WHY?

[Anonymous No.2052789]

if we've discovered so many things about how human mind and society through the history of thought, why do we keep -mentally- living in the XVIII-IXX centruy?!

[Anonymous No.2052795]

>>2052789
i mean XIX

[Anonymous No.2052798]

I'm living in the XXX century

pic related, it's a pretty girl that I'm banging in my time machine as I write this

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2052812]

Very important question, and very relevant to todays problems such as ecology or whatever.

We know there is a catastrophe coming, but we don't have the capacity to full integrate the seriousness of the problem.

Basically we look at the sky, everything seems nice and we cannot convince ourselves there is a problem. Simply put, we humans are not wired to think intuitively in such ways.

My solution to this would be the obvious one; to sever ourselves from our natural roots and embrace a truly mathematical, mechanical totality of existence.

That is the only way human civilisation can progress and survive, I claim.

[Anonymous No.2052823]

Who's the guy right of Marx and left of Foucault?

[Anonymous No.2052825]

It's not going to change if powerful people lose money off of it.

[Pointman No.2052826]

>>2052812
>>2052812

I've thought about this sometimes - the idea that the only progress from here would require us to literally begin to sever at our "humanity" slowly.

The strangest thing would be the fact that as we do it, that is become a more robotic and cold society of purely mentally mechanical beings, we wouldn't really find the problem of seeing the downsides of it from the artistic sort of side. We wouldn't even realize nor care about the things we miss from freedom, or colorful expression.

It'd probably still happen all the time, we'd just not live to point it out so.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2052831]

>>2052826

absolutely, the biggest challenge would be trying to find beauty or aestheticism in such an existence.

This would be the next great challenge for art.

[Anonymous No.2052842]

I did this without reading any of the replies...

how did I do?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2052847]

>>2052842

>knowing Žižek but not Sartre

[Anonymous No.2052848]

>>2052842
googley eyes is sartre

[Anonymous No.2052850]

>>2052842
Kant, Socrates, Wittgenstein, Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche and Foucault is what I think.
Not sure on the guy with the pink scarf.

[Anonymous No.2052851]

>>2052823
Roland Barthes!
>>2052812
and what would the catastrophe be? i think is is catastrophical that we think of a coming catastrophe and that therefore we should give ourselves to the very thing that would cause this so called catastrophe.
>>2052826
"humanity" is a fiction. it was created in the atempt to understand ourselves (human sciences and anthropo/philosophical questioning for the existence) but the only thing we found was that there was no "humanity"

[Anonymous No.2052855]

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2052857]

>>2052851

Nature itself is one gigantic catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.2052862]

>>2052789
>>2052847

Oh yeah... duhhh

[Anonymous No.2052864]

>>2052857
why do ppl take zizek in such a dogmatic way?

[Anonymous No.2052869]

Sage for Roman numerals.

[Anonymous No.2052871]

>>2052864

They like him for the same reason teenagers exalt Steven Colbert. They like his pop culture references and his style of lecturing/speaking. They enjoy listening to him but they're not really listening which is too bad.

[Anonymous No.2052884]

>>2052871
he has said that himself. ure proving my point..
unanswered question.