Where is the 21st century Critique of Pure Reason...

We get a book of COPR magnitude once every 600 years on average

They had plenty of means of entertainment, there are plenty of people who barely need to work, and many more whose work is just "thinking about things". Nothing in your justification made sense.

You really devoured that book

What are the CPR-tier books of past ages?

Is this pseud bait? Regurgitating what Kant or Hegel said is all contemporary philosphers do.

Yeah. The CPR ended philosophy and there is nothing that is ever going to come close. Our job now is provide clarity to Kant's doctrines.

thanks i puked

Maybe actually start reading the works of modern philosophers so you can find out.

First of all, my comment wasn't meant to be taken that seriously. But your comment is even more bullshit.
>plenty of means of entertainment
like what? You can only listen to music so much.
Strolling?
>there are plenty of people who barely need to work
And for those, I have already mentioned video games, movies, porn... Better means of entertainment means people are less likely to strive for accomplishing things that are fullfilling in other less immediate, material ways

Having other means of entertainment available means spending less time reading and thinking about stuff which means less quality. There I have replied to your last point.

If you look at reality, and stop trying to make everything into some pretentious theoretical account of stuff, see what people spend their time nowadays on: snapchat, twitch, tiktok... And you'll see that I'm right.

You're such a coomer your brain is completely fried.

>Aristocratic education is dead so people are a fraction of what they could be. Standards have collapsed, mechanistic materialism became the new religion, and rational thinking is taboo
Lmao, you're just a complacent retard that would rather seethe about muh decline of christianity, aristocracy and other spooks rather than engage with the modern currents of philosophy.

What's a modern work comparable to Critique of Pure Reason?

The Enneads is one of them

Less than Nothing by Zizek

My book was considered similar to a modern day Prince, we're almost there

And that's why you failed to reply to anything I said and I'm supposed to take you at your word that you obviously can provide an adequate reply but choose not to because you're better than that?
Ok, numbnut.

Name one book from the 21st book of the same size, scale, and complexity.

Attached: suicide.jpg (317x475, 28.67K)

Structure and Being: A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy

>what is cognitive science

Engage with what? Retards arguing about what is or isn't qualia? Or other retards who've already presupposed that efficient causes are the only causes asserting that there are no other causes and therefore no free will? No thanks.

>modern currents of philosophy.
Like?

>The Process of Systematic Grounding as an Idealized form of the Practice of Systematic Grounding
No thanks.

What makes it comparable to Kant's critique?

Board and card games still existed back in the day, along with all social entertainment.

The social entertainment of attending a ball if you're well-off. Carry on, you might succeed in making a decent argument how fucking pictures moving on a screen which you can pirate isn't more engrossing and attention grabbing than anything available to people hundreds of years go

>Where is the 21st century Critique of Pure Reason?
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/the-metacritique-of-reason/
"The Eliminativist, in other words, pulls a Kant on Kant and demands what amounts to a metacritique of reason.
The fact is, short of this accounting of metacognitive resources and precautions, the Intentionalist has no way of knowing whether or not they’re simply a ‘Stage-Two Dogmatist,’ whether their ‘clarity,’ like the specious clarity of the Dogmatist, isn’t simply the product of neglect—a kind of metacognitive illusion in effect. For the Eliminativist, the transcendental (whatever its guise) is a metacognitive artifact. For them, the obvious problems the Intentionalist faces—the supernaturalism of their posits, the underdetermination of their theories, the lack of decisive practical applications—are all symptomatic of inquiry gone wrong. "

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-ptolemaic-restoration-object-oriented-whatevery-and-kants-copernican-revolution/
"If it is the case that the sciences more or less monopolize theoretical cognition, then the most reasonable way for reason to critique reason is via the sciences. The problem confronting Kant, however, was nothing less than the problem confronting all inquiries into cognition until very recently: the technical and theoretical intractability of the brain. So Kant was forced to rely on theoretical reason absent the methodologies of natural science. In other words, he was forced to conceive critique as more philosophy, and this presumably, is why his project ultimately failed."

rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/zizek-hollywood-and-the-disenchantment-of-continental-philosophy/
"Sure, one might argue, Kant may have been wrong about the transcendental, but surely his great insight was to glimpse the transcendental as such. But this is precisely what BBT and medial neglect allows us to explain: the way the informatic and heuristic constraints on metacognition produce the asymptotic–acausal or ‘bottomless’–structure of conscious experience. The ‘transcendental’ on this view is a kind of ‘perspectival illusion,’ a hallucinatory artifact of the way information pertaining to the limits of any momentary conscious experience can only be integrated in subsequent moments of conscious experience.
Kant’s genius, his discovery, or at least what enabled his account to appeal to the metacognitive intuitions of so many across the ages, lay in making-explicit the occluded medial axis of consciousness, the fact that some kind of orthogonal functionality (neural, we now know) haunts empirical experience. Of course Hume had already guessed as much, but lacking the systematic, dogmatic impulse of his Prussian successor, he had glimpsed only murk and confusion, and a self that could only be chased into the oblivion of the ‘merely verbal’ by honest self-reflection."

This is all really cringe and the authors do not understand Kant.

I would not have said that, you're about to get Bakk'd by his Yea Forums minions.

I have studied philosophy on a graduate level and this is word salad

>I have studied philosophy on a graduate level
The person who wrote that on his blog, have studied philosophy on a PhD level.

>and this is word salad
It says a lot about your "education".

In all honesty, you people asking these questions can't find modern Kants because you don't look, you don't even know how to look, and if it stared you in the face you wouldn't know how to recognize it. Your idea of Kant depends on what you've been told by cultural osmosis.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Scott_Bakker This is your guy by the way, just so everyone else knows.

What was your dissertation on?

Ok enlightened genius, summarize some interesting points from this great PhD dropout and fantasy writer

Zizek's Less Than Nothing is seriously revelatory. It's a shame people who haven't read Hegel are incapable of seeing past the meme and grasp ontological incompleteness.

Attached: 1648324627964.gif (687x500, 1.48M)

>other spooks
>Modern currents of philosophy
the other user is indead retarded and made a poor naritivisation, but you imply the later isnt inundated with “spooks” of their own kind.
Wittgenstein. Godel. Heidegger.

Midwit

very intellectual post user.

I'm not a supporter of this Bakker fellow, I was posting the Wikipedia link precisely so people could make fun of him if they wanted

>summarize some interesting points from this great PhD dropout

Attached: bakker1.jpg (739x923, 258.75K)

Attached: bakker20.jpg (695x671, 143.28K)

>Godel
Made some great contributions but his ideas about God are flimsy and I say this as a theist. Besides that he didn't really develop a big comprehensive system, there are better analytic candidates who have.
>Wittgenstein
Early Wittgenstein sort of made something akin to a system but it's very barebones and also pretty wrong, owing to its aphoristic nature a lot of the reasoning isn't explained either which is a weakness. Later Wittgenstein was anti-systematic.
>Heidegger
This is the only one of the three that fits, as he was systematic and comprehensive. I say that neutrally, because I'm not a Heideggerian, but I respect the system-building.

Why not just study actual PhD-earning philosophers and their works instead of this guy?

Midwit

Midwit

>video games
>fulfilling in other less immediate, material ways
if we're talking about games that focus on online multiplayer (fortnite, wow, lol etc.) or almost literal skinner boxes (diablo 2, gacha shit etc.) then yes
outside of that? you're wrong
same goes for movies, you're right only if we consider capeshit etc.

>Why not just study actual PhD-earning philosophers
Because his eintire point is that PhD-earning philosophers are obsolete.

Attached: bakker23.jpg (722x1522, 434.96K)

>what failing your phd does to a mf

I am pretty sure it's not as engrossing to anyone who isn't a recluse, but I do not deny they're not the same entertainment. Merely that if you were already rich enough to sit around and think, you still had plenty of options at leisure.

Wow, definitely never heard that one a thousand times before...

based and samuel johnson pilled

About the productive role of ignorance/neglect on cognition?
academia.edu/31152366/On_Alien_Philosophy

About the physical nature of aporias?
rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/paradox-as-cognitive-illusion/

Attached: bakker2.jpg (798x414, 127.88K)

meant to this one