Does anyone else also feel like there's nowhere to go in philosophy anymore...

Does anyone else also feel like there's nowhere to go in philosophy anymore? As in there's nothing new to discover and that it's more or less a complete science? Everything has more or less been said and done and there isn't much space for it to grow anymore?

Attached: 1565947620086.jpg (1920x1080, 219K)

Other urls found in this thread:

capaciousjournal.com/article/unthought-meets-the-assemblage-brain/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I've felt that before too.

That is the typical opinion of those who never actually read philosophy.

Read Whitehead

If I don't get anime pussy I'm gonna FUCKING DIE.

This

Whitehead's process metaphysics is pretty much a rewritten version of Schelling/Hegel's, which was in turn strongly influenced by Heraclitus.

Barely anyone understands the CTMU.

Attached: christopher-langan.jpg (339x382, 25K)

not really.

This guy did some insane mental gymnastics combining tons of different philosophy, mathematics, and physics stuff for the sake of proving God as described in the New Testament. I admire Langan from a philosophical point of view, but from a scientific realist point of view, it'd be hard to prove the vast majority of anything he's ever claimed.

become a refined being of culture and poetry

Attached: Confucius_temple_1912.jpg (718x818, 113K)

Maybe you should try reading philosophy before having opinions on it

>Does anyone else also feel like there's nowhere to go in philosophy anymore?
no. do i feel like there's nowhere left to go in ideology? pretty much. the only thing really left is for the beast to come around and be worshiped as a god. we're definitely nearing the end times.

Let's do a quick rundown on important philosophical postures:
Metaphysics:
Reality either consists of beings or processes
It either exists independently of humans or it doesn't.
Epistemology:
Humans can either know reality as it is, or they can have ideas based on it, or they make up ideas of what reality is.
Truth is either objective, intersubjective, or intrasubjective.
Truth is either purely rational and consists only of a priori analytic facts, purely based on sense-experience, or a mixture of whatever happens to correspond between the two.
Ethics:
Either morality consists of a series of duties and rules, virtues (general states of behaviour), or what is good is determined according to specific situation.
Morality is either what is in itself good, or what causes people happiness or pleasure.
The means is just as important as the end vs the end is more important than the means.
Other stuff:
Either every person has a unique language, each one of which is neither right nor wrong, ot languages are rigid systems with rules.
The point of philosophy should be either to explore ideas creatively or to come up with true explanations of what the universe is.
The state of nature is either good or harmful.
Numbers and logic are either real or imaginary.

If that's really true, then we've been since the end of times ever since the days of the Upanishads and the Pre-Socratics, and there has been not a single new work of fiction since the Epic of Gilgamesh.

eh. pretty much. this world is doomed no matter how you slice it.

>false dichotomies

Believing that the truth is "whatever you want it to be bro. Eveybody has the right to think whatever they want. Respec, bruh." *toodles* is such a great illness of contemporary Western culture.

What does this have to do with my post?

theres a reason the meme 'footnote of plato' exists. no matter how shitty the standard has gotten, the notion that philosophy has ended is the philosophical question of the contemporary

Third post best post

Philosophy is just a hobby for people with no talent for anything.

how come the next big movement threads are all meme answers then?

Many facile dichotomies and trichotomies there, arguably mostly false.

>the subject/object distinction is not fundamental and originary (cf Simmel)
>truth is not fundamentally cognitive or linguistic (cf Kierkegaard)
>the sentence "reality as it is" doesn't make sense, what we call states of reality are just collection of potential phenomena, the totality of reality is a fiction of speculative reason
>process is a form of being, locating being is impossible in both metaphysics of process and metaphysics of presence, the dichotomy is therefore meaningless
>also if being is a process and the way that process unfolds can be stationary in a sense, is that being therefore a process or the illusory unfolding over a fixed being? (cf aztec metaphysics and the concept of nepantla) what is even the criteria from telling apart "fundamental being" from "superfluous being"?
>humans are part of reality, the reality that is independent of humans is of a different nature than the one that is one with humans
>there is not a single type of good, some good are general, others specific, also the role of good and evil is culturally defined, although each culture is able to define an universal model for its own value system (values are also performative and competitive with one another, the good "isn't" it is forever being made and pushed against or fused with others forms of good)
>the distinction between ends and means is specious, an end is only a mean to a further end, also teleology is an a posteriori cope, we do what we can as our habits leads us, not in order to reach purposes despite what we like to believe
>language is not a system, it's a behavior, and it's not unique and personal but local, evolving and interpersonal
>the point of philosophy is to explore ideas creatively to approach truth as close as possible, since there is no default general framework for truth and a creative approach is therefore necessary
>the state of nature is a myth, unless we accept culture as part of nature, in which case it's omnipresent and too diverse to be valued with univocity
>numbers are constructs but objective ones (they don"t depend merely on one's opinion) and they allow for manipulation of objective reality, in a way they can be considered systematic way of adapting oneself to one's environment (cf Dehaene's work, apes and some birds have prenumeric intuitions of quantities, therefore numbers are an human -and rather universally human- formulation and refinement of an intuition shared by some non-human species)

That's just off the top of my head, and using your dichotomies as basis instead of developing organically a philosophy over the years as actual philosophers do. It's not that hard to come up with new stuff, though I don't doubt most of the above has already been said in a way or another.

because Yea Forums is full of retards

No. I did eventually reach a point where my lack of knowledge at least felt contained, though.

>to be or not to be
Even if we grant that those dichotomies were nice and binary, knowing which were zeros and which were ones wouldn't give you complete knowledge of the universe. That'd be like saying "whole numbers are either odd or even, I've completed math."

...

2019 and both of you are still fetishizing humans as distinct objects set apart from the rest of the "world" - in this case the world encompassing all other animal and plant life.

Why is human consciousness so special and distinct from animal consciousness that it renders animal consciousness closer to the value of an inert rock than it would to human consciousness in this understanding? Here "experience" can also be interchanged with "consciousness."

The heuristic of "life" instead of "humans" is such an easy switch to make and I don't know why more philosophers aren't doing this. With the heavy combination of pro-science rationalism on one end of the contemporary partisanship and experiential based existential metaphysics on the other, how are people not seeing that the most practical yoking of these two is the development of understanding life as the organ of consciousness in the universe regardless of the multiplicity it takes shape in? That to fetishize human consciousness is to debase consciousness itself?

It's confusing how both Nietzsche and Heidegger fail to do this in their metaphysics as well. The two I'd expect to be capable of making this leap...

Because most of these movements are all about academics following trends in the hope they might eventually lead to something, or failing that let them pad out their list of publications.

Serious progress in philosophy can and has happened in the past and will happen in the future, but often enough when this happens the achievements cease to be recognized as philosophy, and instead become recognized a bountiful area of study of their own, leaving 'philosophy' to be perceived as a subject bereft of the fruits that it enabled the production of. Physics and logic are prime examples of this, and I have no doubt that similar things may happen in the future with the study of the structures of thinking and consciousness, our understanding of them might become so advanced that people cease to think of it as philosophy proper. I also strongly believe that real progress can be made in aesthetics following on from this.

The point of my post wasn't to show off my philosophical postures. It was to show how it is possible to summarize such a huge corpus of philosophical texts into a few ideas defended by each one, for the sake of showing that the vast majority of all philosophers dealt with little but slight variations on the same topics, and rarely if ever contributed any new discussion topics to philosophy.

I dont know much about ctmu, but I know it's not confined to Christanity. Pic related.

Attached: 1564762242403.jpg (479x105, 14K)

Nice take on my take on user's take on philosophy. I tend to agree btw. Anthropocentrism made sense three centuries ago but not so much now.
I'd go as far as saying life isn't even the significant delimiter but it's still a pretty good heuristic.

Also nice take. Philosophy has continuously given birth to new sciences over the past 2500 years, and every time the consequence has been the narrowing of philosopher's own field of inquiry.

No disrespect to the content that either of you guys posted. I have no disagreement.

The "humans" thing always sticks out to me so I always feel compelled to ask people about it if I can.

Probably because whenever you try to engage with philosophy, you always get a reading list. It gives the impression that everything's already been done.

It is possible to summarize as long as you accept a very coarse summary. Which is always the case, one's willingness to simplify or flatten a complex account into a rough one is generally more important than the complexity of the original account itself. Despite my assessment in your summary is pretty good given the constraints you've put on yourself, but it's at best a summary of general questions, not responses, systems, or approaches. You could make it a hundred times bigger and it would still be rather inaccurate.

Buddy I don't see animals writing intricate points on philosophy using an extremely complex machine that transmits signals to other machines via electromagnetic waves so that the writing can be read. Animal "consciousness" is completely fucking irrelevant.

I'm embarrassed to be posting in a thread about philosophy with you.

I'll be leaving now..

I've never seen anyone actually attempt to refute this point. I'm going to keep posting it until somebody proves me wrong.

Attached: 87a2ef5d935dfd9e40dbcc26c06f89a0047c252e0cb0e26b9b8f932f728a33a3.jpg (512x512, 60K)

the more i learn, the more i dislike dogs, but more specifically, people who like dogs and play with dogs and treat dogs like people or "members of the family." dogs are disgusting soulless beasts who eat shit and lick their genitals and anuses. and people let these filthy beasts lick them. they want them to have rights. anyone who treats a dog like a person has profoundly insulted me as a man, inherently. to raise up a dog to the level of a person is to bring man down to the level of a beast. you cannot treat a dog like a man without treating man like a dog in turn.

>It either exists independently of humans or it doesn't.
>Humans can either know reality as it is, or they can have ideas based on it, or they make up ideas of what reality is.
>Either morality consists of a series of duties and rules, virtues (general states of behaviour), or what is good is determined according to specific situation.
>Morality is either what is in itself good, or what causes people happiness or pleasure.
>Numbers and logic are either real or imaginary.
>Either every person has a unique language, each one of which is neither right nor wrong, ot languages are rigid systems with rules.
>The state of nature is either good or harmful.
You have to be really smart to ponder such inane questions. Or just larping as a Medieval monk.

good dialogue on non human, non cognitive consciousness here capaciousjournal.com/article/unthought-meets-the-assemblage-brain/ by N. Katherine Hayles and Tony D. Sampson

Attached: 1555314529485.png (1280x960, 2.84M)

There are 'people' who buy shit from succubi in classified online shops and then eat it while masturbating. People are much worse than dogs who have no capability to question their behaviour.

There's still plenty to do in philosophy. For instance, the problem of antinatalism has yet to be resolved in a realistic way

What is this picture meant to convey?

consciousness is far more fundamental and important to reality than intelligence, probably infinitely so
you don't even seem to see the difference between them
the only explanation is likely that you just don't know what consciousness is
if that's the case, good luck trying to have it explained to you lol

>never clearly defines the terms he uses
>spergs out at anyone even slightly doubtful

All he has to do is drop the obscurantist pantomime and I'll read him. That's all I fucking ask.
inb4
>but it's obvious ur jus dumb ecks dee

Yes
It's why Spengler recommended people go into science, rather than philosophy. Not because he thought it was superior to phil, but because in science there are at least things left to discover, although some fields/areas have also already stumbled upon insurmountable barriers, here.

Attached: moedabsin2d.jpg (769x767, 82K)

This is like that guy who said “this is as far as we go” when the steam train was invented. Utterly stupid thinking

They are still more intelligent than cats, and don’t give you brain parasites

A car and an airplane aren't conceptually different from a train, in terms of being a vehicle powered by burning up fuel.

>reading philosophy
Please tell me you guys don't fall for that meme.

are you in that server called accept your beta status or baitin betas or whatever do you like waifus blacked and blacked.com

Except that was technology, not philosophy. I'd say philosophy has stagnated a lot, while technology hasnt.

i am not a discord tranny and i don't play fortnite so no i'm not on any gayass servers

You will die whether or not you get anime pussy.

Have you never read an academic journal?

>nowhere to go
Only a completely normal faggot with no strong beliefs on anything would say this.

Have you tried philosophizing on the right of brown "people" to exist?

Attached: 1407756763363.jpg (396x385, 25K)

>I feel like painting is fone
>comp sci
>sex
>food is pretty much done y even eat more food
As w everything it gets more complex the more u learn about it. If you don't have that experience you have a very closed off existence

/thread

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what philosophy is. Philosophy is not a specific body of knowledge like mathematics or biology or engineering or psychology. Those disciplines are about studying the world and improving our technical mastery of the world. Instead of the world, philosophy studies our own knowledge, technical powers, and social existence. Philosophy reflects on the significance of specific social situations. It reacts to cultural, economic, and scientific developments. How a science like philosophy which has for its object every other science can be complete when those sciences are not is quite beyond me.

You could argue they're not so conceptually different from walking, but still that doesn't change the very important fact that trains don't fly at several kilometer altitude with a speed close to that of sound.

Not to mention there have been non-transportation innovation like nuclear energy.

It's like that head of the American Patent Office who resigned because he thought there was nothing more left to invent. That was in the 1850s iirc.

based brainlet

I can never tell who's being serious when it comes to philosophy. Since we're all anonymous, let's admit who's faking and who's participating sincerely.

The take away from that is end of history types are all retards not just in technology, in culture

Mostly because the human consciousness is the only tool we objectively have for understanding the world. Even if you accept that you can trust that other people have the same capacity, humans are infinitely more complex than anything else we know of. It would be strange if we weren't anthropocentric given what we know and experience

Not entirely irrelevant, since they're an important stepping stone between dumb matter and humans and may be of use in figuring out the path between them, but they certainly don't warrant the attention the human consciousness does

>Philosophy has stagnated
We're still in the wake of the post-modernism bomb that swept the legs out of literally every aspect of our culture. If anything, philosophy has too many avenues to explore.

I am absolutely serious but also retarded. For instance I don't understand what metaphysicians mean by Being.

I need the truth and I need it tomorrow.