nietzsche's "Dawn", #126:

"Forgetfulness.—It has never yet been proved that there is such a thing as forgetfulness: all that we know is that we have no power over recollection. In the meantime we have filled up this gap in our power with the word “forgetfulness,” exactly as if it were another faculty added to our list. But, after all, what is within our power? If that word fills up a gap in our power, might not the other words be found capable of filling up a gap in the knowledge which we possess of our power?"

Or in other words, "consciousness" is a "thing" as much as "forgetfulness" is an ability instead of INability to hold in memory.

And your INability to detect your spatial and temporal position (resulting in your "here" and "now", resulting in your fictional notion of "I"), is of the same sort, as the INability to see pictures as pictures beyond certain high frame rate, that allows you to watch movies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold

>no answer to the "hard problem"
There is no hard problem. There is only inability to detect errors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWfFco7K9v8

With subsequent utilisation of these errors, made by furless apes for the sake of linguistically compelling each other.

>impotence in the face of 'science'
Except that science virtually fucks over your freedom of will on every corner. Science delivers.

"Not only are responsibility assessments being weakened as neuroscientific information accumulates, social risk assessments are being strengthened (Gkotsi and Gasser 2016). So-called ‘neuroprediction’ is beginning to revolutionize forensic psychology. Studies suggest that inmates with lower levels of anterior cingulate activity are approximately twice as likely to reoffend as those relatively higher levels of activity (Aharoni et al 2013). Measurements of ‘early sensory gating’ (attentional filtering) predict the likelihood that individuals suffering addictions will abandon cognitive behavioural treatment programs (Steele et al 2014). Reduced gray matter volumes in the medial and temporal lobes identify youth prone to commit violent crimes (Cope et al 2014). ‘Enlightened’ metrics assessing recidivism risks already exist within disciplines such as forensic psychiatry, of course, but “the brain has the most proximal influence on behavior” (Gaudet et al 2016). Few scientific domains illustrate the problems secondary to deep environmental information than the issue of recidivism."
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2018/03/27/enlightenment-how-omens-of-the-semantic-apocalypse/

But by all means, do feel free to believe that you possess some magic ectoplasma, that would miraculously help you against evil machinations of evul scientists. They are impotent, yes-yes.

[Anonymous No.17693300]

>>17692222
>Who do you read or suggest others to read?
Does political philosophy counts as philosophy?
Leo Strauss, Carl Schmitt, Alain de Benoist

[Anonymous No.17693352]

>>17689122
Aquinas finished philosophy but because we exist in time a field cannot just "finish", meaning soon after philosophy was done by people who were poor philosophers such as Descartes and that continued to expand by more and more people getting involved who had either no ability for rigorous thinking or most often did not do their homework on what came prior and dealing with it seriously. Ultimately, the last 100 years are simply charlatans who have no read the Greeks spouting things that have already been said and refuted thousands of years ago but re-packaging hem in new syntax, new terminology and pretending they are radically new (often they even believe this themselves, because they have either not read the Greeks or did not think them through). Unfortunately, this is one of those things that simply must not be said, which you will find common across academic fields, every field has an obvious answer that must not be said, because it would imply that 100 years and billions of dollars spent and peer review were ultimately fundamentally near worthless.

[Anonymous No.17693371]

>>17693182
What's next you are going to tell us that people with bigger muscles punch harder?

[Anonymous No.17693387]

>>17692532
Nietzsche debunked postmodernism before it was even created, and should be washed off of all the po-mo lacqeur, he has been covered with.

Nietzsche took pains to warn again intentionality, metaphysics and reliance on language, while postmodernists at best gave merely lip service to that and kept conjuring up some intentional shit out of their ass, like episteme, metanarratives, desire and other whatevery, to which they ascribe some special metaphysical status.

[Anonymous No.17693406]

>>17689122
Deleuze Foucault Derrida Heidegger Sartre Bataillle Cioran Fisher Land and Sloterdijk are all based. If your a christcuck you might be tired of getting btfo though.

[Anonymous No.17693422]

>>17689589
Those two disagree on almost everything retard.

[Anonymous No.17693423]

>>17689122
Philosophy was divorced from God, as was the pursuit of knowledge. That's why. Read Mundus Millennialis.

[Anonymous No.17693424]

>>17693182
>Or in other words, "consciousness" is a "thing" as much as "forgetfulness" is an ability instead of INability to hold in memory.
I'm merely repeating what bakker has said before. that his theory is a theory of the appearance of conscioussness, while he points to people like Johnjoe McFadden as putting forward theories that do something different from his.

It's not my fault that super smart scientists continue to reify "consciousness", when they don't actually think they have a full explanation of the world already. in that sense there will continue to be a "hard problem" as long as you claim you are fininished understanding or try to apply inappropriate "heuristics" to the target area.

>And your INability to detect your spatial and temporal position (resulting in your "here" and "now", resulting in your fictional notion of "I"),
why would there be some "objective" grid somehow available to me right off the bat, and how would I not still be at either this or that "place", whether here or now?

I've read every one of his major papers/essays but at a certain point he just repeats himself and has become impervious to discussion.

I support any way we can use neuroscience to get a grasp on understanding, I don't pretend it automatically delivers either understanding or anything else like your grimdark nonscientist author's aesthetic leads him to. ultimately his horizons are too closed to his own theory's tendencies.

[Anonymous No.17693425]

>>17693387
>Nietzsche: Everything is an interpretation
>Nietzsche debunked postmodernism

[Anonymous No.17693438]

>>17693406
>including pseuds like Cioran, Fisher and Land
>not including Baudrillard
retarded nigger

[Anonymous No.17693541]

>>17693425
>Everything is an interpretation
"There is only a seeing from a perspective, only a "knowing" from a perspective, and the more emotions we express over a thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we train on the same thing, the more complete will be our "idea" of that thing, our "objectivity." But the elimination of the will altogether, the switching off of the emotions all and sundry, granted that we could do so, what! would not that be called intellectual castration?"

Or translating it for you: everything is detected through plugged-in cyborg-devices and you are crawling blind in the dark, trying to assess the thing by touch. Different interpretations do not imply the *equality* of these interpretations. They imply the risk of fucking up with different severity of consequences.
Ergo, naturalism.

[Anonymous No.17693570]

>>17693541
>the more eyes, different eyes, we train on the same thing, the more complete will be our "idea" of that thing, our "objectivity."
seems like a rather naive conception. It depends on the quality of your 'eyes'. Unless he values schizo eyes adding to the mix

[Anonymous No.17693578]

Because posterity hasn't filtered the mass of shit from the few yet I'm not sure if the scientific aristocracy in the next century will care about word puzzle makers.

[Anonymous No.17693582]

>>17691690
you are literally the worst poster on this board. at least the spammers are generally making their own threads and not shitting up the ones that are already posted

[Anonymous No.17693602]

>>17693541
I sympathize with that quotation but naturalism including N's weird version has difficulty precisely with not equalizing interpretations, aside from the most crudely obvious differences like which ones lead to death. Paradoxically it discounts immanent differences and identities (forms) in favor of pre-emptive assumptions and arbitrary imposed standards.

[Anonymous No.17693606]

>>17691690
>why is the quality of posts so bad
>now excuse me while I feel compelled to enter every thread related to religion and leave some edgy r/atheism "fuck you lol" comment that adds nothing to the discussion or make sure to post in every thread to remind everyone im a lonely lesbian completely unprovoked for some reason or just completely derail the thread and make it about me
>>17691844
oh i know why the quality is bad, its because people with philosophies i disagree with exist! surely that's it

[Anonymous No.17693612]

>Solves then ends philosophy

Blame this guy.

[Anonymous No.17693632]

>>17689122
>philosophy of langauge
>frege
>wittgenstein
>heidegger
>derrida
>the rise of phenomenology
>the revival of virtue ethics
>the revival of philosophy of the mind

don't post if you don't know what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.17693722]

>>17689643
>you're basically just playing art gallery approved noise.
What does that even mean? You say you want innovative music but you immediately dismiss artists that are genuinely trying to do that by labeling them pretentious.

[Anonymous No.17693941]

>>17693722
that type of person is intentionally contrarian in order to mask an undeveloped taste. They are cowards, too afraid to genuinely appreciate things out of their intense fear of being judged

[Anonymous No.17694552]

>>17689643
>>17689626
>>17689555
is this
-good and original
-good but not original
-not good but original
-not good and not original

https://soundcloud.com/billx/billx-tree-of-life-psytoharducstr-records-out-now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM-zIwaZr1A


nicer edit
https://soundcloud.com/poisonwalkers/billx-x-poisonwalkers-tree-of-life-only-psy-version

[Anonymous No.17694584]

Because you're a midwit that can't understand it.

[Anonymous No.17694596]

>>17691241
>anyone who truly cares about aesthetic beauty
So just a bunch dangerous retards then?

[Anonymous No.17694600]

>>17689122
more like why is philosophy after the middle ages so irrelevant and shitty... probably because secularism sucks

[Anonymous No.17694737]

>>17689130
>Because there's nothing else left to discover, except maybe in the realm of science
This is why I have considered our society to already be dead.

[Anonymous No.17694794]

>>17689122

[Anonymous No.17694817]

>>17689122
>>17689122
What’s there to say? Philosophy is a product of a culture and reality. We live in an anti-cultural time characterized by a total fracturing of any sense of reality. Reality is a mess. We can’t even discuss a present that doesn’t buy in 100% into the current ideological paradigm. Who can philosophize with that?

[Anonymous No.17694887]

>>17691093
This. You can live an entire successful life without looking into a philosopher's work once. In fact I suspect it is probably easier to succeed without bogging yourself down in the mental special olympics that is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17694901]

>>17692137
>has a chapter in his book called “take your pills”
>becomes opioid addict
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17694916]

>>17693541
>Different interpretations do not imply the *equality* of these interpretations.
Correct. This is what Nietzsche believed This is also what the postmodernists believed.

[Anonymous No.17695818]

>>17694552
>-not good and not original
this one

[Anonymous No.17696177]

>>17689130
This. Techology keeps making new things possible and philosophy can't keep up.

[Anonymous No.17696189]

>>17693406
>Sloterdijk
Only philospher on that list still producing work.

[Anonymous No.17696594]

>>17692376
How fitting, your post is ignored just as she was and is ignored in the academia

[Anonymous No.17696634]

>>17696189
True. Is After God good? Should I read it?

[Anonymous No.17696645]

>>17693406
>Land
How many times are you going to post Nick?

[Anonymous No.17696648]

>>17696645
as manny times as it takes.

[Anonymous No.17696679]

>>17693541
Neet was a retard.

[Anonymous No.17696791]

>>17692211
Based
Give me more recs