Is there anything left to discover in philosophy? Or have we reached the end of what is possible for humans?

The sum of alll human thought possible was manifested as a transcendental fountain of information the moment the first modern human mind developed. All "discoveries" have merely been particular drops from the fountain that evaporated out of memory. Not saying there are things people haven't necessarily written down before, but there is a clear and hard cap on what the human mind is capable of

holy shit

>the moment the first modern human mind developed.
what do you mean by "modern"? are you a proponent of the bicameral mind theory, where until relatively recently humans experienced thoughts as spoken commands from gods to be obeyed?
either way, in an event like you describe, this "sum of all human thought possible" would be experienced entirely subconsciously, regardless of the bicameral mind theory

I think the "sum of all human thought possible" has been present with us for a long time, in the form of the subconscious, mythological archetypes, dreams, states reachable my meditation etc. It developed as humanity developed, in tens of thousands of years, with a more animalistic form of it present even longer, all we can do is bring it out with reason, see the ends of it, perhaps try to go beyond, but as it's already so old it's also already polished and near it's limit

>It's Pelagian Vs Augustinianism as new
There's about another millennium until Kant if you're viewing time as a linear progression

>viewing time as a linear progression

so you are saying there will never be anything new again

No the opposite

If you think society is perfect and there couldn't possibly be any more improvement then there wouldn't be too much left to discover

Attached: 1549493416367.png (641x541, 279K)

long post to waste on a false equivalence

false equivalence is not a fancy way of saying bad analogy

that's just political theory though, who gives a shit - wow, a more efficient way to organize an ant-hill, I'm on the edge of my fucking seat

I agree with your last point, and don't care/know much about the first. I've heard of it, but it doesn't necessarily interest me. What I mean mostly is that, what is possible with a human mind (however you define that) necessarily is possible all at once, but what we "know" or think at the moment is limited even more so than what is possible. Take someone like Plato. He thought through a lot of shit. He didn't get everything, and we still haven't, but if he started from a different metaphysical point or perhaps had limitless fluid intelligence and memory, he would have eventually been able to work through every possible human thought. Now, intelligence plays a part in what a specific human can understand, and certain ideas will be incomprehensible to lower intelligence people, but the higher intelligence thoughts are still among the possible human thoughts.
I'm not saying that by simply writing shit down we'll rediscover the lost Greek epics, but we will borrow the same plots, character archetypes, etc. Sort of like the monkey typewriter thing, except more general and less about specific works.
Regardless, I think it helps to think of it by comparing thought to vision or other senses. For example, we assume there are more wavelengths of energy than visible light. We can comprehend the concept of them, but we can never directly experience them. If the next human evolution (forgive my terminology) of the mind came along, we could probably understand roughly it's concepts, but if it began dealing with thoughts in a different way, it would have its own and new sum of possible thoughts.
That being said, I genuinely belive some form of autism is the next human evolution

I agree with most of this

like with what

no response... what a brainlet

>That being said, I genuinely belive some form of autism is the next human evolution

Literature for this feel?

rei koz has realigned philosophy to its proper course

None that I can think of. Maybe Moby Dick?

Hegel

There's a caveat to your question: For someone of your conditions, maybe there's nothing significantly diverging you will take in anymore. However, for someone with different background and context (a trans person would be a cliche example by now), they can go and realize the world in a new few that nobody in any of the current and old hegemonics were able to see it.
I know this sounds like I want to force SJW vocabulary on you - but I mean it genuinely. Schopenhauer naturally couldn't view the world the same way as Socrates, and a 20% human sciborg will eventually ground the philosophy different than those guys yet again.

In summary, the answer is thus: yes, there's things to be discovered in philosophy that are new, for someone.

In other words, novel mental illnesses and perversions produced by civilization are the path towards novel philosophy. I agree with that, actually.

plenty more to discover

next time don't post at all if this is all you have to say

You could spin it like that, but I'm skeptical of whether it was ever different. Many modernist would characterize philosophy as superstition and desperate pattern searching.

>superstition and desperate pattern searching.
So this is why the incels are so attracted to it. Have sex.

I didn't even take any side

if you're not with us, you're against us

Attached: 0066a934-ae31-45bd-ac06-6169a61701d7.jpg (818x390, 26K)

Ou world is changing rapidly and new scientific discoveries will be backed by philosophical inquiries.

Science has eclipsed philosophy a long time ago, so much that it hasn't even been relevant for a century. And good riddance; it was a completely subjective exercise in superstition, a copying mechanism for the obsolescence of religion, which in the modern world completely lost it's purpose.

You really just criticzed religion .
Philosophy is necessary, you "I fucking love science" faggots can deny it as much ad you want .

>zooms fractal a little
>IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT TO ZOOM?

I sure hope You both are fucking trolling.

Go ahead say what your views on the subject are

There is nothing new under the sun.

Attached: 1555766227277.jpg (2079x1041, 488K)

I think the main problem with modern philosophy is the opposite of is affirming. Philosophy is stale nowadays because it didn't merged to neuroscience, astrophysics and other fields pertinent to our reality, we have facts but we don't have a good interpretation of what they represent to our existence. I think it is a philosopher duty to interpret these factors and give us something to stand amidst our lifes and our irrevocable oblivion. The only one who did that successfully, in my opinion, is Camus and absurdism and he existed 60 years ago.

How could someone with a brain capable of imagination even concede this question that you made op? We need philosophy to not kill ourselves and precipitate our end sooner.

>IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT TO ZOOM?
>fractal is all the exact same pattern repeated into infinity

No, there is just the same shit over and over again as you pointed out.

is it? better make sure and keep zooming

>We need philosophy to not kill ourselves and precipitate our end sooner.

What a gigantic cope, too bad the only thing philosophy can give you is false hope.

Is there anything we can believe in without philosophy ?
Even believing in progress itself is a false hope based on what you say.

Extremely and unironcally based and well put post!

...yes it is

That

>think of it by comparing thought to vision or other senses
>who is immanual kant

How come you didn't just offed yourself if you don't believe in nothing besides science? There's no god, no high values besides intelligence, no time that we may prosper and get a real answer about our existence, only the cold end of our universe and everything conceived inside of it will be stripped of meaning for eternity, including your efforts and all that you've build. What's the point of being here mostly suffering for a brief spec of time and have a quick glimpse about this absurd without blowing your head before the insanity or disease settle inside your mind? It looks like a Lovecraft universe, but it's real

NeuroTribes

>It looks like a Lovecraft universe, but it's real
Congratulations, for a single moment you were able to circumvent your brainwashing. Now take it just a step further: why would you a worship a creator of such a place? Surely, the mere idea of such a being is absurd? Look at what things really are, not at what other people tell you that they are!

With science we might be able to shape the world to our will, defeat insanity and disease, perhaps even defeat death itself. Or perhaps we will go extinct. Whatever the case, better to see the truth, and what will be, will be.

>non sequiturs ONE AFTER THE OTHER!
>this will surely teach all the religious folk!
You belong to your father the devil and you shall go to him.

I have an idea. I read parts of the metaphysics of morals but nothing else

The question itself implies way too many things about the world.
Go back to reading.

>You belong to your father the devil and you shall go to him.
What a good little christian you are, wishing an eternity of suffering on others for disagreeing with you on the internet. But I didn't expect anything better from somebody who, by their own admission, uses religion as just another way to derive pleasure from life, kek

>Brainwashing
>Thinking science can reverse the cold and dark end of the universe

Guess who is the braindead who lays all its faith in one single hope?

>who is the braindead who lays all its faith in one single hope?
>believes in an afterlife

oh the irony

I just claimed here that there is no god. Don't get me wrong, but I prefer to lay my head in philosophy and then look at science for an answer. What's the point of having answers if you don't have the skills or will to interpret them?

No, it isn't.