/lit/ - Literature

Jeremy Butterfield

Over 85 years left, it's a bit early for this discussion

>>4993163
me

Colin McLarty

D E N N E T T

This is the century we realize we are all one and become one, dividing thought as originating from some special brain is antiquated.

hopefully kripke publishes something so he can dominate two centuries

>>4993163
Quentin Meillassoux

Alain Finkielkraut

Zizek will be regarded as the greatest philosopher of the 21st century simply because of his popularity.

>>4993327
Well he has a collection of various essays that came out a few years ago if that counts. Dunno about when the individual essays were written though (some are old though, pre-dating N&N).

>>4993163
I like how just from the title page, you can tell the book is 100% pure unadulterated bullshit.

>>4993603
>We (trying to be) Nagal/Chalmers now!
That's basically all I get from the title.

Speaking of Chalmers, he has papers published in the 2000's and a book came out a bit ago.

>>4993607
>>We (trying to be) Nagal/Chalmers now!
not sure what you mean. Every sane person, and especially Nagel, would agree that there is no 'what it's like to be a brick'. Even if you are a new age quantum mystic, the 'what it's like to be a brick' would be so alien/spiritual that it cannot be expressed in language. So even if you think there is such a quality, that the idea of the existence of such a quality makes sense, it would be fundamentally inexpressible in human language, and writing a book about it would be retarded.

>>4993625
I was just going by the panda for Nagel and the other shit for Chalmers and his thermostat.

I was just making a joke, friend.

>>4993627
Well, now that I think about it, maybe OPs pic is actual panprotopsychism, which is not completely retarded in itself, but inherently irrelevant because purely speculative.

Dennett, Zizek, Chomsky, Gettier, Butler, Hofstadter, West, Eco, etc.

An interesting question that must be considered: can a person living in the 21st century even be considered a philosopher?

>>4993163
Dennett, E.O. Wilson

>>4993639
out of that list, only dennet would even call himself a philosopher. do you recognize that?

the amazing atheist

>>4993558
>>4993327
Harman also put some interesting twists on Heidegger's thoughts, although with his Lovecraft fandom and whatnot he gives a somewhat pulpy aura which might not attract the history books.

Maybe Brassier, if he gets over his pretentious language and takes his nihilism all the way.

Zizek will certainly be mentioned a 100 years from now, whether anyone takes him seriously anymore is another matter.

>>4994053
>Maybe Brassier, if he gets over his pretentious language and takes his nihilism all the way.
>Zizek will certainly be mentioned a 100 years from now, whether anyone takes him seriously anymore is another matter.

>being this deluded

>>4994064
Quality post.

Are Dawkins and Hitchens considered 'great' writers? If so I don't want to live on this world anymore

Peter Singer?

Chomsky and Zisek will be remembered, even if only as the Biggie and Tupac of Pop-Social Science

>>4994126
Dawkins older popular science stuff on evolution (like The Blind Watchmaker/Climbing Mount Improbable) is great, but his newer stuff starting from God Delusion is terrible, hamfisted and pants-on-head retarded

Her books are of such philosophical depth that most people fail to see it and immediately mistakenly reject them as trash.

>>4993558
Name a correlationist. You can't. CHECKMATE OOO/SR.
>>4994053
Zizek will be considered Sartre tier in like 50 years. People will still talk about him, but only as an example of what was wrong with our era.

>>4993319

Yes, but:

This is the century we realize we are all one and become one, AGAIN.

Intellectuals (artists, philosophers, scientists) will serve as "messiahs" now and the message will be common origin, equality, compassion, nature, etc. That is not so new

>>4995324
>People will still talk about him, but only as an example of what was wrong with our era.
Maybe. Or maybe he will inherit the mantle of Hegel and people will never shut the fuck up about him.

>>4995391
I think he's a little too "pop" and doesn't take himself seriously enough to really ascend to that kind of status. (I don't mean that as a criticism of his ideas, by the way.)

Kripke
Putnam
Derrida
Searle

Don't care if you like them. They're very influential.

paulo coelho

>>4993163
Zizek will definitely be a contender (if nothing else for the sheer volume of his works).

Zizek
Chomsky
Tiesto

>>4994126
Dawkins is retarded - for sure - but if you don't give credit to Hitchens for class, then you're just a fuck

>>4998881
South Park fucking slaughtered Dawkins, I don't know how he still goes outside anymore

Stefan Molyneux is my favourite. He has very interesting ideas on the direction of human society and the human condition while at the same time he demolishes the socialist delusion and conspiracy held by most post 19th century philosophers.

You guys should check out his stuff on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot

>>4993633

What's your opinion of de Chardin?

>>4998884
dawkins is an idiot, but
>taking a cartoon this seriously

>>4998888
Just fuck off.

>>4998888
>muh non-aggression principle!
Idiot.

>>4996261
Not amongst philosophers. Your metric for greatness:

Discarded.