Why isnt anyone doing anything big or radical in philosophy or even literature today...

Check out Bruno Latour

Probably some literally whos in academia or counter-academia that aren't going to be widely renown for their ideas for another 10 to 20 years. While Peterson and Harris are well known right now, their ideas either don't hold as much water as the postmodernists or do not have as severe far-reaching consequences. Truly great minds don't come about often. If you are looking for the next Heidegger, Nietzsche, Russel or Putnam, you'll have to dig deeper than the most currently popular.

>dress like the man you want to be
>dresses like a goober nerd faggot

his philosophy sucks

Time hasn't sorted them out yet, philosophy only got the spotlights for a few years and now it went back to academia where the plebs can't possibly know what's going on inside

That shitty and short boilerplate quote LMAO

and again as rotten farce...

This image is fucking eerie.

The internet killed everything and formed this weird mass or democratic memeposting field. One step closer to singularity.

philosophy was over with wittgenstein. rorty brought the point home.

deleuze/guattari and the other pomo’s were sophists judging by the standards of philosophical discourse, or they were doing some form of literature/poetry at best.

philosophy today is just academics masturbating in a circle.

t. phil graduate

There is some really interesting work being done in analytic metaphysics at the moment.

You lack imagination
t. philosophy grad student

Fuck him, he's a fraud. Anyone that has read more than 2 books in his life should know that 80% of J.B. Peterson talks are just pure bullshit.

Based

Alain Badiou and his disciples like Quentin Meillassoux will probably come to dominate philosophical discourse in the next few decades

r-accelerationism/NRx/(even old CCRU stuff) has huge sights set on the economy, mainly bitcoin and to read more and more about is extremely interesting. The stuff Yuk Hui is doing using Easter Philosophy to pin point issues and unique solutions is cool too. The only problem is all their work is very lacking and Philo. of tech is pretty much unseen in the Americas but praised in the European Angle sphere,China,Singapore etc etc. I think the stuff Zizek can be very helpful but its very obvious at this point we need a breakthrough not more speculation.

literally all of them are just repackaging old stuff for a modern audience especially Peterson
Zizek is at least pushing the envelope a bit and talks more about uniquely modern issues

This
Baidou crew ww@

>Probably some literally whos in academia or counter-academia that aren't going to be widely renown for their ideas for another 10 to 20 years.
aka me, unironically

Science has taken the spotlight, probably will be some nu-religion revival and than perhaps phil will comeback after.

>It is thus quite simply false that whereof one cannot speak (in the sense of 'there is nothing to say about it that specifies it and grants it separating properties'), thereof one must be silent. It must on the contrary be named.
Literal brainlet talking about shit he doesn't understand
What work of his is most likely to change my mind?

>muh zizek

The guy is a Marxist and a fraud. Get over with him.

Anyway, good authors who "push boundaries" are hard to find because all boundaries have been pushed by Plato and his predecessors already. Even relativism etc. is already present in Greece. The revolt against the dominating culture and the Gods was present in Ancient Greece too (Xenofanes it was, I think, who said that if cows and negros had gods, then they'd make them cow-like and negro-like).

Now the dominating ACADEMIC culture is left-wing, so if you want "radical" thinkers you'll have to look for them on the right. But by "radical" I mean just polemic, not truly radical in their ideas because, as I said, no one has truly been so for the last thousands of years. The thing I'd most consider "radical" today would be stuff like anti-natalism, panpsychism, anti-Darwinism (Jerry Fodor), teleology in science (Nagel), anti-philosophy (Kit Fine) and so on, and most of it is just wrong.

The post-modernists offered no challenge to philosophy. They didn't even know how to structure a proper argument. Neither does Zizek.

Continentals are a joke, have low IQ and cannot think very well.

Try Agamben, Didi-Hubermann, Alain Badiou and Jean-Luc Nancy.

extreme cringe

But I specifically disagree with this; even in right now there's huge skepticism on his neoplatonism, and just disconnect with set theorist. No one, seriously no one in set(topos) theory cares at badiou.

Saying "women are mean" and "my free speech is being repressed" isn't philosophy kiddo

>You'll have to dig
into my diary desu

>Russel
>great mind
?

Len Wilber, in "Religion of Tomorrow

>great mind
huh? What do people mean by it?

takes a while to sift through material. imo quine is going to be viewed as a significant contributor to epistemology with the passing of a couple of centuries.

pseud

This, any of the garbage speculative realism or OOO stuff was already done better by him and Isabelle Stengers

Humanities have never been in a better position than today, exactly for the reasons you mentioned. There is so much stuff one can do its befuddling why universities are so narcoleptic today. Most are caught up in the linguistic turn and critical theory. But Nick Land, OOO, and speculative realism showed that you can think radically today without being caught up in cultural theory or the "linguistic turn" aspect of post-modernism as the "end all be all" of theory. Of course these aren't the chief new paradigm to be followed dogmatically, but point to the right attitude and paradigm shift in humanities happening quietly.

>philosophy was over with wittgenstein. rorty brought the point home.
yup, you're retarded

idealism up in this bitch

Attached: 1526782028295.jpg (367x550, 34K)

The public intellectual is dead we are left with pseuds like Peterson and Harris

Russel certainly wasn't a Plato or Kant, but he was one of the premier minds in the Analytic tradition.

Parfit, Land, Singer, Butler, the speculative realists, Scanlon, Fisher, etc, etc.
The reason they're not that well known is because time hasn't ossified them into legends yet. I have no doubt that, in 100 years, philosophers like Parfit will be as highly regarded as, e.g. Hume.

There's nothing to be gained from these contemplations, you're just revisiting known knowledge over and over. This faces the same problems Cusa faced.

some of this, we're in the middle anons

artilleriainmanente.noblogs.org/post/2016/05/11/guy-debord-a-proposito-de-alain-badiou/

>Enjoy Zizek's ramblings about film
>Listen to some of his lectures
>Get inspired to spend some time with Hegel, Lacan and Baidou
>Return to The Sublime Object of Ideology
>It all makes sense
>Notice the circular nature of ideology everywhere. Even people I once respected are reduced to ignorant pseuds perpetually asking the wrong questions
Turn back now, I've seen too much

Peter Kingsley
A whole branch of philosophy opened within the last 5 years get with it

>carl jung and the end of humanity
I have read pretty much Jung's entire biblio, have you read this book? I don't waste time with pseudo-mystics and disheveled, alienated anglos talking about esoterism so convince me to check him out

Jacques Ranciere and Bruno Latour are interesting if you’re into a specific strand of Critical Theory. It’s true that there is not as much ultra audacious stuff going on that complete reinvents anything, but there are a few old folks doing a interesting work. For lit, if you’re looking for weird stuff, into the Castle is worth a look, as well as some of the recommendations of Blake Butler. He’s not perfect and you’ll note he and his friends’ influences, but if anything wild is gonna come out of America, then it’ll probably be connected to those folks.

guess how I can tell you stopped at a BA?

>The guy is a Marxist
yikes, imagine thinking this was an argument

>Parfit
based

“I am Orpheus” Carl says to the institute, to a silent a bewildered crowd of his most loyal scholars. “Here is my life’s work” he continues, holding up the Red Book.

Decades have passed, a young boy named Peter asks about the Red Book, but they just scratch their heads. “I’m sorry, we just don’t know”.

Philosophy major here. Meillassoux had to judge my essay along with a Deleuze student and late publisher. It's always strange for me to see his name here, i even seen memes about them.

I stopped before doctorate and i'm not anymore in the academia subculture, I just can talk for the ""french intellectuals"". Badiou is known as a mediatic figure, but as an old maoist who wrote very complex books, he is like Althusser but he didn't kill his wife.

Meillassoux may do lectures abroad but here he is unknown outside some parisian philosophy teachers circles.

>Kingsley
Only his first book is worth reading...

>Haha look at me I'm retarded.
w/e dude

?

Attached: 554B21B4-6027-4317-B094-6052F3415BE4.jpg (324x499, 30K)

Unironical /pol/

That's the one. Rest are shite.

It’s proof of his scholarship for sure but I’m liking Reality a lot

ever heard of transgressive, bizzarro fiction? radical enough for you op?

just so you know, I have finished writing my first novel which is about a homeless man obsessed with sucking cock, and will be sending it to beta readers tomorrow morning. Hope to get noticed by a publisher, but if they dont care, then self-published it will be. Title is "Irrumator". Anyone wants to read and give me an honest opinion, drop me an email

Wait who's Peter Kingsley? Is someone actually writing interesting stuff about Jung at the minute who isn't butchering it like JP is?

Attached: 1398444221204.jpg (300x300, 37K)

>mfw I am the greatest philosopher of our age and I'm not gonna share my work with anyone

Attached: 1554477566243.jpg (640x640, 38K)

>not even with me, user?

Attached: 20190415_233838.jpg (808x959, 399K)