Recent Philosophy Thread 2

[Anonymous No.22497130]

Previous: >>/lit/thread/22314801

Post philosophy since 2000 that you think people should read/that you want to discuss with others.

Here is One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness by Graham Priest

[Anonymous No.22497137]

>>22497130
>Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts
>Nothingness
Lmao it's going to just be nihilist Jung archetypes. Modern anything is fucking cringe, I don't read anything post ending of slavery that a country has produced.

[Anonymous No.22497187]

>>22497137
Unhinged. There must be some modern thinkers that share your view? Please share them.

[Anonymous No.22497201]

>>22497187
Lol. Lmao. Look anon, something like 98% of people living in my country support interracial marriage. How sick is that? You pick up a book, and can assume as a statistical consideration that person wants to see niggers fucking white women, they actually love seeing it, it's some perverse turn on. Ok so if you're following you might be saying hey what about that 2% that doesn't support it? Of that sub sample, 90% are too old to write or be continent, and the other 10% are too scared of the 98% of the population as a whole they won't voice these thoughts but keep them inside or post them here.
Which brings me back to: I don't read anything past freeing slavery date of whatever country the author resided in at time of writing as anyone who can even pretend blacks are human is a retard.

[Anonymous No.22497209]

[Anonymous No.22497220]

>>22497201
most people believe in what's dogmatic at the time as a survival mechanism, it doesn't detract from their entire body of work (unless they're directly speaking of those things). or would you say descartes is a retard for believing in god and so on.

[Anonymous No.22497238]

>>22497220
God is real you fag.

[Anonymous No.22497406]

>>22497201
I don't necessarily agree. There has been a definite shift in opinions on this kind of subject - it's way more acceptable to talk about such things in public than it was 10, even 5 years ago. So you are either underage/close to it or have been living under a rock. Now whether there are any thinkers of this type beyond meme shitposters doing bad and ill-informed impressions of phillosophers is another matter.

[Anonymous No.22497411]

>>22497220
>or would you say descartes is a retard for believing in god and so on.

yes, andsoforth.

[Anonymous No.22497642]

>>22497201
Dude I understand where you’re coming from but you need to stop watching porn.

Anyways, that being said, the most recent philosophy text I’ve read was Understanding Media and that was published in 1964, when the Beatles came to America. I have a huge library but it will be sometime before I go past that publishing date.

[Anonymous No.22497689]

This is a pretty good anthology. Pinter's Mind and Cosmic Order is good to, as well as Hoffman's the Case Against Reality (argument for idealism from cognitive science).

[Anonymous No.22497694]

Also a really good one. Great intro to information theory even before getting into the main thesis.

[Anonymous No.22497697]

>>22497694
Actually, I think these are all post 2000

[Anonymous No.22497705]

>>22497201
Maybe some introspection would help you get laid rather than bitching here about it.

[Anonymous No.22497715]

>>22497705
>>22497642
>Muh sex
>Muh porn
Lmao I have a sex life you nigger lovers couldn't imagine. How about you attempt, vainly I'm sure, to critique what I've said rather than embarrass yourselves further? Liberals cannot argue in good faith, it's truly impossible when your entire worldview is backwards and fucked.

[Anonymous No.22497718]

>>22497201
Mind utterly broken by pornography and meme culture. Please, take ONE day off from the internet and observe your mental health returning.

[Anonymous No.22497732]

>>22497715
got proof? also I'm extremely far from a liberal, you must have me mistaken for someone else.

[Anonymous No.22497735]

>>22497715
>I-I have sex, okay? I am just mad at other people having sex for no reason.
>Liberals cannot argue in good faith, it's truly impossible when your entire worldview is backwards and fucked.
Kek. How about you read your first post again, then.

[Anonymous No.22497753]

>>22497735
Blacks should not have sex with whites because blacks are not human. If you support bestiality then go ahead, but I'll continue speaking against it.

[Anonymous No.22497765]

>>22497130
So is this the official textbook of mereological nihilism?

[Anonymous No.22497778]

>>22497753
kek. Good luck stopping interracial relationships, clown.

[Anonymous No.22497832]

>>22497753
I agree but let’s not pretend you or I have the legal authority to stop it

[Anonymous No.22497844]

>>22497753
Then how come whites and blacks can have children?

[Anonymous No.22497870]

>>22497844
Not the person you’re responding to but it’s not really that but mixed children tend to have higher rates of medical complications. Women are just retards without foresight in most cases.

[Anonymous No.22497873]

>>22497844
I plan to ask God when I meet Him. It's #18 on my list of 74 (and growing) questions. I also plan to as Napoleon I, Emperor of Europe just because id like his opinion on many things.
>>22497778
>>22497765
I'm not saying there's anything to do about it. The world is a lost cause. I'm just pointing out correctly that it's wrong and vile.

[Anonymous No.22497876]

[Anonymous No.22497877]

>>22497870
>mixed children tend to have higher rates of medical complications.
No, they don't. If anything the more futher they are genetically the better it is. Why do you have to make up bullshit to spread your regressive ideology?

[Anonymous No.22497883]

>>22497873
>I'm just pointing out correctly that it's wrong and vile.
I am going to have to say the same about you.

[Anonymous No.22497884]

>>22497873
>I plan to ask God when I meet Him
>t. can communicate directly with God now
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22497893]

>>22497697
What thinker does Bernardo Ketchup draw this ontology from? From what I read it was Berkeley but I could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.22497902]

>>22497884
In all seriousness no one has attempted to reach God through epistemological means rather than usual metaphysical methods or simple appeals to reason. That’s a project I want to take on eventually in my writings.

[Anonymous No.22497906]

BTFO atheists forever

[Anonymous No.22497920]

>>22497902
>In all seriousness no one has attempted to reach God through epistemological means rather than usual metaphysical methods or simple appeals to reason.
you have no idea what you talking about pseud. 0/10 LARP and not even an E for effort. I do agree with your view of interracial sex tho.

[Anonymous No.22497923]

>>22497906
QED?

[Anonymous No.22497924]

>>22497893
It's Schopenhauer. He's literally a Schopenhauerfag

[Anonymous No.22497935]

>>22497923
>QED?
lol it's qrd

qrd:
Michael J. Almeida presents a powerful argument which holds that several widely believed and largely undisputed objections to the idea of the existence of God are in fact just philosophical dogmas. He challenges some of the most well-entrenched principles in philosophical theology, which have served as basic assumptions in influential apriori, atheological arguments. But most theists also maintain that the principles express apriori necessary truths, including those principles that are presumed to follow from the nature of an essentially omnipotent, essentially omniscient, essentially perfectly good and necessarily existing being. Among the atheological arguments that deploy these philosophical dogmas are the Logical Problem of Evil, the Logical Problem of the Best Possible World, the Logical Problem of Good Enough Worlds, the Problem of Divine Freedom, the Problem of No Best World, and the Evidential Problem of Evil. In Freedom, God, and Worlds Almeida claims that these
arguments present no important challenge to the existence of an Anselmian God. Not only are these philosophical principles false, they are necessarily false.

[Anonymous No.22497940]

>>22497902
Jean Gearson (1300s) defined mysticism as experiential theology. He talked about the difference of knowing a person academically, like a physician, knowing God as the scholastics did, and knowing them personally. He called mysticism experiential theology.

Ever since empiricism has been explicitly linked to theology. William James would be another good place to look on this. Actually, just get William Harmless' book on Mystics, it's a fantastic intro. The guy has a great way of making primary sources fill a coherent summary that remains true to the sources but fills in contest. Light From Light is good too, but more a traditional anthology.

[Anonymous No.22497994]

[Anonymous No.22498054]

>>22497935
Ah gotcha. I can't get that into textbook philosophy of religion. It just seems hollow. Plus, Plantinga covers that stuff decently enough, although I think he just ends up with an argument for nescience not for rational belief.

[Anonymous No.22498060]

>>22497994
good one

[Anonymous No.22499665]

>>22497689
talks about maxwell demon

[Anonymous No.22499688]

>>22497130
I like this but I have no clue were to start. Unlike general philosophy, the greeks doesn't work.
>>22497220
I agree with you, just to let you know not everyone is a biased retard. But also God is real.

[Anonymous No.22499881]

>>22497130
Anyone check this one out yet? I heard about it from someone saying it does well with meshing contemporary physics with metaphysics and clearing up some misconceptions philosophers have been juggling with.

[Anonymous No.22499966]

>>22497130
>nothingness
>an object
*sighs*

[Anonymous No.22500101]

>>22497877
Try to find a bone marrow donor for a mixed child then

[Anonymous No.22500102]

>>22497920
Oh but I do, just no one has tried it yet. I write, you do not. Now sit your ass down, kid.

[Anonymous No.22500106]

>>22497940
Alright thanks for being serious. Bunch of 19 year old broccoli headed retards in this thread

[Anonymous No.22500111]

>>22497924
Schopenhauer did take from Berkeley though

[Anonymous No.22500199]

[Anonymous No.22500298]

>>22500101
/pol/tards are the most autistic, mouth breathing, room temperature IQ retards that inhabit this mongolian basket waving forum and you're a prime example for that.

I genuinely hope you come to terms with yourself at some point in your life and stop visiting this infernal place, actually touch gras and talk to dome people. Maybe visit different cultures and experience this beautiful life.

[Anonymous No.22500308]

>>22500298
I don’t even post on /pol/ never have, never will. Besides you post here on 4chan too, so what does that say about yourself?

[Anonymous No.22500310]

>>22500308
Also
>visit different cultures
Middle Americans like me usually don’t have passports and I’m deathly afraid of flying. You do you though. I have plenty of people to hang out with in my local area.

[Anonymous No.22500313]

It’s nice to know also that one solitary comment struck such a nerve with you.

[Anonymous No.22500327]

>>22500101
So most Brazilians can't find bone marrow donors, nor North Africans, most of whom are mixed? Nor Latin Americans, most of whom are mixed?

[Anonymous No.22500330]

>>22500327
Lol one solitary comment and you are malding. Log off. Rent free, etc

[Anonymous No.22500337]

>>22500330
Yeah, I know, the whole place is a reactionary CIA psyop. So the rent free concept applies to the entire site.

[Anonymous No.22500940]

>>22497876
I had Koons as teach in my undergrad metaphysics class hah (hook em)

[Anonymous No.22500947]

>>22500940
how was his class? did you go on to study more metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.22500949]

>>22499881
>ladyman

[Anonymous No.22500952]

>>22497130
>One: Being an Investigation into the Unity of Reality and of its Parts, including the Singular Object which is Nothingness by Graham Priest
is this the new Hegel?

[Anonymous No.22500956]

>>22500947
It was pretty Aristotelian/Thomistic in roundabout way. It's odd. You study ancient and moderns. Then analytics and continentals. But I think new turn is toward metaphysical and theological. Do indeed hope to continue studies. I am applying for grad school now actually.

[Anonymous No.22500972]

>>22500952
Dialetheism=/=Dialectics

Tho there are certainly parallels!

Dialetheism is embrace of contradiction. Sitting w paradox. Mystic tho not quite quietist. Proposes alternative logic. Dialectics is how contradictions overcome themselves. Also proposes alternative logic but differently...

Desmond's metaxology books explains differences well (pic)

[Anonymous No.22500975]

>>22500956
*it's odd because you skip medievals in undergrad but I have found it valuable to study since due to theological/metaphysical turn

[Anonymous No.22501001]

>>22500975
>you skip medievals in undergrad
this is a mistake

[Anonymous No.22501004]

>>22497201
I’m just imagining someone bringing up interracial marriage in passing and your mind suddenly filling with the most grotesque, vivid, pictures of juicy BBC entering the holes of your favorite pornstar/crush.

[Anonymous No.22501011]

>>22501001
It's not required is what I mean although I ended up studying it on my own and also peripherally in a theology course.

[Anonymous No.22501013]

Anybody read this shit? Pretty mind blowing. Traddish but also proggy. Peirceian/Hegelian/Proclean henad triad monad -- ology...

[Anonymous No.22501020]

Recently translated theology. Good good stuff.

[Anonymous No.22501024]

This book is beastly but if you dabble in Latin and Medievals *and* German Idealists and Phenomenologists then this right here is perhaps the most amazing thing you will ever read.

[Anonymous No.22501031]

>>22501013
>>22501020
>>22501024
unfathomably based. thanks anons.

[Anonymous No.22501043]

>>22501031
Thankee. Word. Ya. Older but recently anglophone translated stuff. Also if not christian then check out this recently translated neat parmenidean atheist mystic guy Severino (pic)

[Anonymous No.22501046]

>>22497935
All that blabbering to still fall under the great scythe of the antinomies

[Anonymous No.22501092]

>>22501046
>antinomies
Cleared by the great waymaker, Hegel (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.22501113]

If recently translated stuff counts, all you magic(k)fags ought read this shit right here. Apparently there is another translation recently as well for cheaper but Theion edition (pic related) is bee-ay-yew-tea-full

[Anonymous No.22501145]

>>22497130
Any new philosophy of language texts out there that aren’t pozzed to all hell. I liked reading Herder and want something to extend his theories.

[Anonymous No.22501162]

>>22501145

[Anonymous No.22501202]

>>22497130
Cringe. Wittgenstein already ended philosophy a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.22501207]

>>22501202
>Cringe.
> Wittgenstein
the irony is lost on you

[Anonymous No.22501221]

>>22501207
No, it's lost on you who thinks any philosophy post-Witt has any value. I feel sorry for you, maybe try educating yourself a bit more.

[Anonymous No.22501234]

>>22501221
>This is yr brain on being a teenager undergrad anglophone
Witty only ended bad phil w his first book. His second reinaugurated good phil. Other parts of world never lost good phil.

[Anonymous No.22501244]

>>22501221
>post-Witt
>thinks in terms of temporal sequence
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22501372]

>>22501162
I said non-pozzed and especially not Chomsky

[Anonymous No.22501782]

>>22497130
I like Priest for some of what he's motivating, but disagree with his methods, and One isn't the greatest book of his, much less over all. I feel Beyond The Limits of Thought would be better but it's from the 90s and not post-2000. Read picrel, like I said in previous threads. Of the other books posted here so far, the Severino is interesting even if probably wrong, and the rest are no-name nobody nothings. I'm not suggesting there can't be wisdom in there (it's possible) but that raises such a big red flag to me. You guys need to stop being the equivalent of /mu/ hipsters that avoid good music because you want to out-hipster the hipsters and find the most obscure shit even if it's actually bad, just to feel you have a means to posture over them. My picrel is by a philosopher who is leading in 21st century analytic metametaphysics, teaches at the top 2 university philosophy program in the USA (and in the top 10 in the world), and I read his book and it's huge for us metametaphysics people (in academia) but it isn't trickling down to everyone else just yet, cause it's been only 12 years since it came out in 2011. Sider is still wrong though, very much so actually, but he is enlightening and is opening the door to the new, and in my view, right paths to go forward. One way to put the question to you people is: What do we query as fundamental? Is it sub-sentence bits of reality? Entire facts? Or the Absolute whole/totality? Or what? And people have trended the direction of the whole for millennia, it's such a spent and perennial dead end. Whereas here's a new way to go further down the other end. Study it.

[Anonymous No.22501880]

>>22501782
>the rest are no-name nobody nothings.
>theodore sider
literally who?

[Anonymous No.22501916]

>>22501782
>Sider is still wrong though, very much so actually, but he is enlightening and is opening the door to the new, and in my view, right paths to go forward.
Redpill me on Sider. Why do you think he's wrong?

[Anonymous No.22501975]

>>22497130
https://youtu.be/Z5o3NWxksv0?si=TMLiMfJjm_szchAl

10 that BTFO materialism with Bernardo Kastrup

[Anonymous No.22502042]

>>22501092
But Hegel doesn’t even argue to the unconditioned, in fact the unconditioned universal is taken as the first abstract moment in the dialectic of Understanding.

[Anonymous No.22502043]

>>22501782
>this is yr brain on anglophone monologlottery and stemcuckery
Sider is not part of discourse for same reason Kripke and Lewis and Chalmers and so on are not part of discourse: analytic philosophy is ubiquitously banal and uninteresting. Priest is rare exception. Much of the work in this thread will very much outlast Sider.

[Anonymous No.22502188]

>>22502043
I guarantee otherwise, because I read both sides and will make sure of it if my name is going to matter. Do I have a worse shot than you people and your no-names? I like Priest, I even like Severino, but you should not even make judgments on Kripke and Lewis and Chalmers unless you understand them. Alternatively, since these people go in the direction of ever smaller bits of reality, and Severino and the others go back to the same rehashed perennial monism, or dialetheic nihilism (as Priest gets close to), people on this board prefer that. But that's why some of these analytics are called neo-Humeans and others neo-Aristotelians and others neo-Fregeans and so forth. In this they're closer to Deleuze and Heraclitus and Whitehead than these monist types. Actually Priest is closer to them too, but certainly not neo-Parmenideans like Severino. Can you specifically tell me whats stemcuck about hyperintensional theories of sub-sentential fundamentality? Not a single STEM person talks about that. So what gives? If you hate the logical formalism you already need to hate Peirce, and Parmenides, and so forth. They use formalisms too.
>but muh SOVL
It has soul yes, but what if I told you you're bringing the soul to what you read? I can bring soul to anything I read. That's the best way to enjoy everything. Try to be a Kant and bridge the divide, instead of being some footnote to history. You know for a FACT the next Kant who bridges the gap fully will be remembered. Perennialist monist anon #457893457895 will not be as remembered if it's just rehashing the past. Don't become that. Like I said I don't dislike Severino he's fine. But anons should use that stuff well. Same with Priest, use Priest well. And so forth.
>>22501916
He has so many problems and I am writing a whole dissertation trying to go beyond him so it's a little difficult to give you the short story rundown of it. He's wrong but in very enlightening ways. His first main mistake (in my view) is that he thinks you can represent reality's structure with language, and his second main mistake is that he thinks the job of explanation is done by saying some of that structure is metaphysically real BUT not ontological. In my view that's not the end of the job, and more should be said. So he's enlightening because he's already daring to say some things that people resisted saying in the analytic tradition too long.
>>22501880
>Einstein? Darwin? Jesus? Never heard of them
Oh wait anon you're just not knowledgeable. Take a God's point of view. From that perspective, some people are still literally whos accomplishment-wise and (accurate) reputation-wise, and some are not.

[Anonymous No.22502242]

>>22502042
>Hegel doesn’t even argue to the unconditioned
what part of ABSOLUTE is unclear to you copefag?

[Anonymous No.22502260]

>>22502188
>Oh wait anon you're just not knowledgeable.
the irony here is through the roof

[Anonymous No.22502263]

>>22502188
I've read them. I can knock em. Sider ain't bad. But the continental is leading the way in novelty and the analytics are playing catch up. Why not just read Deleuze and Whitehead and Heraclitus? I guess this is about that new new tho. Idk. I don't care about novelty. Nihil novum sub sole. I find the theology angle interesting these days. But yes. Neither nihilist nor monist. Nor dualist nor non-dualist. I think stuff like Desmond and Ulrich and Pryzwara are pretty incredible moreso than Severino but the latter does have some novelty in renewing doctrine.

[Anonymous No.22502277]

>modern philosophy
>thread is full of dualism bs
okay no need to continue the joke
if you're going to post anti-materialist shit at least go the full way like >>22501113

[Anonymous No.22502284]

Anyone read picrel?

[Anonymous No.22502293]

>>22501113
why didn't you say it was by Klages faggot? shit. I almost overlooked this.

[Anonymous No.22502298]

>>22502284
>analytic theology
not wasting my time on that

[Anonymous No.22502308]

>>22502277
>if you're going to post anti-materialist shit at least go the full way like picrel
ftfy

[Anonymous No.22502426]

>>22501113
Let me guess, it's about how the west has fallen and evropa must retvrn to traditional nietzschen larpaganism to counter the growing threat of islam?

[Anonymous No.22502500]

>>22502426
It's about love, it's about the highest form of love, it's about listening to the soul instead of the spirit or the flesh, it's about primordial phenomenology and dark atavistic enlightement, it's about the gnostic alien parasite in your skull that you must kill, the reality of spirits, magic, and the paranormal, the importance of sacrifice and ancestor worship, and the undervalued role of chthonic and underworldly currents generally within esoterica (and the importance of feminine dark mother archetype)

[Anonymous No.22502570]

>>22502500
Sounds like I was right.

[Anonymous No.22502602]

>>22502570
Well, it was written by a literal Nazi

[Anonymous No.22502631]

>>22502426
The opposite, says the West was a mistake looks to primitive and indigenous, especially underdeveloped Africans, to try and correct this

[Anonymous No.22503180]

>>22502263
>Why not just read Deleuze and Whitehead and Heraclitus?
I do recommend reading them. However, they also are wrong. Obviously everybody in history (including myself and yourself) got it all wrong, but we're part of a process trying to get it right. Philosophers are very useful when they're wrong, because it helps you narrow down the choices. Mistakes are very insightful.
>>22502260
Anon back up your words or eat shit. What have you read? More importantly, what have you written or are writing?

[Anonymous No.22504156]

>>22503180
>Obviously everybody in history (including myself and yourself) got it all wrong,
ngmi

[Anonymous No.22505580]

Technic and Magic

[Anonymous No.22506821]

blumpkin

[Anonymous No.22507799]

Being is the mojo dojo casa house of truth

[Anonymous No.22507802]

>>22497238
>>22499688
Proof?

[Anonymous No.22507823]

>>22507802
Look around

[Anonymous No.22507839]

Seeing all those philosophy books on this thread just made me realize that great part of philosophy is just pure mental masturbation, and just people arguing to defend their pet view of how the world's is or work, kind of pointless in the end, they would never arrive the truth to know if their pet worldview is right because is beyond the means to put to the test once and for all.

[Anonymous No.22508024]

Retvrn to shamanism

[Anonymous No.22508039]

Nobody's mentioned Fanged Noumena? Fail

[Anonymous No.22508332]

>>22508039
Revolutionary Demonology and CCRU too!!!!

[Anonymous No.22509035]

Anyone check this out? Heard good things

[Anonymous No.22509042]

>>22509035
ooooooooooo...

[Anonymous No.22509051]

>>22502631
>looks to primitive and indigenous, especially underdeveloped Africans,
You didn't read the book, you fucking idiot.
Klages looks more to the Pelasgians, not fucking Africans.
KYS, you stupid fucking pseud.

[Anonymous No.22509058]

Some simple philosophical questions /lit/:
>What makes you?
>What breaks you?
>What takes you?
>What shakes you?
>What bakes you?

No further questions allowed, that would ruin the exercise

[Anonymous No.22509522]

>>22502043
sider and kripke and lewis are not part of the "discourse" because their work is uninteresting to people who don't have an interest in philosphical questions. the irony is that anyone who has an interest in philosophy and enjoyed thinking about philosophical questions would immediately recognize those men, lewis and kripke especially, as extremely interesting thinkers

[Anonymous No.22511006]

bump

[sage No.22511690]

>>22511006
I want this shit thread to die because most of the books recommended are garbage and the people recommending haven't even read them cover to cover, just ask about it like >>22509035 and >>22502284 and >>22499881 and probably still >>22497209 the only good examples are the Priest book, the Severino, the Sider, I might have missed others but who knows when the people recommending them haven't even READ the shit they pull up.
>>22509522
If this was the 1700s these anons would claim Descartes and Leibniz and Hume were boring, that we should only read Aquinas and earlier, and they wouldn't even know about Spinoza, and just a little later Kant shows up and fucks them all over by showing it's possible to synthesize bits from all those medievals, rationalists, and empiricists and give birth to German Idealism. That's what these anons are, they're stupid and will look fucking stupid because they're doing the equivalent of sticking to one old tradition, ignoring another one, and not doing a proper synthesis of everything in current existence.

[Anonymous No.22511790]

>>22511690
>>22509522
>t. Buttflustered analytic


All those enlightenment philosophers were very much part of discourse. Also boo on you for dismissing scholasticism.

[Anonymous No.22512303]

[Anonymous No.22512365]

>>22499881
I only read parts but it was a let down. It advocates for a mathematical scientific realism but doesn't justify it.

At won't point it literally says something like: "so yes, reality is best described by these equations. That's what it is but we do not embrace ontic structural realism (e.g. Tegmark) because these are physical things not mathematical entities. No we absolutely refuse to distinguish what makes something physical and not mathematical."

It seems to fall hard for the positive trap of thinking that "more objective = more truthful" and that objectivity becomes truth at the limit. This isn't true. Is the truth of how you feel when pissed off better reflected by equations than any other description? Is a textbook on mechanics that only uses equations rather than diagrams really "reflecting something more true?" This is fundamentally mistakes what objectivity is. Objectivity only makes sense in the context of subjectivity. The positivist position is like asking someone to see what something looks like without eyes or think something like they didn't have a mind.

So you also get the "more abstract = more objective = more true," and this leads to dismissing many issues as pseudo problems because they aren't about how best to get your abstractions set down the best way.

Oh, and logic is still totally disconnected from the world and "constructed." Why do we construct logic? Why do we do it one way and not another? Why do we see cause as we experience it? IDK, but it's definetly not because something logic like exists in the world itself because Gödel and Tarski got everyone to shit themselves over claiming any sort of greater Logos might exist, even though the scientific project is incoherent if the world isn't pattern driven and intelligible. Seems to still make the mistake of cutting man and subjectivity off from the world, not realizing we are part of nature and perspective IS natural. Fucking Hegel has this shit write but he wrote like such an asshole that the idea didn't take I guess.

Fuuuck that noise. If you want to hold science up as the be all end all then just let scientists speak. And then they will speak about the "logic of natural selection," "the logic of thermodynamics," "the logos at work in cosmic state progression," and trample all the fuck over your positivism. It cracks me up that physicists are now more Platonist than many science adjacent philosophers.

Pic unrelated but good.

[Anonymous No.22512452]

>>22500327
You don't know how population genetics works. After sufficient time inbreeding sheds off its negative gene associations and you have what one might call a new race.

[Anonymous No.22512456]

>>22500337
The CIA pushes progressist, not reactionary, politics all around the world.

[Anonymous No.22512490]

>>22497877
That's absolutely wrong. Socially, it has many documented bad outcomes on average, which should be a good enough reason not to do it. But It's not even the case that the more genetic distance, the better: genes then interact in ways they aren't selected to in the respective populations. That's why data suggests the ideal is third or fourth cousin: https://www.livescience.com/2271-kissing-cousins-kids.html

[sage No.22513201]

>>22511790
>boo on you for dismissing scholasticism.
Idiot doesn't read the post before he replies, I did nothing of the sort
>All those enlightenment philosophers were very much part of discourse
But you people aren't part of the discourse today. If you lived back then you wouldn't either. But you WOULD act like Descartes, Leibniz, Hume are boring because your anon nature is fundamentally conservative: you like to conserve the old, and dismiss the contemporary, until it becomes old. As such 4chan is not a vanguardist place to be at the forefront of philosophical progress, and it won't be until you get over that yourselves.

[Anonymous No.22513299]

>>22502188
>His first main mistake (in my view) is that he thinks you can represent reality's structure with language,
sounds reasonable. I don't think philosophy is possible if this weren't true in at least some qualified sense.
>saying some of that structure is metaphysically real BUT not ontological.
that just sounds retarded. metaphysics IS ontology. they're synonyms, and only through a bizarre game of telephone by pseuds has it come to mean anything different .

[Anonymous No.22514446]

bump

[Anonymous No.22514492]

>>22512456
If they did the latter I’d be a fan

[Anonymous No.22514508]

>>22512452
Yeah but that’s bad for culture

[Anonymous No.22514575]

>>22512456
The CIA was the boogieman of lefties and the cool tough guy of the right until just recently Zoom Zoom. They were based terrorist hunters not afraid to get their hands dirty, funders of reactionary regimes, commie hunters.

Somehow Donald Trump single handedly got almost the entire right to turn on the US security state, including the military, because he can't take the slightest criticism. The intelligence agencies didn't even shit on Trump, they just said Russia hacked the DNC and he thought that made him look bad. The military feud is even more recent and comes from Mattis, Espers, Milley, etc. men Trump appointed by the way, saying he was a deluded Boomer who viewed all foreign policy through the lens of the culture war and listened to Hannity more than his cabinet. Tilerson has said the same thing. Even Barr has said similar things, but based Barr became a beta soi RINO as soon as he said Trump lost the election fair and square.

I don't think this will last. Blumpism will shit the bed if he loses again it goes to jail first. Already they can't pass a bill to keep the government open in a house they control because of infighting and they want to slash their voters benes right before an election. I imagine they will have a crisis for a bit longer and then swing hard to the center like Clinton swung the Dems to the center when it becomes apparent they can't win national elections anymore (they only have won more votes in one in over a third of a century and that was because of the incumbency during 9/11).

CIA and the military will become conservative aligned forced again because they always have been. It's that we live in a world were sucking Trump is the sole measure of being conservative and the past five GOO candidates aside from Trump are now openly called beta soi RINOs, as if the true GOP only formed when he road down his escalator. Hopefully he'll die in jail, seems likely. No one has done more to further liberal hegemony long term than that retard.

[Anonymous No.22515432]

>>22512365
Thanks for the response.

[Anonymous No.22515948]

>>22513201
>you would blah
>because blah blah blah
Bitch. You don't know me. Projection much? Pretty ironic that you are saying us anons posting new books are not open enough to newness as opposed to you the enlightened anon who only likes Sider and nothing else. Idiota

[Anonymous No.22516323]

>>22497130
Any of you guys ever hop over to Colin McGinn's blog? I sometimes peruse his little philosophy essays and think some of you might enjoy them.

[Anonymous No.22517670]

>>22514575
the CIA has always been leftists. Fighting communists doesnt make them right wing, it makes them competing revolutionaries
likewise their relative unpopularity with many domestic progressives/crypto communists doesnt mean they arent lefty
If you really think running around the world toppling governments, promoting “human rights” and “spreading democracy” is right wing idk what to tell you
I mean they put Castro in power for gods sake. They went on to regret it when he sided with the soviets but the cuban blockage was originally a blockade of Batista…

[Anonymous No.22518086]

>>22515948
Just say you think otherwise if you do. Well? Do you like genuinely new philosophy that contradicts the perennialism? You can answer this and settle the matter.

[Anonymous No.22518189]

>>22518086
I am not a perennialist. Or a monist. Not that there is anything wrong with either of those. At least not necessarily. I also like theology. But even though I like theology I nevertheless believe even that particular field is not a static dogma but a process of invention and discovery. I do not slumber dogmatically. I have completed an undergrad in philosophy and read and posted numerous books of recent philosophy in this thread and the last one and on this board over the years. Probably more than you considering you think Sider is only novel philosopher in the entire field. I recognized that such blindness is common with people while doing their dissertation, they think their topic is the most important in the world even when it clearly isn't it -- hopefully you'll grow up and wise up out of such myopia when/if you become a professor, I pity your students otherwise... Philosophy however is IMO both transhistorical and historical. The enterprise itself is somewhat timeless but there are also movements in history. Progress, yes, evolution and so on. Even the perennialists have changed their positions over the years. Compare Huxley to Evola. Or Evola to Guenon. Or Guenon to Ficino. Etc.! All perennialists, all wildly different. Similarly, Severino is not a 1:1 for Parmenidean thought. Every philosophy has its own individuality and suchness. Every philosopher, every human.

[Anonymous No.22518220]

>>22518086
>>22518189
I suppose I was trolling a bit by calling analytic philosophy boring and not part of discourse. But I do feel continental philosophy in general is more discoursable insofar as it gather together all the politics and social as well as the purely logical or metaphysical. Just like the gayreeks or the idealist germs, it's more integral yano. Kripke is great, but hard to appreciate without understanding of the analytic tradition and its history.

I actually agree with yr semi-hegelian view that we are toiling with error and slowly growing closer. In fact, the perfect philosophy might not be attainable from within this world insofar as it would be part of world...