Reading philosophy being written today is not as compelling because they're just normie smart people. Change my view.

>>81621088 (OP)
Your view does not need to be changed. Philosophy today is not worth reading because I am not writing it.

In a 100 years those same people will be seen as geniuses like the philosophers of 100 years ago.

>>81621615
mate you only have 1 view, it's the devirginizing influence at play
>>81621652
they're already smart. but if you look at a lot of books they're so overly specialized that it sometimes feels like it exists to guide other book chapters in the writing process.

>>81621678
i haven't read much philosophy (even though i really would like to, but don't have the time) let alone modern philosophy.
But doesn't it make sense that while before philosphers analized "basic" things, then the subject would become more and more specialized. Honestly i don't see how it will evolve from now if not heavily involving politics maybe?

>reading philosophy

>>81621702
If you think that mixing politics and philosophy is new and haven't read anything yet, you might enjoy reading Plato's Republic.

>>81621678
>mate you only have 1 view, it's the devirginizing influence at play
Is this even English?

>>81621740
i have, rereading what i said does sound like i don't know that.
What i meant is that the only philosophy evolving is political. Again, i don't know anything at all about modern philosphy apart from it being really specialized but the only way i see it evolving is talking about the present changes, like if we evolve in a cyberpunk-like society it would be a great study

>>81621702
>then the subject would become more and more specialized.
the idea that you can link everything from a philosophical atom to a philosophical god in a way that also includes everything that exists in order of historically narrated order of imminence has already been tried.

that's how you say "here's that money you ordered", but it's not my name. i'm just gonna go out of range now

>>81621652
I don't think any of them will be remembered.

Most philosophers aren't making novel or groundbreaking statements. They simply have the linguistic tact to formalize fully realized ideas originating from large social biomass. This is in contrast to true geniuses making truly novel insane discovers such that they should be considered something greater than human. There has never been a philosopher at the cognitive level of someone like Euler or Tao. You could even say the pursuit of philosophy in the contemporary sense is simply an inability to operate at the higher level of abstraction required for something really groundbreaking.

So you could really say philosophy and philosophers are just stupid niggers that huff their own farts, and you wouldn't be wrong.

>>81621788
I think that philosophy is the adult version of a little kid asking, "Well, why can't I have what I want? Why? Why? Why?" It's more complicated when you have a job and your own money. What do you want for yourself? What do you want from the world so that you can get what you need for yourself? Philosophy answers these questions, and modern philosophy should provide those answers for today's world.

>>81621893
thanks for expressing better what i said lol

>>81621887
Retarded take. Reminder that Liebniz, Newton, and Godel were all philosophers, and the founders of quantum mechanics were all philosophically inclined. If anything genuine geniuses are more likely to engage in philosophy, since novel discover requires rethinking inherited categories.

>>81621887
>Most philosophers aren't making novel or groundbreaking statements.
Because they can't.
Because you can't tell me if the ground breaking statement comes from the box or the Boredom.

>>81621887
Also, for examples of objectively high iq philosophers who contributed to STEM fields:

Leibniz
C. S. Peirce
Frege

>>81621909
Fundamentally, I think that today's philosophical battle is between good vs. "good." There are people who are actually good: they know that killing, swindling, "bad things" are generally wrong to do, and so they don't if they can avoid it. Then, there are the people who just assume that they're good by default because of their religion or political views and commit atrocities whiles saying that they're good. Actually good people want to make life better, fake good people want to make life suck. That's my philosophy.

>>81621740
We just got more of it.

>>81621989
I see you're a Christian Existentialist

>>81621989
A religion is just an ethical and social blueprint and a political belief is just the expression of someone's ethics. You can call their behaviors atrocities, and they would say the same for you. I believe there is objective good, but your statement is too general to be of any use. It's true in the sense that it's like saying
>There's good people and bad.

>>81622070
>You can call their behaviors atrocities, and they would say the same for you.
That's not meaningless, that's the core of the entire battle. If that doesn't mean anything, then neither does the statement, "There's good people and bad."

>>81622092
Yes that's more or less what I'm saying.

>>81622114
So you'd like some use out of it by being able to tell who is fake and who isn't?

>>81622122
nta but i don't see how to make that statement of good people and fake good people actually work in a conversation.

>>81622143
Oh well fuck me I didn't consider that

>>81621088 (OP)
Nigger have you heard the way Zizek talks about sex as if he's had it with his retarded fucking lisp? Jfl philosophers are the least normal people ever

>>81622158
does he talk like this?

>>81622122
It serves to create a quasi-political belief whereby those who agree with 'us' are the 'Us' and those who disagree with 'our' objectively Good beliefs are the 'Them'. This us/them distinction is the core of the political; In this case, we dehumanize those who disagree to the point of being essentially fake and evil in much the same way that they do to 'us'. You've already laid the foundations for a political belief that can justify atrocities, and to fully realize it would be to apply it to one's ethics.

>>81622225
He talks as if 1000000 decibals of white noise are added to the ending of every word

>>81622304
there are only three dimensions to modern musical presentation

>>81622262
>You've already laid the foundations for a political belief that can justify atrocities, and to fully realize it would be to apply it to one's ethics.
Yet the core of that belief is to not do bad things in general if you can help it, so what you're proposing is contradictory.

The only philosophy worth reading is those of succesful or happy people.
Think about it.

>>81622399
i'm sure you haven't thought about it though

>>81622362
At the political level, a lot of evils are justified by the greater good. If you propose total pacivism then maybe, but would you consider it "not a bad thing in general" to let someone be oppressed, abused, exploited, or killed? Then you must stop them in a way that is effectual. If so, then what you consider "not a bad thing" (deposing someon's government, stopping abuse that they consider restitution from past crimes or ultimately justified, etc) will be a "bad" to them, and if they fight back to preserve what you perceive as bad, you need to cause them harm. This may need to include killing them, and if they continue fighting back, a lot of them.

>>81621930
Delicious cope. Modern philosophers always try to anachronistically take credit from all other fields for their fields.

>>81621980
You're a moron lol. Frege was a mathematician, who made contributions to philosophy same as Godel, as academic philosophy is filled with stupid status seeking niggers.

The only philosopher worth reading is Lance S. Bush.

No philosophy written after about 1916 is worth reading because Jews have got their claws into literature and education around that time and kike'd everything up

And I have a masters degree in Philosophy btw

>>81623305
You just don't like that white people committed the two biggest sins in world history. Global slavetrade and the holocaust

>>81623363
the holocaust isn't real, but I wish it was m8

>>81621088 (OP)
What philosophy is being written today? The only modern philosopher I know of, I guess would be Stephan Molyneux, who is a valuable voice in our day.

>>81621088 (OP)
Fake news. See Michael Della Rocca (PBUH). Byung Chul Han is great.

>>81623550
Stefan Molyneux is a sophist or rhetorician like Gorgias rather than a philosopher, even if I align with his views and agree mostly with a lot of his political positions. He is in no wise a philosopher.

>>81622656
Frege is one of the founders of analytic philosophy, what are you talking about? He began the linguistic turn. His work in mathematical logic was directly motivated by philosophical concerns. Being a mathematician doesn't make you not a philosopher.
>>81623276
Lance Bush is based.

>>81621088 (OP)
The past wasn't full of genius people, it was just full of people that didn't have to do an extra job so they could dedicate all their time to their ideological bs.

Same thing happens with fiction books. Writing is no longer a main profession so there are no "good" writers anymore

>>81624596
I have never seen a more dimwitted take in the past four days at least.

>>81623624
Perhaps true. I think he's nonetheless probably one of the more important voices in our age. Like if any voices should be propped up, his is one. It's unreal the absolute nuke it was do discourse, the censorship on big tech. Entire worldviews developing in the absence of real voices. We need more like Steph.
This is sort of sidetracked, but it will be interesting to see the developements following his return to twitter. He's having back and forths with retarded radfems and such. Till now those types haven't had much engagement with real voices, just memes and monoliths, and none of the ammo they've developed for those types can apply to Stephan, they will have to, for once, be serious, and in doing so I think they will be shown to be inadequate and their little grandiosity complex retard take economy will be in shambles.

>>81624625
Don't worry you might get it in 4 or so years

>>81622584
Eh too long and convoluted, I can't tell what your point is that hasn't already been addressed