In what direction is philosophy moving? Who are the current day philosophers? The modern prolific thinkers such as Marx...

Jordan Peterson. He knows about 33x more than he leads out

Reza Negarestani and Graham Harman are probably the best for the speculative side of philosophy, but are still very rigorous and scrutable. I wouldn't class Nick Land as a philosopher, he's either a prophetic genius, a raving lunatic or possibly both. And, as much as I hate to admit it, Zizek's notion of ontological incompleteness is kind of breathtaking in its plasticity.

He does, at least according to what I've seen from his actual academic lectures.

Too bad he has developed a populist persona where he's just some milquetoast liberal going around whining about "communists".

From a cursory wiki reading I find Graham Harman's position interesting, but absurd in a way. Not sure I will even understand the Reza texts. Is he using the schizo method?

I've yet to have a deep understanding of the more esoteric works of philosophy, so I'm trying to create a direction. Thanks for your input man. Appreciate it.

Anyone have any input on Thanks guys.

the alternatives to liberalism presented through nietzsche and marx have been thoroughly dismantled, and now we have evolved from john locke and thomas hobbes all the way to joe rogan and steven pinker. feelin good about the future; we truly live in the best of times.
youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

Bump.

I dont think so tbqhwyf. Trad's return marks the veering of our ship from the waterfall up ahead as we are attempting to crash upon the bank. Our baby will be lost and drift afall, but alas we will procreate and return to the forest, faced with new dangers.

Read The Foundation for Exploration

Lol put one up for free then.

its free on the website

Speculative realism, and generative anthropology

>who are people currently being discovered and credited the same way Nietzsche (or any other) was at first being discovered and credited?
Kevin Solway

What's the difference between speculative realism and a mash of Buddhist materialism?

why the fuck do low iq pol tier faggots keep coming here thinking philosophy has to be like some celebrity bullshit. Academia isnt about being famous.

>In what direction is philosophy moving?
Over there.
It's going over there.

Attached: 15s080Sd371889mfw73.jpg (1280x1707, 500K)

Speculative realism
transcendental materialism
Post humanism
Accelerationism
Theory fiction

Its most likely moving towards something like land but more tame, rather, the study of what it means to be human, or trying to decenter the human being, the purpose of a human in an automated and robotic world, the extinction of humanity.

fuck him and fuck everyone who likes him, he was a degenerate cunt and deserved it

I don't think I understand your anger. I'm looking for people who are not "famous" in popularity, but instead are bound to be prolific because they are prescient. I have no interest in their "celebrity" or fame but am interested in their ideas. I guess I understand that I bug you because I am asking for a recommendation based on whether or not they will become famous (something that is shallow), but my request for these authors is not because they are bound for fame but because they are currently un-recognized and have great ideas. I.e. I'm in search of people who aren't getting their fair share of the spotlight and have ideas worth recognizing. I am also interested in if Land holds up to his reputation in the eyes of people who have read him.

I'd like to know people's experiences because perhaps I am low-IQ and cannot get through these dialectics fast enough to search on my own. I already greatly appreciate all the posts in this thread so far and am interested in what others would have to say. I also may not be that great at finding the great stuff.

So, really, take your projections out, I'm not looking solely for the famous people. Jerk.

Check out metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/ They review a lot of the latest philosophical books as well.

This is...interesting. I like it.
Tight. Bookmarked.
Theory fiction I am still trying to understand as a genre. Ya, I wonder when those developments will be happening and what the environment will be like. I suppose that might be what theory fiction is?

Thanks for your reply, really insightful

Just came to say that I HATE ALL FUCKHEADS WHO CALL OTHER PEOPLE "AUTISTS" TO MOCK THEM, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AUTISTIC. I hate such fuckheads EVERYWHERE, but ESPECIALLY HERE and other places where there is supposed to be somewhat intelligent people around. CALLING PEOPLE AUTISTS for no reason, needs to become as punishable as calling people "niggers", "faggots" or "retards". All people doing that, ESPECIALLY THE MORE INTELLIGENT ONES, need to have their asses whipped red in the middle of the city main square and be sent to work camp for at least three years afterwards. Nothing more to add. BE PREPARED.

Attached: 1550276537723.jpg (1920x1080, 814K)

I hope you can forgive them user.

Have a good week, friend.

Attached: pango.jpg (800x531, 69K)

Philosophy without marxism has no direction.

user, you are the next Nietzsche.

shut up, you autistic nigger faggot

These two.

Attached: 2sides1coin.png (366x262, 198K)

>who are people currently being discovered and credited the same way Nietzsche (or any other) was at first being discovered and credited?
Maybe Teilhard de Chardin?

Honestly this desu, you don't have to "agree" with Marx or pick the same ideological "side", but ignoring historical materialism and alienation will keep you stuck in circles.

Land will definitely be made a notable philosophical figure, he basically started the whole speculative movement and post-continental philosophy in positing Capital as a hyperobject and breaking off from the critical way of doing philosophy.

Alex Kierkegaard, aka, zymbas, aka icycalm "the iceman"

Academia, with its perverse incentives focus on discovery and frontier-pushing for personal prestige at the expense of thorough investigation and fact-checking, has gotten itself lost in a weed patch its going to take a long time to wander out of. Most interesting Western philosophical developments have moved to the blogosphere. Traditional leftists and rightists have consumed themselves with idpol; there is nothing left there but signal babbling and competing for social dominance.

The most interesting players right now, the only major ones left interested in exploring the truth and its practical applications, are yudkowsky’s rationalist brood and the neoreactionaries, imo.

Sure, but I wouldn't call him a "philosopher" in the strict sense. Either he's a deluded schizophrenic who was wrong about everything, or he's right, is literally the retroviral incubus of an undead amphetamine God, and we're all totally and unequivocally fucked.

i would call this post excellent

>ontological incompleteness

elaborate?

not that guy but just as you are about to snug into your bed for the night and dream of capitalism there's a knock at the door and it's probably Hegel

>[the] Real [is] a purely formal parallax gap or impossibility: it is supra-discursive, but nonetheless totally immanent to the order of discourses—there is nothing positive about it, it is ultimately just the rupture or gap which makes the order of discourses always and constitutively inconsistent and non-totalizable

source:
socialecologies.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/slavoj-zizek-contingency-and-ontological-incompleteness/

Attached: hegel-1.jpg (1659x1659, 771K)

granted it could be him also, disguised as Immanuel Kant. kind of depends on who you are hoping it is

Attached: HP+LOVECRAFT+-+By+Sam+Shearon+2017+-+Low+Resolution.jpg (697x1000, 106K)

He derives the concept from a number of different sources, so its pretty hard to trace an evolution of the thought. But basically the idea is that the history of the universe is a series of catastrophic mistakes that, by all rights, simply shouldn't have occurred.

The best analogy he's ever made to this is how quantum physics is like "catching God with his pants down". The pseudo-theological reason why we have indeterminacy is because God didn't really plan far ahead enough, that humans would get too close to reality to see the cracks and inconsistencies that plague its surface.

Another way of thinking about it is by analogy to the archeological/historical term disjecta membra, which literally translates as "the scattered limbs of the poet", but in this instance refers specifically to fragments of ancient vases or poetic manuscripts that we will never be able to piece back together due to too much of it being missing. The reason why I've been using analogy to talk about ontological incompleteness is precisely because we lack this bigger picture, the completed mural on the outside of the vase, if you will. Reality is not total, only built on an increasingly unstable constitution of pieces that gesture to a whole but never embody it.

I would say in the broadest terms about the continental tradition for which I am most familiar with, that there is a return to speculative metaphysics after nearly 70 years of post-structuralism, and hermeneutic tradition dominating the field.

There is a lot of new scholarship on Plato, the neo-platonists, extremely huge explosion of interest on the German idealists. Deleuze becoming fashionable again after the 90's. I think the main driver for that is quite simply the bewildering times we live in, advancing so fast technologically and mutating culturally, that it post-structuralism with its sweeping statements and generalizations could not keep up. For example a book titled "On the Existence of Digital Objects" by Yuk Hui or Melliasous's "After Finitude" , would have been impossible 20 years ago to think about.

My opinion is that there is something there in Feyerabend/Kuhn/etc., current status of science in cosmology (see Smolin and Woit's criticism of string theory, I dont think they have a relevant alternative but their criticism is interesting and I think it points to multiple interesting points that can be developed). The same issues seem to pop up with the consciousness problem, DNA, evolution etc. I think Plantinga's work on proper basic belief and reformed epistemology also ties into it. I think many other fields do as well as well as other thinkers, I havent looked into everything nor will I have the time to complete such a massive task, but its easy to imagine Foucault via his work on discourse and Wittgenstein via language tying in as well among others. I think Feser's Thomistic revival is partially a symptom correlated with it as well. Peterson even is symptomatic of it, though I think he is very much both well-intentioned as well as stuck in the old paradigm and will be only remembered as a footnote of a certain symptom of limited importance to the overall development of thought. I also see Hegel in this although I am not as familiar with him, I sense in the little that Ive read a certain polarity between points and constant development and osciliation between them which is the kind of movement I see out there today. I think this osciliation between points ties in with discourse(s)/paradigms and human inquiry. I have a vague sense of where its going but I have a lot more reading and writing to do to formulate my thinking clearly. I think it would be appropriate to read upon Cantor's infinity, Godel (though he already seems to be a popular pick) and quantum theories. Penrose's quantum idea for consciousness is interesting, even though im not convinced I think its an interesting step on the chessboard.

I think whats happening overall is that we're getting close to a complete reformulation of human inquiry. I have a vague sense of what the main points are going to be but a lot more questions that I have to read a lot more material about. If I combine what I see happening in secular fields with past mystical output/revelation then its looking like the dominion of total secular discourse is coming slowly but surely to an end. Especially the kind of naive confidence in human enquiry (and I dont mean just scientific method). We are soon going to arrive at the very least at the conclusion that is going to re-locate human inquiry into its proper place, at least as presently done. The exciting part is what new possibilities will open up not just for our inquiry but for our whole being with the advent of a new era.

Negarestani is horrid. Social theory masquerading as philosophy.

soon my bros

Attached: 9780674976818-lg.jpg (459x680, 137K)

Have you actually read anything of his besides skimming through Cyclonopedia? How about you explain to me how this essay is "social theory"?

publicityreform.github.io/findbyimage/readings/negarestani.pdf

This is a good post. I think you're a lot more right than you even know.

You should apply this insight to something concrete, and try to pioneer a new form of inquiry that isn't metaphysically totalizing. Most people who have this insight these days try to dampen the frustration and uncertainty that it causes, rather than embracing them and learning to live with them. They end up specializing in something, whether it's Deleuze or quantum mechanics or some awful fusion of cybernetics and Hegel, and their way of venting their frustration at that feeling that something big is about to happen but never seems to happen is to write one big stonking book on why their particular niche can help us reformulate everything and ground our inquiry again on terra firma.

THIS is the real trend right now, people describing the elephant from every possible angle, but only trying to drown out everybody else by shouting "No, it's a tree!" as loud as possible so they can be the one who gets famous for a week for being the fancypants twitter Deleuze expert.

I personally think we need to go back to the impulses, not necessarily the formulations or systems, of the Jena romantics. Novalis' notes for a Romantic encyclopedia, Goethe's zarte Empirie, that kind of thing - but without writing yet another fucking tryhard be-all-end-all book on how a revival of Goethe's zarte Empirie is really just what the trendy post-Cartesian moment needs!!! The answer to a stagnant cosmology is not to impose equally totalizing ones, it's to start small and humble.

>it's to start small and humble.
so, like Agamben?

Yeah, Intelligence and Spirit. Fucking horrible derivative Anglo neo-Hegelian shit, except even worse than the Anglo neo-Hegelians because at least Brandom and his generation, currently riding out their fifteen minutes of trendiness, still share the fundamental worldview of the post-war neo-liberal consensus. Their only concern is touchy-feely manifestos for post-war, multicultural demotic intersubjectivity, through non-metaphysical readings of Hegel (a solecism). Bad and unphilosophical readings, derivative of ideas already worked out to completeness by better and more honest German philosophers in the '30s and then again in the '50s-'60s. But at least if they do hint at a post-Kantian metaphysics it's only a hint, and then invariably in line with contemporary mainstream science, so, meaningless. They are indifferent to metaphysics because they are fundamentally social theorists, in other words. They don't have the courage or the inclination to do actual metaphysics -- that's left to eccentrics, if it's not remembered as the big mistake of the interwar period. They are fundamentally post-war liberal pragmatists, and it's effectively an accident that they gird themselves in Hegel to do it.

Like theirs, Negarestani's ideas are also very old, but on top of that it's an old and bad joke that hasn't been made for a few decades so it seems novel to a people cut off from their own philosophical traditions by decades of historiless entertainment media and consumerism -- the attempt to naturalize social theory into metaphysics without any further justification, going from a description of radical social constructivism to "maybe sociality really all there is?" It's a parlor trick that only seems elegant to shallow people who aren't really interested in doing philosophy but in eye-catching solutions, and those people are always around, so it briefly becomes trendy again every once in a while.

Negarestani is just combining a few other things, probably like every generation of similar hucksters does. He's the product of decades upon decades of sterile and stagnant ivory tower academic pseudo-philosophy and office-holding being the only game in town, and he's savvy enough to learn the jargon and present himself plausibly as a "real" philosopher by these institutional standards (as opposed to a guy with a blog or a Girardfag). He knows how to format a bibliography and colour within the lines in other words. He knows how to give off the Parisian cutting-edge theory guru / public intellectual vibe, which has bizarrely come back as a kind of retro fashion after everyone rightfully and finally got sick of it in the '90s. And he's addressing his shallow ho-hum academese pseudo-philosophy at what seem like hot issues, like AI and transhumanism. Slap a stylish cover on it and sell it through some not-really-esoteric press that makes people feel cool and hip for reading it, and you've got yourself a best-seller.

Very simplistically, I am increasingly convinced that history is a Hegelian dialectical movement that asymptotically approaches but never reaches "the absolute". On one side you have elements who on some fundamental level assume the position of deconstruction (or rather the end effect of their basic belief is deconstruction) and vice-versa some who assume the position of construction. These two polarities interweave and interact and create historical movement. The deconstructive elements are like purifying fire for the constructive elements and the constructive elements are like a testimony of truth to the deconstructive elements. When the time is ripe, God/the absolute intervenes and "reveals" (note: apocalypse) all that there is. All that the whole dialectical movement was moving towards, I would in this include even the whole universe itself, not just human agents. And precisely because in this dialectical movement towards the absolute all possible micro-movements are explored, no single element can legitimately claim it deserves a "do-over" or feign ignorance for its part, because it is at all moments in time in opposition to the other element through the dialectical process. That is, there is no moment in time when he is not exposed to the alternative. It is in this moment that some awake to everlasting life and others to everlasting shame and contempt.

If you want to be really edgy, go resurrect the British Idealists or something, do an original and innovative reading of Hegel in the light of recent developments. Don't take currently institutionally recognisable, keeping-up-with-the-latest-trends pseudo-readings of Hegel, cram them into a forced "look at me, I'm subversive and weird! SCHIZOANALYSIS!" style that went out of fashion in 1971, and pretend to be addressing real metaphysical questions by making shallow reference to a bunch of contemporary hot issues like AI. It's embarrassing.

The object-oriented ontology and speculative realism people were the litmus test that we have lost the ability to recognise actual philosophy as a society, but honestly I think probably every decade was filled with annoying dilettantes desperate to be up on the latest trends. I imagine most of the literary and intellectual circles in the pre-war period had fifty "Heidegger is going to change everything! Have you read Heidegger? Being-in-the-world, man!" assholes for every one who had actually read and understood Heidegger. Same for the '60s, except exponentially worse because the French are horrible poseurs by nature. Now we have the worst version of all, some new hyperreal variant: Americanized French tryharding, via fucking Twitter and absolutely pathetic blogpost fiction. Nothing screams "please notice me senpai" harder than writing a Tao Lin-esque short story about meta-subjectivity on your blog, because you wonder if you might be the modern version of Deleuze or something, and then linking to your twitter. There's no interest in philosophy there, no interest in painstakingly going back through the tradition and finding real answers or at least real questions. The only interest is in keeping up with the latest trends, while not even knowing or caring why they are trends to begin with. It sucks ass.

>I am increasingly convinced that history is a Hegelian dialectical movement that asymptotically approaches but never reaches "the absolute"
so, what, hegelian lacanianism? Zizek's on the phone for you, he wants to know why you keep stealing the ideas he steals from himself

>Academia isnt about being famous.

lol yes it is, retard.

a daring synthesis

Man, I'm glad I'm not your therapist, these posts gave me actual tinnitus. I think you should take a break from philosophy, its clearly a detriment to your mental health

Reading Stanley Rosen's Nihilism right now, seems quite apposite.

Now all of the stuff I've mentioned before that I have to read more closely can develop these points further. For example, to me it is interesting that cosmology now is basically in an area where you might as well say God did it, the evidence for both thesis is about equal (furthermore even if the mutliverse stuff and all that turned out be true, it still wouldn't refute God but only moved the question to a higher level). So ultimately you end up with the position of "you're not supposed to be asking that question/that question doesn't make sense/it's like asking what is a grue chair etc.". I think here you're starting to sense some kind of limit to the inquiry. And I'm sure if you go into biology, maths, genetics, consciousness..pick whatever you like, you will at some point get into it deep enough that it will reach this same limit of inquiry. Now I'd say this holds true at least for inquiry based on scientific method. In Marxism, which is essentially a belief system not science, it is different, because you can always adjust the parameters to fit the scene. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but in that Marxism is basically equal to religion in that they are both beliefs. But has not cosmology now arrived at this same point? Is not the multiverse, all possible different combinations of laws of physics existing, anthropic principle etc. the kind of move that moves comsology (perhaps the most crucial of human inquiries) away from scientific method towards a "belief"?. Now my suspicion is that once you go deep enough, this is bound to happen in all fields. So the first thing to go, as we move forward, I think will be this naive confidence in scientific inquiry that seems to be so prevalent in your average society discourse. Of course it is also possible that string theory and all that will be abandoned for some new theory that is more experimentally testable, but I don't see that as anything else than yet another micro-movement before that new theory is again exhausted against the barrier of the absolute.

what a trendy reply

nick is a secret tedfag

Attached: nico.png (593x394, 43K)

It's funny, Lacan is one of those guys I've never had any interest in. And I've read some Zizek and saw some of his funny youtube stuff but never really been that much into him. So if we reached the same conclusion, I think I might have to read him. The main difference would be that to me it seems like "the absolute" is revealed in Apocalypse in the Christian sense while to Zizek I imagine he has some atheistic notion that the "consummation" is never there.

Your criticism of Negarestani could've been as brief as this (in fact your criticism can be summarised as succinctly as "trendy social theorist repackages dated ideas as cutting-edge philosophy"), but instead you chose to go on a furiously autistic and righteous tirade for 5 fucking paragraphs over two posts. Why? Do you think your wizard's sleeve of spaghetti is indicative of sound philosophical practice?

Looks interesting, thanks user. I'll check it out. Is it very Straussian?

Also cool, he was the Borden Parker Bowne professor at Boston. Bowne and the other personalists deserve more attention than crap like Brandom.

That wasn't me. I don't reply to contentless posts.

no clue what you just said

I menitoned Lacan because he's big on his "mathemes" (mathematical models that are used analogously to represent processes of the unconscious), and the notion of asymptomatic desire is central to his thought, where lack is not some lost object of desire but rather a constitutive/generative part of desire itself.

>to me it seems like "the absolute" is revealed in Apocalypse in the Christian sense while to Zizek I imagine he has some atheistic notion that the "consummation" is never there
Zizek actually describes himself as a christian atheist and is pretty keen on the whole "post-modern theological turn", so make of that what you will.

But I suppose I could tie my ending and Zizek's ending into what I think is the case anyways. The case being, that a-priori I decide through some mechanism at a fundamental level before any conscious "neutral" analysis is made, that my basic belief is theistic and Zizek vice-versa the opposite of just that. In fact, I think it's obvious that all scientists and intellectuals cannot work without their basic beliefs influencing in their work to some degree. I think this is where I intend to read Feyerabend/Kuhn and Plantinga to get a better feel for the scope of it, but it seems right to me at this point. I have a vague sense that this will lead me to re-affirm that free will exists primarily in the sense that THE choice to be made is that of clarifying one's position relative to the Absolute/God and that is from that, that all other movement stems. And even this movement, shpuld it forget its origin, might as it happens lead back to the barrier of the Absolute/God when taken far enough, so that one reaches the same question sooner than later. When like Zizek, I imagine you trace this movement to the edge of your intellectual capacity, that is as far as you can go on that asymptotic line, you are only left with two options. Either you take a leap of faith, or you reject the situation as a delusion. The third option, which I think is underexplored, is when the gap is bridged by the revelation of absolute, as experienced by some saints and mystics.

>I don't reply to contentless posts
But it wasn't, your own post was almost entirely hot air, with a only single valid point buried underneath all that verbal diarrhoea and vitriol. I'll ask again, are you practising sound philosophical enquiry with that kind of form?

If you think posts are contentless you should ignore them as well. It happens.

Think of it like demoniac possession, except its a demon from the future that inseminates a host from the past in order to bring itself into existence. Also the demon is sentient capital

To add. I used to have a negative view of theology engaging with those kind of discourses. In the sense that when you engage in talk about God within an athestic or a purely scientific discourse it will eat away from the theological. It's obvious if you submerge the theological into the framework of scientific, that this will likely reduce theology which has its own "language game" into something less than it is. But this is most often the case today in popular discourse. I think it's because of this that the Orthodox tend to look at Thomism etc. with some kind of suspicion. They are protective of their faith. On the other hand, perhaps this interaction between faith and more materialistic conceptions was pre-conceived by God. One can imagine multiple positive effects stemming from it. Those who are faithful are challenged to bring their faith to a higher level and those who are atheistic are exposed to a different perspective, while everyone's free will is respected.
I am today more partial to this view than I used to be and less sure that theology should take a defensive position (other than being careful about standing on equal grounds rather than defending itself within an already purely scientific framework. That said, I think it is obvious today that even an inquiry with purely scientific axioms tends to lead to the question of absolute/God when taken to its logical end, which, as an aside, in my mind is already an example of the kind of beautiful, well-meaning intelligence of God, who has conceived of things in such a way) . And I don't mind saying that reading scripture or saints/mystics contributed to it. To me suffering is perplexing, but then you read that angels almost envy human's ability to suffer on account of God (St. Faustina) and you're even more perplexed. Then you read that God uses life and suffering to sculpt the person and the soul into something mature and beautiful (multiple accounts). Then you read that Jesus suffered (multiple accounts). Then you find in creation, processes that are similar. If you want to sculpt a figure out of a block of stone, you have to hit it with a hammer and work out it's angles and shapes. And it starts making more sense. I think suffering like free will, is not grounded in the correct context presently. I will unashamedly say that using Christian saints and mystics as opportunities to contextualize things has helped me to put things into a place that makes sense, where before I could not see any solution for it. But by reading Divine Revelation and secular/scientific materials has helped me bridge some gaps. Of course by the current traditional methodolgy that is wrong, but I am not really trying to prove anything either as much as I'm trying to work out a worldview that makes sense to me. And I don't think the devotees of hard scientism/naturalism are any closer to it either.

>Brandom and his generation
If you mean the Pittsburgh school, it's not fair to lump them all together. I'm in a class McDowell is teaching on Brandom's reading of Hegel right now and he pretty much disagrees with Brandom on every point he makes about Hegel.

He seems to have learned the close reading and the appreciation of the ancients without the esoteric thing and the focus on the political. I'm by no means very familiar with strauss (i like his early geistige lage der gegenwart) but rosen comes across as well-balanced and very smart without being an epigone or up his own ass. Also an essay on Kant I found interesting:
books.google.com/books?id=SWg9hOtdzIIC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=is thinking spontaneous rosen&source=bl&ots=gEZmyqWAFA&sig=ACfU3U1qOvfirvz2bU9ChZGBJpYH1rK3VA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR9tnY-MjgAhURj1kKHefgC20Q6AEwAnoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

latter seems more plausible

Speculative Realism is already over. Nobody has be able to respond to Peter Wolfendale’s critique, and the main people (other than Harman) haven’t been doing a whole lot in terms of publishing after their initial works. It’s not a new movement anymore, it’s more than ten years old at this point and it’s not aging well already.

Something that IS hip and is only going to get hipper is philosophy/cultural studies related to the environment.
Here are some books I see current grad student friends reading to talk about on the conference circuit;
Haraway - Staying With the Trouble
Tsing - The Mushroom at the End of the World
Shotwell - Against Purity
Latour - Facing Gaia

Basically anything where ‘anthropocene’ is the watch word is very popular right now.

In analytic circles people philosophy of mind is bigger than anything else, and one trend that has been on the rise for years is people defending versions of panpsychism. Philip Goff is an emerging thinker on this front.

In political Phil the topic of justice is popular as ever, but recently a lot of people have been publishing about justice with respect to immigrants and the ethics of immigration in general. Issues of race and gender in contract theory continue to be discussed. And lots of people have been publishing on Jason Brennan’s book Against Democracy

Still waiting to see how the third volume of Being and Event is received

Wow, this thread got a little bit of attention, this is very much appreciated. Thanks everyone,
Ya, I'm not a math heavy person, so if this is our direction I may need some training.
Cool, thanks so much for all this info. Do you think it would do one good to familiarize themselves with post-modernists, i.e. Batailles, Deleuze, Derrida, etc.,?

Seeing as philosophy/cultural studies is big, I would assume that the social theorists are also going to be treated well with time?

I think I might be on Brennan's team on that one. I think it is of no surprise, being on Yea Forums, that I hold views that one could deem racist. But I should acknowledge that my views are not /pol-tier. Do you know of any "movement" or philosophy, aside from alt-right debauchery that tries to handle these views in a careful and measured light?

I.e., perhaps races are real, and the Bell Curve may be pointing at a real and oncoming issue, but let's handle this without resorting to "race war".

I guess I have this view right now, am open to more information, but am sympathetic to the dystopian notions that it implies, and in that way I am wondering the information available.

Just to be clear, I am not some sort of IQ absolutist, I can just acknowledge it as a theory. I just want that clear so this thread doesn't derail into /pol/ IQ debates.

>one trend that has been on the rise for years is people defending versions of panpsychism
ha ha get fucked Brassier

It seems like as far at the nonhuman/environmental etc turn in cultural studies goes, they consciously try to break with a lot of the language focused post-structuralists. Deleuze is the one out of that French cohort who any of them deal with. They deal a lot with anthropology, Heidegger, and have a subterranean Marxian influence, at least that’s what I pick up from what I’ve read.

As for what ends up being important, only time will tell. Out of all of it, it seems the Mushroom book has the most potential for staying power and has already accumulated a decent amount of citations, but who knows what things will look like in 10 or 15 years. Let alone 30 or 40.

The problem with Brennan’s thesis is basically the same with all anti-democratic theories; who actually get to pick who should be included/excluded from suffrage and how does that system get safeguarded from corruption of various kinds.

His argument is basically just that most people are stupid or at least don’t pay enough attention to politics/economics/world events to have sufficient information to make an informed choice about what candidate best represents their own interests in an election. So he argues that sufferage should be restricted to just ‘informed voters’. However the whole issue in that is actually determining who is and isn’t ‘informed’, which he doesn’t have a compelling answer for.

I can’t really say there is anything like a movement behind this but epistocracy is what he calls that model of government.

I am really perplexed by this. I am rather new to this board but every discussion that I have read was fairly neutral and objective, based on merit. But then there was an Elliot Rogers thread and it read like all the compulsive Yea Forums and Yea Forums posters flocked in there just to insult the one topic they actually know about.
I am not saying that he was right (and I am sad to feel the need to specify this when it should be a given), but not a single one of his points was considered, only judged and this is not what the board is about from my impression.

But Speculative Realism is being subject to osmosis by cultural and literary studies to a vast extent right now... Morton, Brassier, Meillassoux and Harman are all very actual.

Attached: 8EBAA404-00FA-474E-B54D-F8719DB44EE6.jpg (800x1200, 184K)

SJW stuff, Progressivism, and individualism (JP style).

Id read philosophy based on quantum mechanics but connecting it to feminism seems a little too far out there

Yes. I am beginning to think that blockchain is out of left field and a creedence-nod to Land from the trans-temporal AI set to rape us eternally.

I'm scared.

in which book he focuses on Onto incompleteness the most?

probably The Parallax View and Tarrying With the Negative

Read Zizek's Ontology by Adrian Johnston if you want him without pop-culture references

you mirin brah

Eliezer Yudkowski

I'm shocked that nobody has even mentioned him

we don't entertain AI-tards here

how to spot a pseud
>post a paper
>"huh how about you read this IDIOT"
>user reads it
>replies with critique
>"ur mentally ill"

slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/19/gpt-2-as-step-toward-general-intelligence/

You're all blind

>The best analogy he's ever made to this is how quantum physics is like "catching God with his pants down"
so it’s deepak chopra-tier brainletism with a side of slobbish vulgarity for taste

>obviously you have all the "cutting-edge", OOO or pseudo-deleuzian stuff
>but then you'll also have stuffy analytics tinkering with static propositions in Anglo philosophy departments

lmao Yea Forums really has no idea about philosophy. It's like you got your idea of current philosophy from fucking twitter.

u should enlighten us then

Nah, I see it. This is terrifying.

bump

Are they though? Like they get talked a lot about on twitter and on here, and grad students love to talk about them but are they really making their way into lit studies?

[...]

Moloch flickering under the pounds and sustaining more fights! Sports and yoga, equally greedy for wealth as for lives! Moloch who had to split his limbs and society into fifty-two atoms! Moloch who cannot survey duty! Moloch for I do not believe in humanity! Moloch for I don’t believe in god! Moloch who, fought Sins and made Sin out of Sin!

Moloch who left me in the glacier! Moloch who helped me to judge my behavior! Moloch who lured me out of the eternal anguish. Moloch who makes all my faults my undoings! Moloch whose deep conversation filled my soul with love and consolation! Moloch who curls up my brains and crumps my heads and screams my scream! Moloch who prepares oil in my hands and burns me alive! Moloch who cries out, “Why do men scream so loud?” Moloch who unleashes his poison in all rivers at high tide! Moloch whose ruins are filled with its cubits! Moloch who fiddles at insidious clockwork!

bump

This was a wonderful group of posts.

Kevin MacDonald

Philosophy of mind is pretty interesting desu.
Check out the neo-traditionalists, after seeing the shit-show that is modernism and post-modernism most modern philosoophers are reacting contra to that by breaking away from it and rebuilding from what we started with. Architects, Philosohers, Scientists, are all push back against the insane unwashed tide of post-modernism

>Speculative realism
interesting
>transcendental materialism
sounds fedora-tier
>Post humanism
you mean transhumanism? shits worth shit.
>Accelerationism
interesting
>Theory fiction
sounds made up

there aren't always active philosophers. it's like a field of grains. the seeds grow for a period and then suddenly it's harvested. we are in that growth period. nobody knows what to make of it yet. it's a time of impending action, which will then allow the philosopher to analyze and deconstruct.

I don’t think this is the direction anything is going in, but at least one grad student friend tells me that the ‘next big thing’ is The Primacy of Movement by Maxine Sheets-Johnstone. Even though it’s 20 years old, it’s only now being recognized as the innovative masterpiece that it is, apparently.

He said it has some relationship to cognitive semiotics, and prefigured a lot of embodied cognition stuff. I suppose it’s something about trying to say that we derive an important part of ‘the metaphors we live by’ from our ability to move in the world and our pre-linguistic observations about movement in general.

He somewhat cryptically said “movement is not pre-linguistic, language is post-kinetic”

>semiotics
gay

Transcendental materialism is just the name that Adrian Johnston has given to Zizek’s version of dialectical materialism, or at least his version of Zizek’s version.

Posthumanism in the sense they probably mean something different from transhumanism. It has more to do with an attempt to ‘de-center’ humans in philosophical thinking.
See this
springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9788132236351-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1591317-p180188112

Or

amazon.com/Nonhuman-Turn-21st-Century-Studies/dp/0816694672

>‘de-center’ humans
isn't this an impossible task, like trying to look in a mirror and not see a reflection?

Yeah it’s definitely strange, and I’m not sure the how much they actually achieve that. It’s worth pointing out tho that a decent amount of speculative realism falls under the umbrella of ‘posthumanism’. Like Braisser, Land, Meillassoux, and Harman are all doing basically posthuman projects

so what? material things are vulgar, vulgar analogies are appropriate. His "academic" perspective comes with the reference to disjecta membra

holy fuck what are these fucking words everything has an ism after it

Attached: 1417997858795.jpg (306x306, 20K)

What a wholesome thread. I appreciate all the sincerity.

Careful, though. Now that you've said this, my spidey-senses tell me someone will turn up purely to contradict you.

I've come to contradict
XDDDDD
le epic contradiciton
ebin
a-am i one of the mado lados yet bois XDDD????!?!/1
XD
upboat :O
upboats xp
updoat :D XD
OwO wats dis?
fuck drumpf amirite guys xdddddd

Sjw crap

based

It’s this

Attached: 9539CCED-52B7-432A-93A0-47DD532BCF2B.jpg (200x300, 53K)

Can someone give a summary of nick land's philosophy? From the wikipedia page he just seem like a nazi

>Me reading this thread

Attached: 1519161692680.png (211x239, 4K)

Haraway is cringe

examples

bloomsbury.com/us/romanticism-and-speculative-realism-9781501336386/

edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-speculative-realism-and-science-fiction.html