Thread 24734873

https://archive.is/20230131195102/https://iai.tv/articles/21st-century-metaphysics-leaving-fantasy-behind-auid-2367

So what can be considered here is that metaphysics is back after the 20th century whether analytic or continental, in the sense that not only is it not avoidable, but with this comes the recognition that it can't just go off into speculative fantasy. It can't claim to paint the true ans definitive picture of reality. It would be able to intervene in the space that science is not equipped to produce.

The new metaphysics: "is not presented as an ultimate description of reality but as a means to refine and improve our ability to intervene in the world and provide an account of how its claims, and the claims of language and science, can be understood and in some cases prove powerful even though they do not reference or describe reality." So it would produce a possible picture of reality for consideration and act like thought heuristic I'd say, not as an end all be all, but as a framing to tie together what might be isolated understandings in a narrative in a partial closure for consideration. All this eventually comes to effect our pictures of reality and our worldviews, how we act and think in the world.

>>24734873 (OP)
>the recognition that it can't just go off into speculative fantasy. It can't claim to paint the true ans definitive picture of reality.
How are these two sentences connected? Didn't read the rest.

>>24734879
It's already understood beforehand that it can't produce the final picture of reality, and it also produces its picture with care and doesn't make outlandish claims without an articulated basis.

Yawn. Anyways, Plato...

>>24734935
Yeah this is only for those wanting to be aware of the current concerns and currents in philosophy at the moment, not really for classicists ha.

>>24735022
Imagine letting yourself be told by literal whos (or anyone for that matter) what is currently relevant & of concern, ha.

>the attempt to eradicate and remove beliefs based on prejudice and ungrounded claims, and the desire to avoid unsupported assertions and empty speculations
FAGGGGGGGGGOT!

people just need to read the greeks again instead of faggots like this.

fact: heidegger was actually right and people unable to see how his views relate positively with nazism is why they failed to understand them. Part of human rationality is functioning within your culture which is a product of your genetics and ethnicity, and apart from that in a technologized world you can't exactly expect to really grasp being terribly well. The solution is why heidegger repented for his nazism.

>>24735035
why heidegger never repented for his nazism*
all his conceptions of historical thinking and gratitude are inseparable from fairly specific ethnic-cultural ties and needing to maintain them.
>We are plants which whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not—must with our roots rise out of the earth in order to bloom in the ether and to bear fruit.

>>24734873 (OP)
Literally who? Where do they manufacture these morons?

>>24735031
It's part of a wider discussion that has been going on ever since Meillassoux and others, even if what they produced was flawed they were kind of the catalyst. Also I'm not sure what you mean by literally who, the author of the article is a communicator and someone with the institutional background too. The historical background described in the article is correct concerning 20th century philosophy, which was largely suspicious of metaphysics.

>>24735059
Again, I'm not sure what this literally who thing is about, it sounds like you want an authority to tell you what to think instead of actually just reading something and then deciding for yourself.

>>24735035
So that part of the article they were describing some of the early 20th century concerns about Metaphysics, but this also a Kantian infused concern about claims that don't have any basis to them. They're just describing what the concerns were and the takeaways people in philosophy today still have. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your rant.

>>24735103
and that's why you and all these academics will be able to even approach a valuable thought in your entire life

>>24735035
So that part of the article they were describing some of the early 20th century concerns about metaphysics, but this is also a bit of a Kantian infused concern about claims that don't have any basis to them. They're just describing what the concerns were and the takeaways people in philosophy today still have. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your rant.

>>24735108
Not really anything substantial here, thanks for the bump though. It doesn't seem you're even capable of any substantial thinking to begin with.

>>24735108
Not really anything substantial here, thanks for the bump though. It doesn't like you're even capable of any "valuable" thinking to begin with, even on this Mongolian imageboard.

>>24735108
Not really anything substantial here, thanks for the bump though. It doesn't seem like you're even capable of any "valuable" thinking to begin with, even on this Mongolian imageboard.

>>24735128
delete this one and try again retard maybe 4th time is the charm

>>24735129
Yeah phone posting, I hate it.

>>24735083
>This is just the last sentence, no, the last syllable spoken in a wider conversation that has spanned the entirety of human history! Its being going on for more than 2,000 years! You simply lack the institutional credentials to grasp it!

This is an exerpt of a satirical, almost strawman character I wrote for my novel. ...Need I say more?

People describe philosophy in generalities like "20th century" and trends like they were "suspicious of metaphysics" because they are taxonomers, not philosophers. If they were actually capable of discussing the ideas they'd be doing that instead of categorizing and describing other peoples ideas as being the same.

>>24735136
I don't know what you're getting at here, the post in the OP is for consideration about current philosophy. You don't need to sperg out.

>>24735143
This is for the sake of discussion, of course in a long format like a book it would explain some of the nuances and exceptions. But considering the major figures from both analytic and continental philosophy it can be roughly said they did share this similarity in stance. It also explains some of the reactions and sentiment to Hegel that were expressed. This isn't an exclusive opinion to this author of the article by the way, and is just for the sake of setting the stage for what is talked about today regarding metaphysics itself.

>>24735158
The need for "discussion" is because after throughout and after the 19th century the standards for academia fell almost totally because they were converted into social engineering institutions. 95%+ of the people engaged in academic "philosophy" do not belong there and making "conversation" just to cater to them just degrades philosophy and is outright fraud as far as I'm concerned.
Bunch of faggot taxonomers and mechanized bug men. If you want to talk about metaphysics then talk about metaphysics itself, don't talk about talking about metaphysics, having a "conversation". Say something substantial.

>>24735166
I disagree with the last part, it's just reporting on the current outlook. It's kind of like reporting on basket weavers and their current reasoning behind what they're doing, but you instead come in and demand solely for the technical details of the basket weaving itself without any reflection for why they're doing it in the way they are in the first place and what they're thinking about.

>>24735083
These academic philosophers live in a cloister where they are relevant only to themselves. Literally no one gives a single flying fuck. I read them only because I'm in the .1% that actually does give a shit about philosophy as a whole. Mostly I read them only to understand where they are currently fucking up.

Their entire milieu is one giant performative tautology where they arrive at 'big findings' that only timidly express their inane presuppositions, then pretend they have made great discoveries. Criticism is usually dismissed flippantly, out of hand, and without argument. Meanwhile they appoint themselves the guiders of the whole 'serious' tradition because their egos have grown to massive, hubristic proportions within their failing, smelly, academic monkey-cage. Case in point: the author of the article.

Most importantly, they forget the point of philosophy is the orientation and cultivation of human life.

>>24735181
I'm not demanding anything I'm just making fun of a bunch of retarded cattle faggots play acting at doing philosophy. They are attacking the dignity of philosophy as far as I am concerned and should only ever be met with scorn and ridicule.

>>24735187
I agree philosophy today is lacking, but with metaphysics being a concern again (not just going by what's said here but what's been published) I'm cautiously optimistic. Let's hope philosophy that's for the sake of the cultivation of life comes back stronger.

>>24735187
Also to add, I wouldn't be surprised if the great philosophy that comes out is outside of the ivory tower. We're in the right environment today for it given what we have access to today.

>>24735187
Also to add, I wouldn't be surprised if the great philosophy that comes out is outside of the ivory tower. We're in the right environment today for it given what we have access to.

>>24735146
Chill. No one is sperging out. I just find it funny that he talks in almost the same way than a character made to be mocked.

>>24735247
True, but besides me posting an academic article no one will read I thought this one was written clearly enough for most people here to participate. I don't advocate for him at all, but I thought some of the traces here can be parsed out. Hopefully your novel turned out fine anon.

>>24735201
Why are you optimistic? Do you think we can 'play nice' now? Do you think that the analytics, continentals and traditionalists are gunna be able to hug it out and have dialogue now that people like Hilary-whatever say they'll maybe-consider one or two metaphysical points so long as it doesn't have anything to do with anything at all? It's the exact same bullshit, it's just increasingly obvious that there's a crisis.

I agree entirely with the other poster - these people are a stain on the dignity of the tradition itself. We are well past the point of 'low faith' in the institutions. There is nothing left. If things get better, it will be because the entire analytic tradition gets thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

>>24735268
Sorry I should have added in that comment what I did in the comment after. We have an unprecedented access today to whatever we want to inform our thinking. Someone outside of the ivory tower or someone going rogue from within can write something ambitious that breaks away from the assumptions of what's thought philosophy should be. In doing so this would throw that away into the garbage like you said.

Just pointing out there might be some hope here for whoever has their eye on trends, and someone with the right ability is going to make some impressive stuff, whether or not people from within recognize it. The potential is there for whoever from anywhere that wants to take it up.

>>24735287
The preconditions for someone being able to do that include broad consensus on first principles. We're going to continue to have bright people writing good stuff, but access to the Internet hasn't broadened consensus. It's increased fragmentation. You're not going to see another Hegel-like rockstar, you're going to see some guy who is very brilliant within his wheelhouse and otherwise totally ignored.

Pluralism in academia itself might help, but to acknowledge this kind of pluralism would be to implicitly destroy the current order. They also know that full well. They can't operate without institutional exclusion.

>>24735309
True. But at least if we stay on the lookout for something interesting it might be here on /lit/ first where it gets taken seriously first before waiting for any official consideration. So like many here, I like Plato and Aristotle as well but I wouldn't discount the chance no matter how small of something interesting to get made that is niche yet cutting edge.

So in a sense we can take seriously what is officially being produced today so that what comes after can be its own undoing, even if there isn't instant rockstar recognition.

>>24734873 (OP)
Post-modern and analytic anti-metaphysics was really just a particular metaphysics anyhow, just one that largely advanced itself through bad faith argument and sophistry by pretending not to make metaphysical claims while still doing so.

The entire idea of the language community being the ground of truth and intelligibility, things are what they are because we say "this counts as x," "usefulness" becoming the metaphysical primitive that defines what everything is, logical pluralism/nihilism based on "usefulness," and the idea that everything is "pragmatism all the way down," isn't even "post-modern." It is just modernity maximized. It's literally just Protestant volantarist theology with God chopped out and man elevated in his place. In liberal pragmatic and linguistic turn forms "man" is democratized so then "men" (collectively) become the measure of all things. In the post-modern forms, man, the subject, is dissolved into a sort of panpsychic will slush. But it's all pretty much John Calvin with God transplanted to us, either as individuals (existentialism), as a community (analytic liberalism maxed out), or as a slurry of sheer will (post-modernism). They all share a commitment to the Enlightenment deflation of reason into nothing but a calculative faculty with a wholly instrumental purpose in human life, and ethics being a sort of sentiment or primordial willing (and created in the volanturist God's image).

Pic slightly related in that it was good metaphysics totally ignored during that period.

>>24734873 (OP)
>But where do we go from here, given that for many a retreat to religion or the dogmatic metaphysical philosophies of the past is not a desirable or attractive option?

When I read these blanket dismals of all pre-modern thought I've come to expect that the person making them hasn't studied them at all and often times has only had extremely light exposure to just Plato and Aristotle in a survey course (often with these two filtered through a modern lens) and not one page of medieval thought (which they unquestiongly take to simply be the same thing but with Jesus or Allah swapped in). This is true even with grad students and professionals. It is, ironically, the height of dogmatism.

And of course, they repeat the same old obvious errors, like projecting "the view from nowhere" and "mind independent truths" back onto the whole of philosophy, while making claims like "well Heidegger was an expert in medieval philosophy and he said..."

No, Heidegger was a graduate student who studied some late-medieval nominalists and apparently nothing else because he attributes to the whole of Western thought positions refuted in clear terms in plenty of key texts.

>>24735753
Yes, I agree pre-modern thought should be given the close reading and reading and attention they deserve. I say that while sitting next to my copies of works by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and others. However, I'd say due to our own epistemic limitations alongside also the innate incompleteness that comes with understanding reality itself there's always going to be a partial openness to it rather than encapsulating a complete understanding of reality itself. As far as this care when it comes to thinking itself, pre-modern thought was not alone in this but modern thought participated in this structure of thinking as well. So modern thinking also had its own "dogma" in a sense.

But what needs to be recognized as well is that it's possible to critique what came before in a sincere way in order to make something new that is interesting. So you can still respect the tradition while doing good-faith critique while at the same time knowing that whatever conclusions you come will be susceptible to possible critique as well.

>>24734873 (OP)
What am I supposed to take away from this, that people are thinking about life and stuff? Like they've always done, everywhere?

>>24735753
Yes, I agree pre-modern thought should be given the close reading and rereading and attention they deserve. I say that while sitting next to my copies of works by Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and others. However, I'd say due to our own epistemic limitations alongside also the innate incompleteness that comes with understanding reality itself there's always going to be a partial openness to it rather than encapsulating a complete understanding of reality itself. As far as this care when it comes to thinking itself, pre-modern thought was not alone in this but modern thought participated in this structure of thinking as well. So modern thinking also had its own "dogma" in a sense.

But what needs to be recognized as well is that it's possible to critique what came before in a sincere way in order to make something new that is interesting. So you can still respect the tradition while doing good-faith critique while at the same time knowing that whatever conclusions you come will be susceptible to possible critique as well.

>>24735873
It's just inside baseball stuff that some may here may consider if they're curious about what philosophy is up to these days.

>>24735877
Fuck that. This is the exact attitude that makes philosophy irrelevant. The epistemic flip was a mistake, but even apart from that - why can't it be the opposite? Let everyone swing for the fences. Bring back the most insane speculative metaphysics possible. Then catch what sticks. Much creative theorizing that goes on in astronomy and other fields is groundless, ad hoc and rich. It gets to do it because it's "science", which is nothing more than a term of institutional approbation. We're still in a Positivist hangover, but the only consistent rule is that anything goes.

>The new metaphysics: "is not presented as an ultimate description of reality
Then it's should not be called metaphysics.
>a means to refine and improve our ability to intervene in the world
Then it should be called technology.
>provide an account of how its claims, and the claims of language and science, can be understood and in some cases prove powerful even though they do not reference or describe reality.
First you say you don't want a description of reality then how will you know if they fail (or succeed) to reference or describe reality? How do you intend to locate how powerful you are if you aren't looking for where reality is?
I find myself having to agree with Žižek here:
>I especially reject Marx's theses [on Feuerbach] 11 [The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it]. Shouldn't our theses 11 today be: "Maybe in the 20th century we tried a little bit too quickly to change reality. The time has come, with all the confusion today (social problems, ecological problems...), to step back and interpret the world again in a new way."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ZmYwodWn4&t=46s

>>24736076
Well it follows in line with what Zizek is saying and doing at the moment actually. I'm well aware of many of his talks. What I meant to say is that the new metaphysics won't be a final description of reality.

The "means to refine and improve our ability to intervene in the world" isn't a statement on technology but about our ontology, our standpoint before action in the world that is colored by metaphysics informing our capacities based on how we view reality. It's regarding the implications for us on the metaphysics we most closely align with.

>>24735384
Interesting. Does picrel delve into this theme of voluntarist theology inspiring pragmatism you're talking about or is that from somwhere else?