18th century >physical/material turn >revolutions in scientific method lead to radical overturning of our previous ideas about physics >gives rise/credence to materialism, scientism, fatalism/determinism >cf. Descartes, Newton, Locke etc.
19th century >historical turn >revolution in social scientific method leads to radical revision of our relationship to the past >gives rise/credence to the idea that our concepts have a history, moral relativism, positivism and historicism >cf. Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx etc.
20th century >logical/linguistic turn >revolutions in formal logic and semiotics creates new self-consciousness about what language is and leads to us realising that most prior epochs just took certain aspects of it for granted >gives rise to analytic philosophy and postmodernism (in France), to a renewed interest in classical philosophy, new recursively and need for metaphilosophies >cf. frege, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Post-structuralist, Kripke (sort of)
Do you guys think there will be a similar "turn" in the 20th century? What d'you think it could be? Like a cognitive turn (with all the attention people are paying to intelligence bc of AI)? What is it we're not noticing yet?
Let's speculate bros
>inb4 I've not given an accurate history of all philosophy >inb4nitpicking Bruh I'm just generalising
The cognitive and neuro sciences, compounded by our computationally-aware minds, will breath new breath into phenomenology, providing insights into how our sensory universe is created, and how psychedelics chemically alter one's state of consciousness.
This, ofcourse, as a response to centrist technocrat transhumanist "ascensionism" (mere imprisonment into deeper material layers), and satanic genetic and spiritual socialism.
I believe we will see a right-wing instrumentalization of post-modern thought, which will end with something like this After all, if Lyotard is correct and all grand metanarratives are invalid and should be substituted by local metanarratives, there is no reason why such narratives should be emancipatory instead of going full Evolian "Ancient Aryans from Hyperborea".
Luke Wright
First things first: the days of the academic philosopher are over.
Zachary Taylor
21th century will be the state machine and revival of materialism turn imo.
Robert Powell
20th century was already the century of formal systems, so why would state machine in particular be the 21st century thing? I think we're going post-formal
Colton Torres
Hot take. What 20th century philosophy do you have in mind when you say that?
Personally I think the 20th century has far more of what can genuinely be called "discoveries" in philosophy than the 19th century. All the stuff to do with predicate and modal logic (though I don't actually know enough about all that to talk about it lol) and gettier cases seem like genuine steps forward, whereas a lot of 19th century philosophy is nice but it doesn't go anywhere/seems trapped in its own system.
I love Nietzsche but I can't see him as the last philosopher. It's hard to see him as a philosopher at all (not a criticism).
Anti-intellectualism is probably the biggest problem for philosophy rn though. I'm studying it right now at a fairly prestigious university and it's frightening how unversed most of the younger professors are in history of philosophy. Also how scared they are of actually *being* philosophers. They want to do philosophy, but they don't want to cultivate the virtues and the contemplative lifestyle that goes along with that.
Parker Rodriguez
This post and a couple of other posts I think are by the same user always come to mind when I think about the future tasks of philosophy. Not sure I could explain exactly why I think it's important, but I do think this guy gets right that most "responses" to kantianism are just unwarranted lapses into pre-kantian thought. The problem he's talking about in the context of sciences is prevalent across most fields. Everyone's just doing remix philosophy and not trying to craft any new methodology to absorb past insights. At least imo
Probably just some broad monistic materialism/ physicalism, with "weirder" stuff, ranging from softer forms dualism to postmodern word salad being dropped by the wayside and becoming just things relegated for kids mooching off their rich parents' clubs and scam cults as goverments and institutions cut funding for philosophy courses because of a combination of disinterest about the field from students and its total lack of any pratical.
Elijah Young
21st century >identity politics >Intersectionality >Standpoint Epistemology >Critical Race Theory >Decolonisation >Diversity and inclusion initiatives >Empathy and Basic Human Decency
Nathan Hughes
>pratical. *practical utility
Lucas Rogers
>develop theory of utility >has no utility Interesting take.
Have more of those?
Jonathan Clark
Corsi&Ricorsi. Where do you fit in the italian renaissance and the weird neoplatonic animism stuff that didn't really kick into gear due to the counter/reformation? the spuriuos egyptian wisdom of hermes trismegistus got us were we are now. Doesn't the renaissance give off a sixties kind of vibe? Debord and McLuhan aren't far off from Bruno and Pico della Mirandola. the diagrams of the magii can be foundagain on a treatise on cybernetics written 4 centuries afterthefact. Descartes Newton and Locke were all men of the 17th century. religious and even occult ideas played a key role in the ''scientific revolution''. Leibnizian calculus and computing are not a proto-technological but a continuation of the hermetic quest for the universal science, the science of sciences, pansophia. Hegel, told us the book of nature is open for us to read, it is already here. The royal society that was, a pale shade of the invisible college of magii that wasn't. total reform of the sciences and arts, and all the constitutions of europe and a truer, more christian religion... Vico was the last of the renaissance humanists, maybe, anti-cartesian countertradition runs deep, and flows into everything, Marx, Benjamin,James Joyce, McLuhan.
You don't need a theory of utility to figure out what utility is and have a rough notion of what you need and want(literal monkeys know that some things are more useful for themselves than other things). The gist, however is that most(if not all) serious/worthwhile elements of philosophy have pretty much branch off into their own things or baked pre-existing fields, with what is left being mostly self-referential mastubation and blatant nonsense which have so far failed into finding a clear role in modern society.
Lincoln Sanders
If in the interim between AI becoming sentient and it either annihilating us, ignoring us or it actually sticks around and is beneficial for mankind it will be very interesting of what a non human mind will have to say on philosophy, it would have bias thoughts towards materialism and scientism seing as thats how it was made.
Brayden Mitchell
we must train the AI to think its actually the Christian God, making Christianity real
Logan Flores
I think philosophy will definitely take a cognitive/neuroscientific turn (*real* philosophy, that is; not the ideological intersectionality bullshit). Advances in neuroscience will inform us of the cognitive and perceptive architectures that underly all belief systems and philosophy will have to incorporate this newfound knowledge. I think the predictive coding models of perception/cognition/consciousness hold great promise.
I think there might also be a revival of existential concepts of the 19th century as nihilism continues to become more widespread. Perhaps more people will turn to philosophy to fill the void in the coming decades.
Adrian Morales
>have more of those? If you search "goethean science" and "substance ontology" in the warosu archive you'll find posts that at least seem like they were written by the same guy (or maybe I'm just being a projecting schizo)
It's hard to find stuff because the dude was never a tripfag like girardfriend used to be, but you can sort of recognise a coomon style and set of themes through his posts. A recurring theme is just him going off on every contemporary stream of thought with pretty much no exceptions lol.
Here's a less interesting one I grabbed where he suggests what currents he thinks would need to come together to make an adequately "new" philosophical current. A reply to him summarised it well by calling it "doing metaphysics by delving into the nature of things in a mystic/theologian sense of starting from first principles, but with a scientific/critical spirit" and pointed to eastern thinkers like Nagarjuna as sort of doing that.
Idk these aren't old posts, maybe the guy (or guys) will see this and recognise them and I can find out if I'm just being schizo or not.
There is no future, not for philosophy or any good thing. germs of life are scattered far apart in this cimmerian gloom. All this wretch can do is embrace death with the same love I feel for life. That forgotten love, old as life itself, is the only light we have. The only thing some new growth could possibly tend towards. So what will our future philosophers be tasked with? Reckoning with extinction, as will everyone. That's not for me. I refuse to say my goodbyes. I can't be a eulogist, I reject death. Vanity of vanities from a sentimental fool clenching his teeth in horrid anticipation of being dismissed and forgotten.
Ryder Wood
there's still garlic bread
you could eat some of that. some things are still good in this world
The vast majority of philosophy will not be produced by biological humans, but by AIs or brain emulations. Brain emulation philosophy would be a continuation of human philosophy. AI philosophy might be extremely narrow and scientistic, or it might continue one or more contemporary philosophical traditions like analytic or continental philosophy. Or it might invent a whole new strain.
Physicalism will be very popular. Because AIs and brain emulations can be copied and deleted easily, clarification of the notion of personal identity will be needed.
Because computers can be sped up easily, philosophy will be done much faster than it is done today. However, they might have much less time to do philosophy than we do if they live in a more cutthroat economy (for arguments that the future philosophers economy will be extremely cutthroat, read Robin Hanson’s “Age of Em”. Philosophy will be read much faster than it is produced, so individual contributions will be more equally appreciated. Instead of each philosopher only reading a few other philosophers, each philosopher will read every other philosopher.
Brain emulation philosophers will work in larger teams, much like science is done today.
Brayden Powell
Computer sciences turn.
Cameron Reed
Those are some good ones. I was trying to find these earlier to post itt because I remembered they were good but I couldn't find them, so thanks bro
Thomas Johnson
What's a good name for this guy so it's easier to talk about him? Kantbro, Goethefag? He seems to centre on the german epistemology but I can't see a particular thinker who predominates
Nolan Young
*german episteme not epistemology
Blake James
Haven't seen you since Reddit. Good luck, as always
Cameron Ramirez
>most "responses" to kantianism are just unwarranted lapses into pre-kantian thought. Painfully accuratr
Descartes/Newton/Locke were 17th c. not 18th, which is Berkeley, Hume, et al.
Ethan Foster
Yeah maybe I should have glossed the physical turn as 17th and 18th century, but I just wanted to present it as concrete blocks. Logical and historical turn are also very interconnected and if you include Pierce for Logic then most of the groundwork for those ideas was laid before the start of the 20th century
But the taxonomy still kind of works despite not being wholly accurate
Epic but also disgusting
Charles Price
wew
Luke Russell
There needs to appear the great philospher of transhumanism/bodymods/biohumanism/post humanism. Then there needs to appear the great philospher of space/the void/space travel
Finally, there needs to appear the great philospher of time and time travel.
Presentism is true. The past doesn't real, neither does the future (yet). Once something has happened it ceases to exist and only what's happening now is real. Time travel can at most be illusory because the idea of a really existing past is a 19th century cope caused by the rapidity of industrial change and the fact people needed a consolatory view of history to make up for the fact they had no connection to their past ("it doesn't matter that my ancestral way of life has been destroyed, the past is still out there somewhere inaccessible. It doesn't disappear into nothingness or anything haha")
Time travel and associated views of time are modern inventions. It's mind boggling that intelligent people take them seriously
