/philosophy/ - Philosophy

It's unforeseeable. We have had an unbelievable amount of revolutionary thinkers in the last 2 and a half centuries. Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Freud, Wittgenstein, Khun, Marx, etc.

The analytic turn was a fucking mistake imo, the aim of philosophy was lost with that and the continental tradition has mainly stagnated on Heidegger, Hegel, and Marx. The reason why is most probably because the modern world is not fundamentally different to theirs, hence no truly new insights have congealed from our social life and technology.

>>3336

I mostly agree with what he said but

>/r/philosophy

>good discussion

The anon who made that thread on /r/philosophy summed it up better than I could

>>3336

Also, I'm a retarded faggot who only uses the internet for a few things and blogging feels like it would take up a lot of time

>>3337

They're not fundamentally different, that's the crux. Hegel's big idea is basically the truth of modernity, a time of fragmentation and inability to ground itself in anything but itself anymore. Nothing has fundamentally changed. Phenomenal appearance changes, but essence is the same.

>>3338

What is a "good" discussion to you? Discussions weren't mentioned, just content. /r/philosophy does have better content, there are lots of links posted even though most of them are never discussed. Discussions are meh, but most people posting are meh. Sometimes you get some fantastic responses from people, but they're usually ignored.

>>3335

>analytic turn

Is that term really a thing? I realise there has been an influx of analytic philosophy, but surely it hasn't swamped the entire field as much as the word would imply.

Though you are right in saying that, for the most part, continental tradition has been reduced to reception, critique and reiteration of the 'classics'.

>>3340

Maybe not fundamentally different, but different enough to warrant a new major philosophical contribution soon. Besides, Hegel is general enough to be applicable or at least relatable in any time period, not just modernity - though that's where it applies particularly well.

>>3342

Analytic is an accepted turn for what happened with the following of Russell and Moor's rejection of past philosophy and system building. It still dominates US and British philosophy, which is a sizable chunk of the intellectual world though not all of it. It's attitude is cancerous, and as Hegel puts it in his own terms, such thinking has led to basically absurd wastes of time fighting Kantian ghosts such as the problem of realism, scientism, and hypothetical brains in a vat/matrix scenarios as being taken seriously. Analytic philosophy is, so long as it remains "analytic", stuck in the Kantian crisis of irresolvable distinctions with no unifying system to make sense of them.

I simply don't see the present as anything truly different, not even in a significant phenomenal level. Chomsky in some talk mentions how the internet did not revolutionize the world like the telephone did, it only pushed the logic of mediated isolation further along. That's what I mean by no fundamental difference, nothing truly has changed at the core, and that's why I don't see any truly revolutionary insights on the level of a new Kant or Aristotle. Our relations are more extreme, but they are the same relations.

me

>>3334

The "speculative realism"-associated writers (Meillassoux, Brassier, etc. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_realism) feel like they are involved in vital strains of thought now. You could generally characterize their project as an attempt to trace down and expose the various mutated reappearances of Kantian transcendental subject-hood in our various philosophical inheritances, both analytic and 'continental', so that access to being may be unmediated and exposed to a true 'outside', a radical unknown which transcends a priori subjective structure. Deleuze's work and particularly his concepts of the immanence of being are largely foundational. Some of the sense of vitality this loosely associated group expresses comes from their engagement with "non-philosophical" fields and disciplines: art, music, etc. Academically erudite philosophy that reaches beyond the academy. Some of it comes from a general willingness to unify and renew insights from traditionally non-communicating philosophical

traditions in a critical and original mode. If you are interested in currently vital philosophy and are not familiar with these writers they may be worth looking in to.

>>3384

>OOO

>Let's undo Kant's one good philosophical insight about the nature of objects and knowledge and start as if it never happened

Just read The Noumenon's New Clothes.

http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/1181229/20126263/1346713221483/Noumenons+New+Clothes_Pt1_Wolfendale.pdf?token=pVVmnhMHBC32OdYIvGs7Pb1vTlY%3D

>>3385

Not sure if that's a suggestion or a statement, but I'm familiar with the book you reference, and I'd suggest its appearance only strengthens a sense of the vitality of the strains of thought involved; vitality spawns contention and reformation. You wouldn't really say that Wolfendale's book totally nullifies any claim to originality and currency all of the thought involved may make? And no one is pretending Kant never happened here - the approach here is involved with Deleuze's critique of Kant, accepting and using some of his profound concepts while eliminating those which can now be seen as vestigial. The important thing is philosophy as access to the being of the world and not the world of a book.

>>3386

Would you mind making a post stating the main points of this kind of philosophy? Perhaps a thread op would be good. I'm not familiar with this, and wikipedia isn't doing a good job on explaining it in any meaningful way.

>>3387

Frankly I don't think I would be able to do any better than the Wikipedia article, as I find that summary in philosophy tends rather quickly towards the ridiculous or towards only meaning anything after having actually read the text being summarized, but I will briefly give an outline a shot -

I'd say broadly that it may be useful to know some Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Deleuze in this area as they're all often referenced. This talk by Ray Brassier was impenetrable to me until I had read Being and Time and Difference and Repetition, at which point it revealed itself as a subtle and precise questioning of the restrictive categories which may have snuck into the works of both: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7hIYasErHc . Which is of course not to say that any prior experience with any philosophy is needed to pick up any of these books, but it may make the going easier.

A few books that loom large here:

Quentin Meillassoux's After Finitude, which calls out post-Kantian transcendental idealists as lacking in direct access to the world via dinosaurs or something. I find this book's argument somewhat weak in places, but it's important for understanding the whole context of these recent trends in thought as it arrived at the time of their first bloomings, and Meillassoux is an interesting and strong thinker worthy of consideration.

Collapse: This is a very considerable journal with ties to the thinkers I've previously mentioned here, among other investments, all interesting. A little pricy and difficult to find unless you go online, and why shouldn't you, but very much worth it in my opinion. The 3rd issue in particular may be relevant, as it includes transcriptions of the talks which were given at a 2007 speculative realism conference, and all its articles concern Deleuze, which provides pertinent background on some of the influences underlying current considerations. This is generally a "read every article" kind of periodical and worth investigating.

Ray Brassier: Nihil Unbound and Tristan Garcia: Form and Object

Have not yet read these but I suspect they will be properly chewy. Oh, let's throw in the Noumenon's New Clothes too, for that mind friction pleasure.

Lastly, the compilation of Nick Land's writings, essays, notes, short stories, Fanged Noumena, is fun and dirty, and he ended up, while a professor and after, playing a kind of catalytic role in whatever this current strain of philosophical thought was. Expect a heady dose of 90's nihilistic cyber-teleology that phases into icy permutations of mathematical and algorithmic possibilities as the year 2000 draws nearer.

OK, hope that gives you enough of a taste to investigate for yourself. Go in critically and carefully, as you should with all communities surrounded by a certain haze of glamour - I've seen very intelligent people say very stupid things because of powers that possessed them. There's a lot of hype here, but I do believe tghat where there is desire there is truth, though it is usually surrounded by a cloud of falsity and misdirection. GL GL

>>3334

It depends on the field of philosophy in question.

Metaphysics as a whole is getting interesting again now that high level physics isn't much more than theories.

That would be me OP. Just wait till I drop my hot new mixtape on objective virtues from an existential-absurdist perspective nigga.