/lit/ - Literature

[OP No.3603171]

When is this age of philosophical stagnation going to end?

[Anonymous No.3603177]

It has ended. Philosophy is finished. We have science now.

[Anonymous No.3603186]

>>3603177

>mfw people actually believe this

[Anonymous No.3603187]

>>3603177
But science hasn't answered everything.

[OP No.3603188]

>>3603177

Science has not killed bad philosophies yet (especially religion, and especially Islam).

[Anonymous No.3603195]

>>3603186
>we cultural relativists now

Why do we need philosophers when my truth is just as viable as anything else...

Face it, contintental philosophy ate the dick of relativism whole and now stand ashamed, red-faced and raped in the corner of the great halls of science that analytical philosophy built.

[OP No.3603196]

>>3603177

The 1970s has called and wants its positivism back.

[Anonymous No.3603199]

>>3603188
Those religions you mention don't have "bad" philosophies, it's the dogmatic practices steeped in traditions that you atheist reactionists should be concerned with.

[Anonymous No.3603202]

>>3603199

Elaborate.

I am not an atheist, btw.

[Anonymous No.3603203]

>>3603187
>But science hasn't answered everything.
No, which is why it hasn't stopped yet.

[Anonymous No.3603208]

>>3603203
But will it ever stop?

[Anonymous No.3603209]

>>3603202
How should I elaborate? Do you want me to use simpler words or do you just not know the difference between what certain religions preach vs. what they practice?

[Anonymous No.3603227]

>>3603209

I studied several religions (the most famous ones) and did not find in them enough evidence for their divinity. As such, the religions in questions are nothing to me but man made philosophies many of whose followers have been inflicting the world with a lot of misery. There is nothing special about them, other man made philosophies have inflicted pain and misery on humanity, but we have abandoned them a long time ago.

So yeah, I perceive many religions as bad philosophies, what's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.3603229]

>>3603203
Of course Philosophy of Science has nothing to do with actual scientific discoveries. It's philosophy, not science, and is therefore more relevant and has applications in the realm of philosophy, not science.

[Anonymous No.3603231]

>>3603199
>dogmatic practices

So what, the ideas of trinity and immaculate conception are bad? Or something? You're stupid.

[Anonymous No.3603234]

>>3603231
What's wrong with teaching that Jesus was simply a good man? He doesn't have to be the son of god in order to provide benefit to the world.

[Anonymous No.3603236]

>>3603203

Is that really a Feynman quote?

If so it's infuriating. The philosophy of science may have no practical application to the day-to-day routines of scientists, but to ignore it completely is intellectually reprehensible and shows a fundamental disinterest in the practice of science itself.

[Anonymous No.3603241]

>>3603227
>As such, the religions in questions are nothing to me but man made philosophies many of whose followers have been inflicting the world with a lot of misery.

You can't blame the religions for their followers. Tell me, how many Christians do you know that are trying their hardest to abandon material wealth and desire? I certainly don't know any.

[Anonymous No.3603243]

philosophy is not stagnating. it is not going upwards but it is becoming wider

because there is nowhere else to go

[OP No.3603244]

>>3603236

I am a scientist and I agree with you. In fact, I strongly believe that an introductory course to philosophy of science should be a requirement towards any STEM degree.

[Anonymous No.3603249]

>>3603244
>I am a scientist

Oh boy! What are you sciencing today scientist? God a lot of science in the works for us?

Seriously if you're going to make shit up at least attempt to be believable.

[Anonymous No.3603252]

>>3603171
>Philosophy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIdUxlFGvYk

[Anonymous No.3603255]

>>3603241

From where I am standing there isn't 1 ideal <insert religion>, but different interpretitions that compete for followers.

I know millions of Muslims who are trying to fuck the world, especially the West, motivated by their religion. It is not that they got Islam wrong; whatever they believe in is an Islam that to me ontologically exists.

[Anonymous No.3603258]

>>3603249

O.K. I am still a science student (physics). :D

[Anonymous No.3603261]

>>3603195
Cultural relativism has had such a destructive anti-scientific political nature, that it is no longer tenable economically.

[Anonymous No.3603272]

>>3603195
>when my truth is just as viable as anything else

What is your truth?

[Anonymous No.3603275]

>>3603177

>mfw I think of that Simpsons episode where the MENSA nerds and scientists attempt to run the city

[Anonymous No.3603278]

>>3603255
See that is where we differ. I believe there is only one true interpretation of each; that being the one that is most beneficial to humanity.

[Anonymous No.3603280]

>>3603203
Obvious troll, but, for all the people who actually believe this: I have my own oh-so-wacky pop culture figure as well.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." -Einstein

""How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc." -Einstein, again

And mine is even more of an authority figure, so I must be right.

[Anonymous No.3603288]

>>3603280
>And mine is even more of an authority figure, so I must be right.

I like you.

[Anonymous No.3603289]

When fags stop whining about stagnation and start doing actually doing something.

[Anonymous No.3603291]

>>3603289
Can you do something in a parking lot in between Target and Walmart?

[Anonymous No.3603297]

>>3603203
>that retarded quotation

Philosophers of science should, at least in principle, be able to give scientists advice.

[OP No.3603298]

>>3603278

What are your criteria for an interpretition being "the one that is most beneficial for humanity"?

Also, is this specific to a particular religion or does it hold for all religions?

[Anonymous No.3603302]

>>3603275

[Anonymous No.3603335]

>Critique of Pure Reason by Kant's
>the "inductivist turkey" concept by Russel

science can't be considered, applying the "rigourus" scientific method, a founded knowledge.

then some 20th century physical theories (like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or Godel's and Hilbert's studes), have contributed to its falter without recourse to philoshopy.

so, now, physolophy doesn't even pretend to found science, but it's all about this existential problem: all in all, we can't be sure of pretty anything. science works, but we dunno why. who don't understand this, saying something like: "hey, science is real, phylosophy is just imaginary speculation" is just a poor man. he doesn't get the true point.

anyway... lately phylosophy is all about existentialism. it's redicoulous to think of a stagnation. if you can't think of philosophers, in the modern age, it's because they became famous only years after they die, and only in cultural elite contests. but it's natural.
don't cast pearls before swine, ya?

[Anonymous No.3603337]

>>3603171 (OP)
>implying things need to continue evolving when the proper way to live has long been found

[Anonymous No.3603345]

>>3603337
the question is how do we get people to live it?

[Anonymous No.3603354]

>>3603345
Leading by example.

[Anonymous No.3603360]

>>3603354

But who will lead?

[Anonymous No.3603362]

>>3603360

[Anonymous No.3603363]

>>3603360
I can
I'll go to washington state and be homeless or something

[Anonymous No.3603371]

>>3603360
Everyone who lives properly.

[Anonymous No.3603373]

>>3603335
>if you can't think of philosophers, in the modern age, it's because they became famous only years after they die
Eh, not really. Spinoza was pretty well-known in the radical circles already during his lifetime, and he shied away from the mainstream on purpose. Hegel was a luminary of his day and his lectures were permanently packed (suck that, Schopenhauer). Heidegger was an academic star even before he wrote Being and Time and when he wrote it, it was almost instantly recognized as a seminal work. The positivist stood in queues to suck Wittgenstein´s cock.

The thing is, there are no such thinkers anymore. There are good scholars who develop the thought of the actual philosophers; there are derivative thinkers, such as Zizek or Foucault; but there are no philosophers anymore. Last time this happened, it took some eight hundred years (from Augustine to Aquinas) to fix.

[Anonymous No.3603384]

>>3603373
>Hegel was a luminary of his day and his lectures were permanently packed (suck that, Schopenhauer).
Turns out Hegel is now dated optimistic bourgeois dick stroking only relevant in a 'history of ideas' kind of way whereas Schoppy will always be firmly rooted among the wise.

[Anonymous No.3603388]

>>3603384
> hated women
> stupid hair
Do I really have to read this guy? Who made him Pope?

[Anonymous No.3603389]

>>3603362
>>3603363
>>3603371

but who will follow?

[Anonymous No.3603396]

>>3603388
“I have not yet spoken my last word about women. I believe that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself from above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man.” - Schopenhauer

He was a misanthropist, not merely a misogynist. He did claim women are generally more frivolous. Then again, he also claimed they are generally more compassionate. I think there's some truth in both.

[Anonymous No.3603400]

>>3603384
>dated optimistic bourgeois dick stroking only relevant in a 'history of ideas'
Oh, does he rustle your jimmies?

Either way, Hegel is the most powerful advocate of the modern project and already for this he deserves careful reading. Not to speak of his influence on all later philosophy, especially Marxism and feminism, and the intrinsic worth of his thought.

On the other hand, all Schopenhauer did was a bad ripoff of Kant. The Will is the thing-in-itself? You don´t say, you silly metaphysician.

[Anonymous No.3603404]

>>3603171
When the golden age of science ends.

[Anonymous No.3603406]

>>3603396
Oh ok. Yeah that's pretty accurate. I guess I got the wrong impression from people who claimed he backed up their nerd vagoophobia.

[OP No.3603407]

>>3603335

>so, now, physolophy doesn't even pretend to found science, but it's all about this existential problem: all in all, we can't be sure of pretty anything. science works, but we dunno why.

And why aren't there philosophers working on that question right now?

> who don't understand this, saying something like: "hey, science is real, phylosophy is just imaginary speculation" is just a poor man. he doesn't get the true point.

What's the true point?

>anyway... lately phylosophy is all about existentialism. it's redicoulous to think of a stagnation. if you can't think of philosophers, in the modern age, it's because they became famous only years after they die, and only in cultural elite contests. but it's natural.

Bullocks.

Also, do you realize that we have not had any real progress in ethics for a very long time? What about that?

[Anonymous No.3603414]

Science is actually bullshit they use to make technology seem relevant.

Everything is magic.

[Anonymous No.3603422]

>>3603404

But it already has.

[Anonymous No.3603430]

>>3603400
Schopenhauer also presented Westeners with a path of liberation not properly available to them before him.

I wouldn't say Hegel isn't worth reading though, he's been tremendously influential. I do think Schopenhauer is more relevant, since he is rooted in a long tradition of sages that have presented answers to the problems of the human condition and have been steadfastly ignored or corrupted to the point of being compatible with the status quo.

[Anonymous No.3603431]

>>3603422
STFU I am getting new verizon and a ps9

[Anonymous No.3603444]

The inherent value of philosophy is irrelevant when confronted with the fact that it has produced little of value for society.

2500 years of Platonic philosophy dominating intellectualism, we get just about jack shit from it *in a physical sense*. Along comes the scientific revolution and its dominance means (because civilization only really cares what works) philosophy is sitting by the wayside while empiricism dominates.

[OP No.3603446]

>>3603422

I am afraid this seems to be true.

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3603454]

>>3603400
>Hegel is the most powerful advocate of the modern project
Also the most powerful advocate of imperialism, statism, and globalization.
>Not to speak of his influence on all later philosophy.
Yes, everybody explaining why his philosophy was bullshit.
>On the other hand, all Schopenhauer did was a bad ripoff of Kant.
Lol looks like somebody didn't read the appendix of The World as Will and Representation.
> The Will is the thing-in-itself? You don´t say, you silly metaphysician.
I don't think you really get what's going on there.

>>3603404
Why?

>>3603414
If magic ever becomes real it will surely because scientists created it.

[Anonymous No.3603508]

>>3603454
>If magic ever becomes real it will surely because scientists created it.
>If ever

[Anonymous No.3603513]

>>3603203
>>3603203
I heard a philosopher replied that it would be useful to birds if they could understand it i.e. scientists like feynman are dumbasses.

[Anonymous No.3603519]

>>3603513
>Feynman is a dumbass
Way to kill your entire argument

[Anonymous No.3603517]

>>3603241
Have you ever heard of a nunnery?

[Anonymous No.3603535]

>>3603508
What does philosophy have to show for being the premier preoccupation of most educated minds for thousands of years?

Thousands of years of debate.

What does science have to show for being the premier preoccupation of most educated minds for hundreds of years?

EVERYTHING

The fact that /r/atheism and /sci/ glorify it so much doesn't mean it isn't the most important, promising development in human history.

[Anonymous No.3603540]

>>3603513
>scientists like feynman are dumbasses.

Dear 4chan user,

I'm sure you can imagine our shock on reading your post. We honestly hadn't seen it until now, but we realise that your critique of the complete works of Richard Feynman is irrefutable. Due to his new status as a 'dumbass' we are forced to posthumously strip him of his Nobel Prize.

Warm Regards,

The Nobel Committee.

[Anonymous No.3603551]

>>3603535
> implying there isn't a dreamworld of magic

[Anonymous No.3603554]

>>3603535
>What does philosophy have to show for being the premier preoccupation of most educated minds for thousands of years?
A general outline for a life of wisdom and satisfaction.

>What does science have to show for being the premier preoccupation of most educated minds for hundreds of years?
Things that make life easier.

I'm not one to dismiss science and I think it's been very important in reducing suffering and freeing more of life up for purchase of worthwhile things, it's just that without the right wisdom traditions it isn't worth shit. Science has achieved amazing things, but it's ultimate worth is solely derived from how it's used. That's where philosophy comes in, because however great it may be at answering 'how does it work', science can never come up with a proper 'what should we do'.

[Anonymous No.3603563]

>>3603554
100% correct. Science does nothing more than supply us with means for a comfortable life. If you want more - the good life - you have to turn to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3603565]

>>3603554
>science can never come up with a proper 'what should we do'.

There isn't a correct answer to that. Science can look at every single event, give you the potential effects of any given cause, then philosophy derps with the data it gets because 'should' is a meaningless question.

[Anonymous No.3603569]

>>3603565
There isn't a correct answer in the scientific sense, I agree. But philosophy isn't merely about discovering patterns like science. It's about creation of values. It's not derping, it's a wholly different discipline. You're dismissing a violin because it doesn't record bird sounds.

[OP No.3603574]

>>3603563
>>3603565

That the most popular philosophies that tell us how to live well are millinums old religions is a sign that something is wrong with our modern philosophers who cannot figure out successful contemporary alternatives to religion (or that those religions have indeed been revealed by a deity).

[AnalCrust !m9jxTLhLcw No.3603577]

I don't really like looking at science and philosophy as separated things. I'm interested in science, but from a philosophical perspective. Philosophy must use scientific knowledge, it's a matter of efficiency.

[Anonymous No.3603584]

>>3603574
We can adopt that wisdom to better suit modern circumstances without losing the essence.

[OP No.3603586]

>>3603577

Philsophy (and religion) and science do not collide. It is only that no real philosophical progress has been made for a long time, and that, in my opinion, means that we are living in an age of stagnation.

As I said above: The popular philosophies that tell people how to live are either religions or derivatives of thereof, no real philosophical (or ethical) progress has been made in that direction for a loooooooooong time.

[Anonymous No.3603587]

>>3603584
Adapt. Apologies.

[Anonymous No.3603590]

>>3603586
What sort of ethical progress do you need beyond what guys like Jesus and the Buddha taught?

[OP No.3603593]

>>3603584

True. I look at the Japanese and their success at integrating the good parts from various religions into their culture and I think that everybody should do like them.

My point is that we haven't gone beyond regurgitating teachings of religions when it comes to ethics and how to live a fulfilling life for a long time.

[OP No.3603596]

>>3603590

Are you saying that we can derive a *complete* and *consistent* theory of ethics out of the teachings of Buddha and Jesus?

[Anonymous No.3603618]

>>3603596
Not sure if such a thing exists or can exist. We've got roughly the right directions though, that should be enough to live a life of joy with relatively few regrets.

[Anonymous No.3603625]

>>3603596
Not him, but yes.

[Anonymous No.3603638]

philosophy is just white people thinking they're smart

give me one concrete example of you using philosophy in a way today that made your life better, without general bullshit that most people do automatically without having to read some book by some old white dude

[Anonymous No.3603655]

>>3603638

just one example lit

[Anonymous No.3603667]

Implying Marcus Aurelius advice isn't solid as fuck

[Anonymous No.3603668]

>>3603638
The world is my oyster since I attained absolute knowledge.

[OP No.3603685]

>>3603618

Look, until you have a theory of ethics that a guy like William Lane Craig cannot easily deconstruct then you really haven't made any ethical progress.

Don't be fooled by the New Atheist bunch.

[Anonymous No.3603686]

>>3603638
>>3603655

[Anonymous No.3603694]

>>3603685
Why do you assume that ethics should live up towards some form of scientific scrutiny? Obviously the 'should' doesn't come from logical or empirical conclusions, so it has free reign. The question is, not being part of the scientific domain, how ethics should be judged.

[Anonymous No.3603698]

>>3603638
>>3603655

Became the Übermensch banged your sister.

[Anonymous No.3603703]

>>3603638
Eliminate everything superfluous.

[Anonymous No.3603723]

>>3603694

Are you kidding me? How are you going to make laws and take decision consistently if you don't have an assumed theory of ethics? So far, every secular theory of ethics fails to answer particular questions satisfactorilly.

Take utiliterianism, for instance. It crumbles the moment a utility monster comes into the scene. Just look at Europe and how they are committing suicide to please the immigrant utility monsters. They are literally tolerating the intolerant at the expense of them possibly taking over and fucking everybody else's lives. The Islamic theory of ethics, on the other hand, doesn't tolerate bullshit from an outsider (or an insider): Don't like the Islamic state? Then leave. Left Islam and believe the Islamic state should be abolished? Leave within three days or we'll behead you. Muslims have a consistent and complete theory of ethics (albeit barbaric). The Muslim theory of ethics will always beat the util. theory and take over.

Get it?

[Anonymous No.3603727]

>>3603667
>stoicism
>relevant in a world of air conditioning

[Anonymous No.3603732]

Just one example of how philosophy improved my life.

I'm kind of enjoying freedom of thought/religion/speech. Pretty cool concepts, all grounded in philosophy, all make my life better.

Something I did directly from philosophy that made my life better? Started treating science like a discipline and not like a dogma; most people dogmatize science, or don't respect it enough.

Without philosophy, everything is faith-based. The only way to start living a life that doesn't rely on faith is to start philosophical analysis.

[Anonymous No.3603745]

>>3603732

Elaborate on science not being a dogma, please.

[Anonymous No.3603762]

I am the only one to think one of the interest and purpose of philosophy is to give birth to new sciences ? In that respect if philosophy has ever been stagnating is it merely a consequence (and maybe to some extent a cause) of our inability to philosophically catch up with technical progress. I mean by that, while science has allowed to create a fast-progressing industrial society, with means to change living standards and the idea of material affluence every few decades, and while methodological and theoritical improvements in sciences have allowed us to better understand the world and ourselves, we have failed to provide a sensible way to live, on a daily basis, with all those constantly evolving achievements. People juste make do as they can, but while tradition had been for centuries the yardstick of correct behaviour, now the pace is dictated by technical progress, in an essentially brutal and incontrolled way.

I think this is really the great challenge of our modern thinkers, but unfortunately this implies (inb4 implying) that the paradigm is rapidly changing. We have yet to devise a philosophical way to account for the change of values and living conditions it is bound to create. Human sciencies ares providing this to some extent, but the problem doesn't only lie in our academic or empirical knowledge about rapid societal change. The part ultimately left for philosophy, the part where people deliberately decide to deal in a rational way with the general conditions of their lives, at an individual level, is still to be written.

[Anonymous No.3603764]

>>3603694

Even better, take a look at this thread from /pol/: >>>/pol/11804488

Basically, when we kill God we replace his with the state/government. So which ethical system is our new god going to impose on us?

That's a very, very important question to which we have no answer to. Do you prefer to be like Europe and be taken over by Muslim immigrants or be the USA with its growing police state but no Muslim immigrants taking over?

[Anonymous No.3603769]

>>3603444
It produced science

[Anonymous No.3603773]

>>3603745
Most people take science as fact, simply because it "says so". That's a dogma.

Most people you'll meet will simply accept any scientific result, but more importantly will justify knowledge with a claim like "science says so".

If you don't understand the process behind science, nor understand how epistemology functions and relates to scientific justification, but you accept science anyway, you're probably treating science dogmatically.

Learn how epistemology works, how hard it really is to justify knowledge, and how often science doesn't do it properly, and you can at the very least begin the process of questioning science.

Turns out that knowing some science helps a lot with that. Math, too. They're all great things people should learn.

[Anonymous No.3603781]

>>3603554
This implies that human comfort is the end goal of knowledge seeking, which I believe is somewhat foolish

[Anonymous No.3603784]

>>3603745
Not him, but science is supposed to be grounded on method rather than dogma. It doesn't mean there isn't some form of dogma regarding the method, but at least it leaves room for trial, error and self-improvment, and provides general outlines regarding the form of any knowledge that is to be deemed acceptable. Think about purpose-driven, (relatively) improvment-friendly dogma. Besides, science has been slowly redefining its own discourse over the last century. It is essentially about science as scientists make it, even the scientific assumptions about the nature and form of scientific knowledge are not immune to critic and change. And here comes (both) the philosophy of science and the daily practice of science by scientists (the ornithologists, and the birds as Feynman would have put it, but in this case the birds are self-conscious).

[Anonymous No.3603793]

>>3603764
Your "Muslim immigrants taking over" is made up. If any kind of religious faith has the means and clout to take over Europe, it is catholicism. Muslim immigrants (new and old, but also many assimilated second or third generation descendant of muslim immigrants) and "old root" europeans are learning to live together. That will be long, but Europe and in particular Mediterranean Europe, has been defined by immigration and cultural exchange. Islam is nothing new to Europe.

[Anonymous No.3603797]

>>3603723
I see your point, in the sense that I get your perspective, but this is more of a political matter than a truly ethical one, since the Muslim theory of ethics is just as ambiguous as any other. I was speaking from an intellectual point of view, not a social one. That said, I believe Islam has truly beautiful subdivisions that are worth living by if circumstance spins it that way.

>>3603764
I can't be taken over, really. I can always live in a way that I deem right and thereby give a good example.

[Anonymous No.3603800]

It won't.

People will be continuously fed with cheap sex and easy drugs, they will live shallow, short and bitter lives completely devoid of any intellectual development. They'll derive their morals, behavioural patterns and fashion sense from television and intellectually stunted, hollow "celebrities."

In a few decades time intelligence and achievement will be despised and discouraged, conformity to ignorance will be the name of the game.

The only positive aspect would be that we are witnessing the final end of organised religion, at least in Europe.

[Anonymous No.3603805]

>>3603781
Well I meant to imply that the goal of scientific knowledge seeking thus far has been some form of pursuit of comfort.

[Anonymous No.3603842]

>>3603800

But people getting fed up with sex and drugs, and intelligence and achievement being despised seem like the perfect conditions for religion to make a come back.

[Anonymous No.3603860]

>>3603842
I agree.

But not organised religion as we know it. I believe it will be something similar to a "cult of the celebrity."

[Anonymous No.3603864]

>>3603800
>>3603800
YOU'RE SO SUPERIOR

Intelligence has been growing over time. This is a golden age for western civilization, scientific progress is at an all time high

[Anonymous No.3603868]

>>3603860

Or that, ehm, new old Abrahamic religion that the immigrants brought with them.

[Anonymous No.3603882]

>>3603864

> golden age for western civilization

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You funny.

[Anonymous No.3603912]

>>3603800

Mmm, that sound like that other falling empire that later got overrun by that Abrahamic religion...

[Anonymous No.3603908]

>>3603864
We're talking philosophical (intellectual).

Scientific progress may be at an all time high but why don't you try and have a conversation with the average person? Their entire way of thinking is centered on shallow, petty, interpersonal drama.

Creative thinking is dying out, kids are taught that the ability to memorize from a textbook somehow translates into intelligence.

Our entire civilization is built on uncompromising respect for authority and the inability to think outside of the box.

[Anonymous No.3603918]

>>3603882
Least deadly wars, lowest crime, average citizens live better than kings of old, free access to all of human knowledge for all, no ruling caste of nobility, new age of discovery and scientific advancement, more production of art and advancement of human rights on a never before seen scale.

Humans have a tendency to glorify the past and damn the present, but we, truly, live in the greatest period of human existence that has yet transpired.

[Anonymous No.3603925]

>>3603912
Go back to the 18th century, gibbon, no one agrees with you any more.

[Anonymous No.3603934]

>>3603868
Islam will never take over. Despite all the fear mongering.

I come from Britain and as fucked up as our country is, our respective freedom and liberty are paramount, and always have been. We had Robin Hood for Christ's sake!

It's practically impossible for any fascist or racist group to gain any footing here. Regardless of whether it's political or religious. It's why Mosley's Black-shirts got nowhere 80 years ago and why the BNP are a laughing stock today.

[Anonymous No.3603941]

>>3603918
more slavery than ever
more inequality than ever
more opression than ever
best times
le
lel
lel

[Anonymous No.3603961]

>>3603908
>Uncompromising respect for authority
May I remind you that for most of human history almost all governments were centered around a single king or emperor? When the ruler of your nation is treated as a god, then you can talk about uncompromising respect for authority. Liberal democracy has killed that.

>The average person
...was working in agriculture for 99% of all human existence, most of the time only to subsist, if not, the surplus was taxed. The average US income is around 50k, that is fucking INSANE to think, the average man is incomprehensible richer than 500 years ago.
As for their mentality, it has always been petty, to expect anything more from the masses is to deny the basic state of human thought.

>Creative thinking is dying out, general criticism of the education system
You should hear Chinese praise of western education, it puts things in perspective. Most intellectual advancement has always been by a select few, the goal of general education is to make a more productive, effective workforce. HOWEVER, now, instead of raising an upper class from birth and hoping they have the nature for it, we have a quasi-meritocracy that selects the most fit for the traditional intensive education that produces geniuses.

[Anonymous No.3603991]

>>3603941
>More slavery than ever
nominally, not per capita, good job skewing statistics to fit your point of view though! This is the only time in history that slavery is not legal anywhere on the planet
>More inequality than ever
You really have no fucking idea what you're saying, do you? Any time before the great depression has more inequality than now, go back before the rise of the middle class over the 16th-18th centuries and you get a society broken between people living in total, absolute poverty and people living in opulence. We have more inequality than the 1960s, sure, but if the town of Rich has one guy with 10 Million dollars and one guy with 1 Million, they have more inequality than the town of Poor where one guy has 10 dollars and one guy has 5. Inequality is (mostly in past societies) an indicator of stability more than actual quality of life.

Also
>More oppression than ever
I'm starting to think you never took a history course in your life.

[Anonymous No.3604000]

>>3603941
I... Well..

I can't even argue with you, I don't know where to begin because everything you just said was just so GOD DAMN STUPID.

[Anonymous No.3604072]

>>3603908
>conversation with the average person
There's no such thing as "the average person". Average in which respect ? What kind of average (arithmetic, geometric, harmonic, quadratic) are you talking about ? There are plenty of people to have interesting conversations out there (provided you do go out first of course) and not all of them are in the first percentile in terms of wealth/education/IQ/whatever metric you use to rank intelligence.
>their entire way of thinking
This sound like an easy generalization. What allows you to characterize so quickly the "entire way of thinking" of a population ?
>petty, interpersonal drama
Welcome to human relationships 101.


>creative thinking is dying out
Hard to argue over because there are few way to assess the quantity and quality of creative thinking. But when you see the pace of thecnological, social, political and entreprenerial innovation, it leaves you thinking.

>kids are taught that the ability to memorize from a textbook somehow translates into intelligence

Do you know what was an educated man in the Roman Empire ? A man who had memorize by heart the whole Iliad and Odyssey. Not more. Memory have been the core of teaching since the inventing of alphabet, roughly speaking. If anything, kids are taught method and self-learning much more than they were three centuries ago. Again, not to say that our education system is perfect.

>our civilization is built on uncomprising respect for authority and the inability to think outside of the box

That's almost the contrary. A significant part of modern thinking (not only modern philosphy but modern public conversation, in newspapers, in salons, through books and papers) has been dedicated on deconstructing authority. We owe a great deal of our values to the Enlightenment thinkers. Not the most reverencious guys you could imagine. Nowadays subversion is almost a norm.

[Anonymous No.3604103]

when analytical thinking is purged from academia. but this is impossible, so never.

analysis, analysis, analysis. always looking at something someone else did. never producing anything new oneself, just citing and sourcing like some anal retentive autist.

philosophy is concept production, and since that has ceased philosophy has also ceased.

no one is proceeding new ways to look at the world in novel, exciting ways. if they do it is in some empirical form within the bounds of some pre-existing form. there will be no more rhizomes, simulacra, spectacle, panopticon, deterritorialization, hegemony, death drive, difference, resentiment, bad faith, alienation, reification, instrumental reason, dialectical reason, culture industry, etc etc.: we are too brain dead to think about the world in such exciting, challenging ways. (inb4 some analytic poo poos all that as unverifiable, empircally false mythology: they inspired a challenge to the existing and potential for change, even if at their root is some falsity. falseness is essential for life.)

each of our brains are trained out of thinking in these ways to the point where we don't even understand these concepts any more and are extremely hostile to them. our non-fiction writing is extremely rigid, uniform and boring to read. we consider the essay something to do for marks, not a form as exciting and affecting as poetry. we cite everything, afraid of plagiarism. we think in binary opposites. sex has become taboo again and writing is sexless, all the more so because of its total profusion into everything. we don't DESERVE to be read, and that's why we are stagnant. when we reclaim that flame that made us so excited to read babby's first philosophy, then perhaps we shall begin to stumble out of this stagnation.

[Anonymous No.3604124]

>>3604000
I'm serious. The percentage of people suffering are less. The number of people suffering are far far greater. Percentages don't mean shit. More people live in misery now than over before since more people live now than ever before. And the structural problems aren't solved. You can wax utopian all you want, but not everyone in the world lives a comfortable first world existance.

[Anonymous No.3604136]

>>3604124
>Percentages don't mean shit.
What? WHAT?!

If there is a smaller percentage of society compared to previous times suffering then we have improved. It's like saying that homeless are an increasing problem when they go down per capita, but there are more of them because of population increase. It's just idiotic.

[Anonymous No.3604143]

>>3604136
It's not unless you refuse to see population increase as part of the problem. Ten babies getting raped is worse than one. Would you deny that?

[Anonymous No.3604145]

>>3604136

different guy, but how? its just a number. if there are ACTUALLY more people suffering, then it is worse, is it not?

[Anonymous No.3604148]

when tao lin finally leaves /lit/ forever

[Anonymous No.3604150]

>>3604072
>Do you know what was an educated man in the Roman Empire ? A man who had memorize by heart the whole Iliad and Odyssey.
That's not only false, it's also irrelevant. The guy is clearly pointing to an idea of Halbbildung, I have no idea why you're holding up some idea you have of Roman education as an example of education.

[Anonymous No.3604183]

>>3604103
All is not lost, friend.

[Anonymous No.3604186]

>>3604183

dinosaurs don't count.

[Anonymous No.3604204]

>>3604103

[Anonymous No.3604213]

>>3604204

exactly, deafness is a virtue now.

[Anonymous No.3604220]

>>3603171
It never has actually begun. Stop getting your sources for popular culture and plebeian friends

[Anonymous No.3604229]

What about epistemology?

[Anonymous No.3604236]

>>3604229
epistemology is just an assessment of neurology. It doesn't need to be anything else.

[Anonymous No.3604239]

>>3604145
From a logical point of view if there is not a higher percentage of people suffering then it is a net gain for society.

[Anonymous No.3604240]

>>3604236
>epistemology is just an assessment of neurology
That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.3604243]

>>3604239
>not knowing about the utility monster

[Anonymous No.3604250]

Philosophy needs to stop with the Kripke shit.

[Anonymous No.3604252]

>>3604220
It's been several decades since philosophy came up with anything new.

[Anonymous No.3604253]

>>3604240
Just because you fail to understand something, does not mean it makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.3604270]

>>3604252
>novelty fetishism
Typical consumerist.

[Anonymous No.3604274]

>>3604103
>no one is proceeding new ways to look at the world in novel, exciting ways.

Because it's all been done?

Like some famous philosopher once said everything in philosophy since has been a footnote to Plato.

[Anonymous No.3604279]

>>3604274
Then philosophy should aim to think beyond Plato.

[Anonymous No.3604282]

>>3604239

what good is a "net gain for society" to the ones left outside the net? if you were the one suffering you wouldn't give a shit about some numerical assessment.

[Anonymous No.3604284]

>>3603244
I agree. At least an University I know does this, and you end up thinking science isn't rational ;_;

[Anonymous No.3604288]

>>3604274

to say it's all been done is to say history is over. with each new day something changes and thus something new can be done.

[Anonymous No.3604290]

>>3604150
Yeah I wasn't too accurate sorry. My bad. But my point does stand: the use of rote learning in our education system doesn't betray a modern form of stagnation. It has been there for millenias, if there's stagnation on that respect it is clearly older than modern society.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3604299]

>WE LIVE IN THE GREATEST TIME OF HUMAN HISTORY
>present day

well no shit. That's an irrleveant comment. You can say that at any point in time ever.

>2202
>WE LIVE IN THE GREATEST TIME IN HISTORY, YOU SHOULD BE GRATEFUL. BACK IN 2013 PEOPLE ACTUALLY TO USE THEIR BODIES TO GET TO PLACES. COMPUTERS? WHAT THE FUCK. SCIENCE.

[Anonymous No.3604307]

Once we realize that the world is not confined to the dense physical and our five senses.

[Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc No.3604317]

>>3604290
Pedagogy has been has a range of experimentation. The drulling American model is based off the Prussians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system

[Anonymous No.3604322]

>>3603177
>Philosophy is finished. We have geometry now.

[Anonymous No.3604324]

We still haven't caught up with the pre-Socratics.

[Anonymous No.3604328]

>>3603554
Yes, I agree both are needed, as well as the arts.

[Anonymous No.3604349]

>>3604274
Are you a retard? Plato is dead in the same manner as God is.

[Anonymous No.3606019]

>>3604270
It's not consumerist to desire intellectual progression.

[Anonymous No.3606046]

>>3603171
do you people actually read contemporary philosophy?

[Anonymous No.3606062]

>>3604288
>with each new day something changes and thus something new can be done.

It's just a variation of whats already happened and our existing philosophies and way of thinking can quite easily accomodate it without making a whole new branch of philosophy which never existed before.

[Anonymous No.3606064]

>>3604307
>five senses
>five

[Anonymous No.3606070]

>>3606064
>gif
>not animated
>really.jpg

[Anonymous No.3606074]

>>3603171
When are you gonna start philosophizing yourself?
Its only stagnated because you choose it to be, maybe you can think for yourself instead of waiting for the next big writer to do it for you, jackass.

[Anonymous No.3606084]

>>3603234
For real.
People just wanna poke holes with holes in the story and just ignore all the benefits for humanity as a whole that it teaches.

[Anonymous No.3606115]

>>3603244
Isn't philosophy of science mandatory in 'STEM' degrees?

In Denmark, our word for science 'Videnskab' (like the German Wissenschaft) includes both humaniora and social studies, doesn't the English as well? It seems like you mean the natural sciences when you speak of the sciences.

And besides, every natural science you study is linked to a course on philosophy of science in the start, and sometimes throughout the study.

[Anonymous No.3606152]

>>3603177
>implying science isn't inherently flawed
>implying we haven't had science for hundreds of years
>implying philosophy and science are even comparable

stay pleb

[Anonymous No.3606288]

>>3606115
No, it's somewhat more complicated than that. This is in a great part thanks to British enlightenment thinkers arguing over what science means and what we can know. There's science in the sense that we can understand it because we made it, like political science or social science (because politics and society are formed/made by human beings), and then there's science in the sense of natural philosophy, like physics, chemistry, biology and so on. And that is not to say that the lines between the two are hard and fast anymore.

[Anonymous No.3606291]

>>3603171
you just have to fucking look and read and try to find shit, man.
it's the same as always: the obvious and respected choices are from the past.
Wait a few decades and you will see the philosophers that you never noticed during their lifetimes.

>>3603335
>all about existentialism
FUCK I really HATE Existentialism!
The idea that you can and "should" "create" meaning and purpose is fucking frustrating.
It's so ignorant!
Meaning is inherently subjective and therefore can not be created.
Meaning only exists inside the mind of the beholder.
Meaning is a really useful illusion.

The mere existence of differences in cultural ideas and differences in opinions tell us this.

>Compare Japanese and European attitudes about suicide, for example.

The Shinto attitude toward suicide is that it is the correct course of action to compensate. It can be a sacrifice. It is the morally correct thing to do if you fucked up. Because of this, Japanese culture is much more accepting toward suicide.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, suicide is seen as a sin. It is shown to be a lame way out of life for cowards who hide from consequences. They think it puts you in hell. European culture has put really negative and shameful stigma on suicide because of this.

JUST THAT shows that there is no objectivity in the universe, which shows us that meaning can not be made. You can hold the illusion of meaning or moral right or wrong, but their existence is just false.

[Anonymous No.3606294]

Philosophy hasn't stagnated, you're just an idiot who won't read.

[Anonymous No.3606314]

>>3606291
>Meaning is inherently subjective and therefore can not be created.
>Meaning only exists inside the mind of the beholder.
>Meaning is a really useful illusion.
So? what's wrong with creating something subjective. You yourself admit its useful. Is your problem with the word should? or do you somehow think subjective things aren't real?