Are there any modern "philosophers" or "sociologists" worth reading?

Nick Land seems like a dogmatic nutcase from the AI stuff, and Zizek looks like a Jewish multiculturalism mass-immigration "anti-semitism is wrong" guy.

The most recent stuff I've read was Baudelaire's "Simulacra and Simulation," where's the bleeding edge of this field now?

>>24501117 (OP)
lmao, you're a faggot, years away from attaining anything of value

>>24501124
Weird projection, any books though?

>>24501124
You will never be white

>modern sociologists
No

>>24501117 (OP)
Are you the twat that keeps asking me about time transcending? You need to read Kant. Time alone doesn't transcend. These sorts of questions lead me to believe you Kant-ed yourself to a state where you can't get your perceptions straight and are unable to interpret an agreement for the external world.

Yeah, you're just a Descartes that didn't do the meditations. Glad to hear Land can be pitched. Go back to worshipping AI. I'll let you in on a secret, those AI don't have perfect knowledge either.

>>24501117 (OP)
Start with the Greeks, if you did, you wouldn't compare philosophia with sociologists at all. Read Plotinus if you have to.

>>24501124
fpbp

>>24501117 (OP)
Honestly a good question. Land is fun to think about but ultimately worthless, Zizek is an anachronism from when academic Marxism actually existed and wasn’t just a catch all for the world’s losers. Dugin maybe but I haven’t read him/can’t really speak on it.


The next “big thing” is going to be “Civilizationism” or what we you want to call it. Huntington was laughed at for it in the 90s but he was right. Ideology is gonna get put on pause while ethnoreligious spheres start to re emerge.

>>24501191
No

>>24501199
>Start with the Greeks, if you did, you wouldn't compare philosophia with sociologists at all. Read Plotinus if you have to.
Read all the Greeks, and even some Romans. Heidegger marks the switch from philosophy to sociology.

>>24501117 (OP)
>>24501206
fags

>>24501117 (OP)
Jordan Peterson, in particular maps of meaning
Iain Mcgilchrist, in particular the matter with things
Ken Wilber
Bernardo Kastrup
Alexander Dungin
Brendan Graham Dempsey, in particular his recent book covering the field of metamodernism.

>>24501124
>>24501201
>>24501210
The reason why this board is shit. Why are you posting from the middle east? We are not interested.

>>24501209
>Heidegger marks the switch from philosophy to sociology

>>24501210
Who would you suggest? Leftism is dead. All that’s left is the rotting husk of ideology.

>>24501214
Not everyone is a 22 year old faggot who worships dogma and sucks Plato's dick 24/7

There's nothing special about philosophy other than being diagnosis of mental illness and societal decay

> In my own case this disrespectful thought, that the great sages are
> declining types \[...\] I recognized Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decay, as instruments of the
> Greek dissolution, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (Birth of Tragedy,

> Judgments, value judgments about life, for or against, can in the final
> analysis never be true; they have value only as symptoms

> Socrates belonged, in his origins, to the lowest folk: Socrates was
> rabble. We know, we can still see for ourselves, how ugly he was. But
> ugliness, which in itself is an objection, was among the Greeks virtually
> a refutation. Was Socrates Greek in the first place? Ugliness is often
> enough the expression of interbreeding, of a development thwarted by
> interbreeding. In other cases it appears as a development in decline.
> Forensic anthropologists tell us that the typical criminal is ugly: mon-
> strum in fronte, monstrum in animo \[monster in the face, monster in the
> soul\]. But the criminal is a décadent.

> A visitor who knew about faces, when he passed through Athens, said to
> Socrates’ face that he was a monstrum—that he contained all bad vices
> and cravings within him. And Socrates simply answered: “You know
> me, sir!” 20

> Dialectic is chosen only as a last resort. It’s well known that it creates
> mistrust, that it is not very convincing. Nothing can be wiped away more
> easily than a dialectician’s effect: this is proven by the experience of every
> gathering where people speak. \[...\] One needs to get one’s rights by
> force; otherwise, one makes no use of it.

>>24501209
>>24501226
>>24501214
> This is why the Jews were dialecticians; Reynard the Fox was one: what? And Socrates was one too?

> —Is Socrates’ irony an expression of revolt? Of the rabble’s ressenti-ment? 22
> Does he, as one of the oppressed, relish his own ferocity in the
> knife-thrusts of the syllogism? Does he take revenge on the nobles whom
> he fascinates?—As a dialectician, one has a merciless instrument at hand;
> one can play the tyrant with it; one compromises by conquering. The dialectician lays on his opponent the burden of proving that he is not an
> idiot: he infuriates, and at the same time he paralyzes. The dialectician
> disempowers the intellect of his opponent.

>>24501214
>>24501226
>>24501234
> When one finds it necessary to make a tyrant out of reason, as Socrates
> did, then there must be no small danger that something else should play
> the tyrant. At that time rationality was surmised to be a rescuer; neither
> Socrates nor his “sick patients” were rational by free choice—it was de
> rigueur, it was their last resort. The fanaticism with which all Greek spec-
> ulation throws itself at rationality betrays a situation of emergency: they
> were in danger, they had to make this choice: either to be destroyed, or—
> to be absurdly rational . . .
> The moralism of the Greek philosophers from Plato onward is the
> result of a pathological condition; likewise their admiration for dialectic.
> Reason=virtue=happiness simply means: we have to imitate Socrates and
> produce a permanent daylight against the dark desires—the daylight of
> reason. We have to be cunning, sharp, clear at all costs: every acquiescence
> to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downward . . .

>>24501117 (OP)
my diary desu

>>24501117 (OP)
>looking for icons or just looking at my butthole all day?
>>24501226
It's a shame that you have so little self-control and personification that you cannot see that you've usurped from everything - even the little blinking lights - to come to a completist's theory you don't strive to make anything of yourself but become waste.

>>24501265
>>>looking for icons or just looking at my butthole all day?
How is projection so common? I do not worship anyone like you worship Plato
>looking for books to read
>this is somehow bad
No wonder people are flocking out of this shit board

>>24501209
I know you're lying Land.

>>24501273
The moon Landing never happened.

>>24501117 (OP)
Sure, in order of recommendation:
D.C. Schindler (start with Freedom from Reality or Love and the Postmodern Predicament, unless you like Plato, then Plato's Critique of Impure Reason).

Robert Sokolowski - Phenomenology of the Human Person

Byung-Chul Han - The Agony of Eros is my favorite

Charles Taylor - A Secular Age

David Bentley Hart - All Things Are Full of Gods is probably the best starting point, although it's meant to be more accessible.

Robert Wallace - Philosophical Mysticism in Plato, Hegel, and the Present

Eric Perl - Thinking Being

>>24501299
After 24 posts, a recommendation. Thank you white man!

>>24501284
You're a godamn sophist.

>>24501303
Sophists get paid.

>>24501308
So you were lying about accelerationism too?

>>24501310
Yes. AI will dwindle and never progress further than "a better search engine" and dating chatbots.

>>24501310
>accelerationism
Will only happen when jews start getting lynched in the streets. (Never, unless the populace is on the brink of death or real physical slavery)

>>24501319
Why is that a prereq? I though accel was just things happening faster and faster until there is not enough time for humans to even react to them

>>24501117 (OP)
>Nick Land seems like a dogmatic nutcase
mencius moldbug is fucking faggot
peter thiel is wannabee turbokike
30 shekels already paid
you might ride the tiger for what its worth, doesnt make a diferrence.
>>24501153
also this

>>24501319
I knew you couldn't get your perceptions straight. You're the sort of fag The Laws address.

There are plenty of philosophers around.
Jake Shields, Candace Owens the list goes on..

None of you braniacs caught that OP professed to reading “Simulacrum…” by BAUDELAIRE.
The absolute state…

>>24501386
Are you the twat keeps asking if time transcends? I'll let you in on a secret, he didn't think it did either.

>>24501117 (OP)
>>24501226
>>24501234
>>24501237
faggg

>>24501396
will you shut up about kant.

>>24501458
You're running out of options? Yeah alright I'll toss you a bone. Bergson thought it did but he also basically concluded that facts are just whatever explanation we have on hand and this continues to the next time we use it and those might change again. So definitely no perfect knowledge there.

Heidegger equivocated some but left it at more of a temporality which doesn't do much for you beyond you just make it up but this time you're not doing math problems. Definitely no perfect knowledge.

The Scholastics couldn't figure out time at all and most of them tried to tie it to whatever they thought god was but couldn't know since it couldn't exist in time but somehow grants time or something. They offer loads of wonderful paradoxes but I assure you they had no perfect knowledge.

So unless you have something to add, god/no-god still doesn't matter, and you apparently worship a demon.

>>24501491
demons arent real anon

>>24501386
>nooo dont misspell my heckerino french faggot daddy's name!

>>24501491
I follow Natural law my nigs.

>>24501505
That has no bearing on your heretical worship.

>>24501533
I'm not sure why the last part was appropriate but Rousseau's contract is still good here. Diagnostics are reciprocal but repeat dialectic is the only method I know of to get around this. Toss all linearity, it's the work of evil.

>>24501117 (OP)
Mitchell heisman, Thomas Moynihan, you don't need anything else really

>>24501191
Why are so many of the Kant posters here such pseuds? It’s like they think the cpr is a prose poem - that or they’re dogmatists.

>>24501850
I don't remotely care how you make sense of anything.