/lit/ - Literature

>>22339361
we have a biweekly land thread
on occasion we'll burn an effigy of rawls

Because it's invariably reduced to "Uh life is hard but uhm here's a wall of text to cope lol"

>>22339361
Because there haven't been any advances in over 100 years. Philosophy today is about taking a handful of concepts and renaming them.

>>22339361
Not the case. Baudrillard, Deleuze/Guattari, Fisher, Land and Negarestani are frequently discussed. Laruelle also sees his fair share of spotlight. Speculative realism sometimes comes up, and ought to be talked about more. Brassier, Grant, Harman and Meillassoux are crafting a new ontology which is bound to be very influential in the coming decades.

I'm more of a Patrick Nagel enjoyer

>>22339417
Those latter ones from what I’m gathering seem like pure navel gazing nonsense

>>22339768
I have this book

Becasue the 60's was when everything went to shit, socially and culturally. The influence of crackheads, junkies, negroids and other forms of imbecile started aout then.

>>22339361
The best philosophizing in the 60s came from science fiction authors. The actual philosophers of that era and every one after can be chucked in the bin.

It happens but not as much, the closer you get to the present the more fragmented philosophy becomes. So to explain what I mean: is there a point in trying to discuss how algebraic terms can lose their associative properties for dimensional analysis past 4? Probably not, even though it was a popular point of study in the 60's and 70's. Foucalt threads usually are just multiple replies in a row saying he was a faggot and died of AIDs and whatnot. Plus there is a whole tier of "pop-philosophers" who don't necessarily have an individual philosophy but simply write to make money which will elicit non stop replies of midwit. I guess we could discuss Nozick, or Rawls, or some equivalent but then you run into issues where they aren't as widely read outside of academic settings so you may not get any replies. If you want to make a modern philosophy thread go for it.

>>22339361
There is a Sam Harris thread in the catalog. Fukuyama's take on Hegel is one of the most discussed books on this board. Zizek shows up a lot.

But /lit/ is also full of prestigefags and undergrads. Prestigefags don't read new philosophy because it hasn't had time to become famous enough. Undergrads, unless they are philosophy majors, mostly do chronological surveys that stop before 1960.

Also, a good deal of modern philosophy is extremely technical and closely bound up with the sciences. People mistake it for science and a lot of popular science is also very much doing philosophy. People read philosophy but they post about it on /sci/.

>>22339417
I posted about After Finitude in early 2022 right after I read it and got zero replies, but there was a recent post with it that got a ton so I'm hopeful that stuff is gonna be in vogue here, probably never like Kant or Guenon but maybe at least at the level the presocratics get discussed which is decent.

>lust-provoking image
>irrelevant time-wasting question

>>22339361
not an answer to your exact question, but think of how fucking weird it would be to devote your time to a living philosopher. they would think you are weird because the logical conclusion is talking to them directly.

>>22341831
What? Why would they write and publish anything at all then?

>>22339361
Virgin incels got bullied after the 1960s. So now no one takes philosophy seriously.

>>22341850
philosophers that publish actually do talk to each other. but as a layman i think i will will get more out of reading a complete ouevre than just the first two books of a promising new academic. And supposing you did find the work of a promising new academic you don't know what of their views they will revise so maybe a book you think is true won't be. it's a basic matter of things standing the test of time i guess. that's not to say you should ignore living writers, but with dead writers you're not going to be attracted to the living element of their work. unless the living/social element is what you enjoy, which might be the case for you.

>>22339361
Because Nietzsche solved philosophy like 130 years ago.

Most people on this board appear to be just completely ignorant of any of the developments in 20th century analytic philosophy or any of the philosophical work that's going on today. Their idea of a modern philosopher is Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson. I'd estimate some 95% of people here have no idea who Nagel is or why he was important.

>>22341831
>they would think you are weird because the logical conclusion is talking to them directly.
I don't know man, I'd be kinda flattered if others were interested in my work. I'd be happy to discuss it.

>>22341898
So your logical conclusion is entirely based on your personal experience and attitude?

>>22339361
Because philosophy died after Descartes.

>>22342085
if it's a logical conclusion it's a particular conclusion for people who universally make a situation worse... it doesn't have to apply to you

>>22342041
i don't disagree, but in terms of actually seeking out stuff that is on the so called cutting edge (which is why i originally said it doesn't address merely the post 60s concern), there is just always the abyss of other people. at that point how can it even be about the initial text that starts the encounter?

>>22339361
/lit/ doesn't really read.
>>22339417
And if they read, it's continental stuff like those guys. They don't know about the really advanced newer analytic stuff, like Kit Fine or Theodore Sider.

>>22342404
>Kit Fine or Theodore Sider
qrd?

>>22342450
Fine is a neo-Aristotelian and has some neat work on essence and fundamentality, as well as other stuff. There's an IEP article on him if you want to read that. Sider also does work on fundamentality, he extends Lewisian naturalness beyond properties, and even beyond ontology. Both are doing pretty interesting work, they're part of the postmodal or hyperintensionalist turn in analytic meta(meta)physics. Very cool stuff, it's work mostly done in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.

>>22342404
>>22342618
Sider’s work was interesting when I read it in undergrad like 15 years ago.
Do you have recommendations for monographs from them or should I just find reading lists?

>>22342635
With Fine you'll have to just read his scattered work. My recommendation is
>Essence and Modality
>The Question of Ontology
>The Question of Realism
>Neutral Relations
>The Role of Variables
They're not the easiest to read though. With Sider, his work changes significantly after 2011 with Writing the Book of the World. I would recommend reading that. Like even in his 2009 articles his views are in some respects significantly different. So if you read his stuff from 15 years ago that wouldn't represent his views in the 2011 book, I would definitely recommend that book since that's where he really goes systematic and does something ambitious and new.

>>22341516
I don't think all modern philosophy is math/sciency, but you're right in saying that much of it presupposes quite a large knowledge base (you can't even argue against claims about the existence of recursion in the brain without having a fairly solid understanding of set-theory). To be fair, there is a lot of shitty, hyper-specific philosophical work being done, and a lot of popular stuff that isn't very interesting, but the actually important work isn't easy to read.

>>22342618
how did you get into Fine and Sider?

>>22342618
>I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made.
into the trash it goes

Wittgenstein ended it.

>>22342618
>they're part of the postmodal or hyperintensionalist turn in analytic meta(meta)physics. Very cool stuff,
qrd?

>>22341946
He is a philosopher of mind, he held a position similar to Chalmers on consciousness. I never even went to college and know that.

>>22339361
Because I don't like Rawls; Chomsky is okay.
>>22342792
also this

>>22339361
Because UG Krishnamurti ended philosophy

>>22339361
It's because the fundamental ideas behind Western philosophical thought have exhausted themselves and are at a dead end. What is required to significantly advance philosophy is a radically different philosophical foundation.
Also love is required: the will to learn, the desire for truth comes from the will to love and the desire to care for what one loves.

>>22343117
>What is required to significantly advance philosophy is a radically different philosophical foundation.
>Also love is required
Deleuze

we need a new left intellectual
Zizek's best book is too old already

>>22343286
>>22341516
>Zizek
Can one of you guys redpill me on ideology? What is it? How does it function?

>>22342814
In the 1940s-1960s some leading analytics tried to reduce everything to what exists in just space and time, then the 1970s and 1980s they had come to accept that necessity and possibility were very important too, and not everything could be explained without such modal resources. But by the 1990s and after there have been many leading analytic metaphysicians who argue that even modal resources aren't enough. Hence postmodal metaphysics. Hyperintensionalism just means that the resources they use don't reduce to intensional (modal) resources. The three key postmodal and hyperintensional notions they make a lot of use of are essence, grounding, and fundamentality.

>>22343816
intro books for thus feel? picrel?

>>22343822
Haven't read it, there's some analytic metaphysics intro books and the more recent ones are by these recent postmodal guys so they might be good but I haven't really read them cover to cover yet, or any other intro book. For primary sources you could read Naming and Necessity (Kripke), On the Plurality of Worlds (Lewis), and Writing the Book of the World (Sider), plus a series of articles and secondary/tertiary literature. Kripke and Lewis are more associated with the modal period, but they both also feature some discussion of postmodal notions like essence and fundamentality (Lewisian naturalness) which would matter more to later authors. Lewis' "New Work for a Theory of Universals" is pretty key as far as articles go and is where he explains naturalness. There's an anthology called Metametaphysics from 2009 (picrel) which has interesting papers by like all the more recent postmodal guys and more. You can check that out if you want to know what's been going on lately. The Schaffer paper in there is good if you want to know what his Neo-Aristotelian view on grounding is about. It has one of the Fine papers I recommended in it too. The Sider paper is superseded by his book but it's still fine to check out. The McDaniel paper is a good paper too, and is also Neo-Aristotelian, even Heidegger-inspired.

>>22343822
Not that anon but this anthology (many papers you can find online) is a great intro to contemporary analytic thought

>>22343871
>>22343873
The metametaphysics book was used at my uni for a graduate seminar on metametaphysics, I have heard it was excellent, too.

bump

I've been taking a look at some philosophy of mind stuff posted about ITT, but isn't it pointless for philosophy to try and stand up there with neuroscience? If any major advances about the mind are found, it will be thanks to neuroscientists, and the philosophy guys can only try to play catch up like what happened with evolution 150 years ago

>>22345757
>but isn't it pointless for philosophy to try and stand up there with neuroscience?
No. Philosophy of mind and neuroscience are separate issues. Philosophy of mind might motivate neuroscience (through the problems of qualia, mind/body, etc.) but they deal with separate questions. Additionally, neuroscience really can't answer many of the questions that philosophy of mind poses; if you think the brain will be fully understood mechanically in the next ~100 years you're extremely mistaken.
>the philosophy guys can only try to play catch up like what happened with evolution 150 years ago
Nothing happened 150 years ago where philosophy was playing catch up.

>>22343009
Rawls is an example of a fencesitter. He was the Tim Pool of his day. Chomsky might be dunce regarding clotshots but he actually had occasional bursts of insight in his long, storied career.

Well after the postmoderns there really hasn’t been any hugely popular new paradigm shifting philosophers. The most “famous” philosophers working right now are really technical philosophy of science and philosophy of mind types. Nobody on /lit/, certainly not me, has read guys like Saul Kripke or Peter van Inwagen. Guys like Byung Chip Han occasionally come up but not super common. Meme philosophers like Nick Land are popular here though. I personally am interested in reading about Bernardo Katsrup and analytical Idealism. He’s a double PhD in philosophy and computer science. He posits a kind of Jungian Panpsychism that is interesting to me.

>>22346137
Did you even read the thread or did you just come here to announce how ignorant and annoying you are?
>>22345757
Like the other anon said, you don’t know the first thing about either of them. They deal with completely different problems and have entirely different methodologies. It’s like claiming neuroscience will make psychology obsolete; it’s nonsense.

>>22345757
>the philosophy guys can only try to play catch up like what happened with evolution 150 years ago
>doesn't know the scientists have been playing catch up to philosophers for years
>doesn't know about a priori science
ngmi

>>22346137
>Nobody on /lit/, certainly not me, has read guys like Saul Kripke or Peter van Inwagen.
I have read them and have read plenty of other analytics that I consider even better than them, I was the one suggesting Fine and Schaffer and the Metametaphysics volume. I also read continental philosophy and older historical phil because I don't see a point in excluding anything. It's /lit/ fault they're a bunch of picky pseuds so they just never know what's going on.

>>22346282
>Metametaphysics
The Germans already finished this two centuries ago

>>22346338
Want to expand on that or would you prefer to continue being an unhelpful arrogant prick?

>>22346338
They did not even come close to finishing it. They're admirable but they were way off course, if by "two centuries ago" you mean literally 200 years ago and thus the German Idealists. Even later Germans that same century and the next one improved on German Idealism significantly, and they were still not fully on course.

>>22346576
Explain how they were off-course
>>22346282
Meta-metaphysics is just epistemology or metaphysics

>>22346652
Is it worth my time to explain if you're probably going to dismiss it? Spend your time studying the people you dismiss first. I hope you're also already master at German idealism in the first place. I've studied both sides well so I make my criticisms only from a perspective that values the German idealists but finds them limited. I actually feel Fichte in some cases was the more sensible of the three main names. Schelling, even when wrong, is at least more interesting. I like Hegel as it is though a lot of people misunderstand him deeply because they haven't even read the Science of Logic.

>>22339361
There isn’t any
Just a bunch of weepy dishonest faggots crying about life in the hell world war 2 built without the nuts to admit the truth that could save the human race

>>22341946
What do you guys think about french pomo? I made a thread about a week ago wondering what I should read after Nietzche, and got no legit responses. I hear from elsewhere on the Internet that Focault and Deluze are good.

>>22339361
>Why does /lit/ never discuss philosophy after the 1960s?
Because that's when the philosophers started to argue for pedophilia.

/thread

>>22347287
>Is it worth my time to explain if you're probably going to dismiss it?
I won't dismiss it if it's worthwhile. That wasn't me you were responding to, this is me >>22346652
Focus your critique on Kant and then Hegel, as I know the first well and the second somewhat less well. The others I haven't studied and only know through the lens of discussion around Kant/Hegel.

>>22347396
Read Foucault and Deleuze, Foucault will be good for social purposes, while Deleuze has even broader usability.
>>22347776
Kant's main problem is that he makes incorrect presumptions about the nature of intuition, he assumes if it's to be unmediated and direct it has to be that we actively intuit by creating the thing in itself (so God has this form, it's intellectual intuition), otherwise if it's passive it must be mediated and direct (as empirical intuition is for us). So he ends up with a wrong account of intuition that rules out direct acquaintance. It ends up engendering the thing in itself as a problematic notion. Moreover even if there are things we don't or can't intuit, it should be possible to think them. Frege and Russell and later analytics developed the theory of descriptions as a way to develop this idea further. But Kant's account is going to be very limited in handling that. Kant also existed within a very immature period in the development of logic, and as such his table of judgments is not very complete, and anyway there are also issues in the parallelism between them and the table of categories. As for Hegel, he follows Holderlin and Schelling in moving beyond Fichte's first principle (self-consciousness) to a nondualist first principle, the Absolute. But I don't believe this nondualist first principle is real or helps much, despite its perennial prominence in many traditions. In any case, even if it were real, Hegel then takes it to have pretty low reality at first (as pure being/pure nothingness), and has it develop into fuller and fuller reality (towards the Idea stage) via dialectical progression, which depends on Kant's categories of negation and limitation. The chiefest problem with Hegel's deduction isn't even the use of a generative dialectic (which is already a problem though), but the way he deduces specific things from previous things. Not even a generative dialectic could decide for us why some new alterity rather than some other hypothetically distinct alterity is generated at any step of the process. There's an explanatory gap Hegel never bridges in all these steps of his deduction. But like I said the very method of dialectical deduction is wrong, Kantian negation should not generate new realities, it only takes us FROM one pre-existing one to another (or else to the lack of any, as with the case of nothingness). The issue seeped in when Fichte tried to get a determination from negation because Spinozist omnis determinatio est negatio was the cool new thing in 1790s Jena. But that isn't how Spinoza should be understood, and Kant would have agreed.

>>22339361
Because Eastern philosophy and African philosophy solved everything centuries ago. All whites do is suck off superior races.

bump

>>22347617
because previously they didn't have to

>>22339361
not true.
I create plenty of threads on my private philosophy weekly and I am the greatest living philosopher and am even yet to publish!

>>22351733
>t. Horea Belcea
Oh right he "published" once

>>22339361
because it's mostly commie bullshit