>>41304170
So, you pretend to believe in evolution instead of...?
Or is just that you believe what you like to hear?

You got me with Age of Mythology.

Congratulations, this is the by far most pointless thread I have seen in a while.
And you get a lot of responses.

>>41270251
Maybe, we should open a new thread. I know there are a few events that cannot be explained yet. For instance, the Sun-miracle of Fatima (Milagre do Sol), the Belgian UFO-wave etc.
I was faszinating by x-files back in the day and I like this feeling of "what could have been?".
Most of the explainations they present us, though, are very unlikely.

>>24791485
>In the 2010s the philosophers of choice were all existentialists, Nietzsche being the biggest, but Camus having a lot of following too.
Sounds grimmdark to me.
>Now, I keep seeing existentialism and Hume getting shit on and /lit/ is simping for literal Dark Ages thinkers and gushing over Scholasticism.
Since Schlasticism has his place and they produce sometimes very good material to technical questions like justice, truth etc.
Thats because they has had no need to build systems, the system was given by faith.

> Are the economic conditions of neo-feudalism forcing us back to a neo-medieval philosophical moment?

Let us alone with this communistic bullshit.
You have no idea about economic conditions, medieval philosophy or whatever neo-feudalism is. You just repead words, like a parrot.
> Did the fruits of extreme nominalism finally just turn people off (it probably too late, AGI is going to be born during a period where it will be fed tons of nominalism and emotivism)?
Oh please, stop it. It hurts...

That's because you asked a suspicious question.
While your question looks legit at first glance, it could be some kind of unanswerable fake question upon second thought.

You practical ask why the world is in such order as it is. Even if somebody would come up with a explaination, a mechanism or metaphysical principle, you could still ask why this mechanism or principle is in power...