| With the way the internet and social media is, has the style by which philosophy is shared in society changed to one where we can't expect any more single philosophical greats for an era? Is it because of the public embrace of the idea that everyone has their own valid opinion and that the truth is ultimately subjective? Do we live in an age where personality and eloquence characterises good philosophy, before we look at their language and consider what premises we can see that are true from accurate definitions designating only a coherent set of objects? Can we expect to see the next Tractatus? In this day and age, where social media and publicity enlightens any great work, is it still possible to shake the world with a philosophical work, shaking all of academia with it? What are your thoughts, folks? |
| We already have modern philosophy greats, at least in the last 50 years. The arguments put forward in Roe v. Wade were revolutionary and Gettier Cases were a massive game changer in western Epistemology I think you're conflating popular culture with philosophy which aren't necessarily the same at all. Technology has definitely allowed philosophy to spread in a new and different way and I do not think it has actually changed what academic philosophy is. What shakes the world of academia doesn't necessarily have any immediate effect on popular culture. If everyone read and understood the Roe v Wade arguments we would have a lot more pro-choice people. Same goes for if people actually understood arguments for reparations and incest. Granted, philosophy used to be one of the primary fields of academia and with the advent of hard and soft science has taken a very large backseat in terms of how important most people view it. |
Mogu-samaMay 5, 2017 12:00 PM
| Want to talk? Club! "Would you like an anti-psychotic?" *Bonus points if you leave a comment about the meaning of my signature.* |
Mogu-sama said: We already have modern philosophy greats, at least in the last 50 years. The arguments put forward in Roe v. Wade were revolutionary and Gettier Cases were a massive game changer in western Epistemology I think you're conflating popular culture with philosophy which aren't necessarily the same at all. Technology has definitely allowed philosophy to spread in a new and different way and I do not think it has actually changed what academic philosophy is. What shakes the world of academia doesn't necessarily have any immediate effect on popular culture. If everyone read and understood the Roe v Wade arguments we would have a lot more pro-choice people. Same goes for if people actually understood arguments for reparations and incest. Granted, philosophy used to be one of the primary fields of academia and with the advent of hard and soft science has taken a very large backseat in terms of how important most people view it. I can only admit the lack of insight that this thread tried to enlighten. I am not on ball today. It's my first time back on the forums for a while and so I'm kind of rusty. /thread. Ha! |
| Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding how we understand the world around us, and our place in the universe. It is natural that philosophy changes over time, especially in regards to technological progress, because our understanding of the world changes. Today, pure philosophy has diminished in importance and and prominence, as has any specific fields, simply because the great thinkers of today aren't omni-experts, that deal with all sciences, but more specific specialists. In general, groundbreaking discoveries are rarer today because a lot of fields already have established dogma. |
Fijure said: Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding how we understand the world around us, and our place in the universe. It is natural that philosophy changes over time, especially in regards to technological progress, because our understanding of the world changes. Today, pure philosophy has diminished in importance and and prominence, as has any specific fields, simply because the great thinkers of today aren't omni-experts, that deal with all sciences, but more specific specialists. In general, groundbreaking discoveries are rarer today because a lot of fields already have established dogma. I disagree. Philosophy is understanding the world available to us. It is the elucidation of understanding. The logical clarification of thoughts. And the world is all that you can understand. If language can be fully understood then you can share a conception of the world the same as other people, as language fully describes the known world. |
| what most people my age consider knowledge of philosophy is what they learned in intro to phil and some edgy Nietzsche quotes they found online |
 |
Adderall said: what most people my age consider knowledge of philosophy is what they learned in intro to phil and some edgy Nietzsche quotes they found online Yeah, that shit's pretty edgy, but that's on the less serious and less professional level. People like Blaire White are also great philosophers of this era. Philosophies are elucidated worldviews supported by logic. Iconic quotes are conclusions that left a logical impact on the hearer. |
JustaCratMay 5, 2017 12:53 PM
| With philosophy you mean that a person discovers the absolute truth about a thought, such as for example that an anime is considered to be perfect if it meets certain parameters and since many others do not comply, are they just crap? |
| Nah, my favorite modern philosopher is JustaBrer. Adderall said: And those Nietzsche quotes are always out of context and make them look retarded, too. what most people my age consider knowledge of philosophy is what they learned in intro to phil and some edgy Nietzsche quotes they found online |
JustaBrer said: Fijure said: Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding how we understand the world around us, and our place in the universe. It is natural that philosophy changes over time, especially in regards to technological progress, because our understanding of the world changes. Today, pure philosophy has diminished in importance and and prominence, as has any specific fields, simply because the great thinkers of today aren't omni-experts, that deal with all sciences, but more specific specialists. In general, groundbreaking discoveries are rarer today because a lot of fields already have established dogma. I disagree. Philosophy is understanding the world available to us. It is the elucidation of understanding. The logical clarification of thoughts. And the world is all that you can understand. If language can be fully understood then you can share a conception of the world the same as other people, as language fully describes the known world. I don't see how this disproves my assertion that philosophy is constantly changing because through progress and change, our perception and the sum and nature of the world available to us changes, and therefore, the philosophy we use to understand this must necessarily change as well. |
| Yes, you can't say anything these days without people calling you a nutjob for not sticking to "science" and reality. |
 |
| Nothings changed whatsoever in thousands of years regarding anything super important. So, no. |
| Sometimes we see great works in retrospect, but yes philosophy has changed. We live in the fallout of the linguistic turn and post structuralism. Soon we should see a counter-movement. Habermas and Taylor are still alive. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Philosophy can die a silent death, now, with science actually taking over what used to be philosophys' fields. |
Fijure said: I don't see how this disproves my assertion that philosophy is constantly changing because through progress and change, our perception and the sum and nature of the world available to us changes, and therefore, the philosophy we use to understand this must necessarily change as well. "Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding how we understand the world around us, and our place in the universe." You described science, not philosophy. Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding what the world is around us and any thing's place relative to that world. It is objectification. Sound philosophy is only sound relative to the empirical entirety and logical scope of the known world. A way of life, which is a perception of the world applied, which in this case is human beings' way of life, is like a set of building blocks. Some structural pieces in our philosophical understanding of the world are less secure; less coherently tied with their nearest parts in the wider logical picture. These are logical fallacies. Vague claims that do not designate objects coherently. What philosophers seek to do is to rearrange these blocks through theories, and some "philosophers" serve to cause disorder even further by applying more fundamental logical fallacies. Philosophy is propositions. Propositions designate objects. Objects interconnect in the world. Our job is to form a connected logical picture of the world that we currently know. That is philosophy. TheBrainintheJar said: Sometimes we see great works in retrospect, but yes philosophy has changed. We live in the fallout of the linguistic turn and post structuralism. Soon we should see a counter-movement. Habermas and Taylor are still alive. The linguistic turn understood what knowledge was. About structuralism: knowledge is the observation of objects interconnecting. The acquisition of knowledge is done through our philosophy: deduction and induction. Science uses induction to form theories that allow the creation of greater tools to understand the nature of the world. Objective philosophers must use deduction to properly designate objects in a coherent system. We've got postmodernism. A philosophy that tries to reject the logical role of philosophy. Postmodernism is just one big brainfart that tries to say fallacies are valid. TPO said: Whether we can expect another Tractatus, I don't know. It's far less likely for one book to massively overhaul an entire category of philosophy or exemplify it - that much is true. This seems to be a consequence of how professional and specialized these disciplines are, relative to past philosophy, rather than what someone-or-other is saying on social media, though. With philosophy, you don't need to look through someone else's eyes to see the world. This is why I will never study philosophy formally until I've properly developed my own worldview. All you need to study is language. Formally studied philosophy is the study of philosophers as much as anything. I'm only seeking to use the philosophical skills I was born with and refined by applying my knowledge or definitions where I can. |
JustaCratMay 10, 2017 12:16 PM
| I think Philosophy can be translated to meme nowadays, so i has certainly changed. |
_Ako_ said: I think Philosophy can be translated to meme nowadays, so i has certainly changed. Right, that's a good point Ako. A lot of modern philosophy is shared through memes. |
JustaBrer said: _Ako_ said: I think Philosophy can be translated to meme nowadays, so i has certainly changed. Right, that's a good point Ako. A lot of modern philosophy is shared through memes. Just listen to this speech. E: The timestamp link doesn't work right, it starts at 3:22. |
JustaBrer said: Fijure said: I don't see how this disproves my assertion that philosophy is constantly changing because through progress and change, our perception and the sum and nature of the world available to us changes, and therefore, the philosophy we use to understand this must necessarily change as well. "Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding how we understand the world around us, and our place in the universe." You described science, not philosophy. Philosophy is at its core the exercise of understanding what the world is around us and any thing's place relative to that world. It is objectification. Sound philosophy is only sound relative to the empirical entirety and logical scope of the known world. A way of life, which is a perception of the world applied, which in this case is human beings' way of life, is like a set of building blocks. Some structural pieces in our philosophical understanding of the world are less secure; less coherently tied with their nearest parts in the wider logical picture. These are logical fallacies. Vague claims that do not designate objects coherently. What philosophers seek to do is to rearrange these blocks through theories, and some "philosophers" serve to cause disorder even further by applying more fundamental logical fallacies. Philosophy is propositions. Propositions designate objects. Objects interconnect in the world. Our job is to form a connected logical picture of the world that we currently know. That is philosophy. TheBrainintheJar said: Sometimes we see great works in retrospect, but yes philosophy has changed. We live in the fallout of the linguistic turn and post structuralism. Soon we should see a counter-movement. Habermas and Taylor are still alive. The linguistic turn understood what knowledge was. About structuralism: knowledge is the observation of objects interconnecting. The acquisition of knowledge is done through our philosophy: deduction and induction. Science uses induction to form theories that allow the creation of greater tools to understand the nature of the world. Objective philosophers must use deduction to properly designate objects in a coherent system. We've got postmodernism. A philosophy that tries to reject the logical role of philosophy. Postmodernism is just one big brainfart that tries to say fallacies are valid. TPO said: Whether we can expect another Tractatus, I don't know. It's far less likely for one book to massively overhaul an entire category of philosophy or exemplify it - that much is true. This seems to be a consequence of how professional and specialized these disciplines are, relative to past philosophy, rather than what someone-or-other is saying on social media, though. With philosophy, you don't need to look through someone else's eyes to see the world. This is why I will never study philosophy formally until I've properly developed my own worldview. All you need to study is language. Formally studied philosophy is the study of philosophers as much as anything. I'm only seeking to use the philosophical skills I was born with and refined by applying my knowledge or definitions where i can. Yeah, I'm not much with postmodernism either and I hope we'll have enough counter-philosophers so in 10 years it'l be a joke. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TPO said: JustaBrer said: With philosophy, you don't need to look through someone else's eyes to see the world. This is why I will never study philosophy formally until I've properly developed my own worldview. All you need to study is language. Formally studied philosophy is the study of philosophers as much as anything. I'm only seeking to use the philosophical skills I was born with and refined by applying my knowledge or definitions where i can. I'm afraid I don't agree with a lot of this, perhaps only the first part. For one, you should consider studying some philosophy before your worldview crystallizes, otherwise you may belatedly discover you've been thinking on the wrong track or barking up the wrong tree for months/years. You also find a lot of good stuff in older material which helps expand and modify worldviews even as they're forming, so you miss out on potentially life-shaping reads. Secondly, proficiency of language is not nearly enough to study philosophy. For instance, if you don't understand the background debates and the strongest arguments for a position, you're going to churn out something trivial and irrelevant at best. It can even be in doubt if you actually did any philosophy if this is the case! That said, your line about formally studied philosophy being the study of philosophers is a good observation and not one I'm going to challenge (reminds me of Richard Rorty) but the formal study of philosophy does have an instructive as well as a textual element, so just be careful on the strength of the statement there. Don't get me wrong, I have a library here full of great philosophical works and I'll read through them all in time. I don't want to be told how to do philosophy or to use evidence that I don't regard as evidence in formal education. About your second point, I think it depends on the question being asked. Certainly, a knowledge on the strongest arguments for and against something; such as on paradoxes, or theories; well, they can build your philosophical worldview as you go along. The answer to any philosophical question though will come simply through logic when you are using the right definitions and use language properly. It's always important to keep refining your philosophical skills, and you do this through debate or thinking about ideas. I'm very interested in studying great philosophers and the history of those times, but I want to be able to relate to them properly and see through all the bullshit. This is why I decided I will continue to focus on language before I take any philosophy courses. I'm arriving at similar answers to Wittgenstein but I want to complete my own propositions before I compare them. I don't want to be consumed by someone else's philosophy, and I want to use their work as counter-arguments when I complete my own. I will also be able to see who agreed with me on whatever matter. That's my stance: I will continue to read philosophy in time, but my focus is on crystalising my own worldview. |
Vokren said: Takuan_Soho said: I would argue that the scientific method made philosophy even more essential. The SM is great at determining facts, but integrating those facts, which includes interpreting them, into a whole. That is the task of philosophy. Unfortunately, Philosophers chickened out. Half deified science (Marxists), the other half retreated into useless spiritualism. You can be 100% right, I don't think philosophy is obsolete, just wandering around not knowing what to do. However, science doesn't merely find facts and lock them in a shelf, science always builds knowledge based on previous one, just doing this requires interpretation. With the rise of qualitative methods, science is also no longer just about finding causalities and correlations either but also meaning. You've got that backwards. People use the meaning they find in ideology and philosophy to interpret science. Science will always be independent of any viewpoints or ideologies. Any such claims or assertions will come from the scientists and whatever ideologies they subscribe to. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
| I come in this thread, and I see people talking about postmodernism and saying "I'm not with the postmodernists/I'm not a postmodernist." You people do realize that this is the response of every postmodernist, yes? You do realize that that's kind of the point, yes? I can half understand people's engrossing obsession with hating postmodernism, but at the same time I feel like these same people fall into the camp of everybody else who don't even properly get themselves acquainted with the material and end up just fraudulently declaring they hate postmodernism and post some generic cliche but half decent written sound byte of the whole movement without considering if there's any intellectual question worth considering. Because Joyce, Pynchon, and Gaddis are all bad writers who are pretentious brainfarting, and in the case of the former two, coprophiliacs because they write things that are difficult to understand, yes? I don't necessarily buy everything written by Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Jameson, but to discredit their works as just shameless circlejerking is a disservice to what they have to say, much of which is still interesting regardless if you agree. Anybody who reads Precession of Simulacra, for instance, and comes out saying "well that was a load of horseshit" probably needs help at that point and read "The Precession of Simulacra" by Jean Baudrillard, Translated from English into American. |
YudinaMay 8, 2017 11:46 AM
Yudina said: I come in this thread, and I see people talking about postmodernism and saying "I'm not with the postmodernists/I'm not a postmodernist." You people do realize that this is the response of every postmodernist, yes? You do realize that that's kind of the point, yes? What, nonsense? Yudina said: I can half understand people's engrossing obsession with hating postmodernism, but at the same time I feel like these same people fall into the camp of everybody else who don't even properly get themselves acquainted with the material and end up just fraudulently declaring they hate postmodernism and post some generic cliche but half decent written sound byte of the whole movement without considering if there's any intellectual question worth considering. You feel a lot. Yudina said: Because Joyce, Pynchon, and Gaddis are all bad writers who are pretentious brainfarting, and in the case of the former two, coprophiliacs because they write things that are difficult to understand, yes? I don't necessarily buy everything written by Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Jameson, but to discredit their works as just shameless circlejerking is a disservice to what they have to say, much of which is still interesting regardless if you agree. Something simply being interesting does not merit it to have epistemological credit. |
JustaBrer said: I mean this is the kind of non-intelligent write off that's not worth engaging. If you're not going to comment on any of the authors presented, don't say anything. It just comes off as useless grandstanding that confirms my suspicion that most people who write off postmodernism haven't actually read anything substantial enough to make sufficient critiques. :pYudina said: I come in this thread, and I see people talking about postmodernism and saying "I'm not with the postmodernists/I'm not a postmodernist." You people do realize that this is the response of every postmodernist, yes? You do realize that that's kind of the point, yes? What, nonsense? Yudina said: I can half understand people's engrossing obsession with hating postmodernism, but at the same time I feel like these same people fall into the camp of everybody else who don't even properly get themselves acquainted with the material and end up just fraudulently declaring they hate postmodernism and post some generic cliche but half decent written sound byte of the whole movement without considering if there's any intellectual question worth considering. You feel a lot. Yudina said: Because Joyce, Pynchon, and Gaddis are all bad writers who are pretentious brainfarting, and in the case of the former two, coprophiliacs because they write things that are difficult to understand, yes? I don't necessarily buy everything written by Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Jameson, but to discredit their works as just shameless circlejerking is a disservice to what they have to say, much of which is still interesting regardless if you agree. Something simply being interesting does not merit it to have epistemological credit. e: Okay, having read your nonsensical blog post on postmodernism and PC, there's no reason to engage with you on postmodernism. It's very clear you have not read any material and don't understand anything beyond its superficial aspects, all of which you can find on Wikipedia. M'kay. |
YudinaMay 9, 2017 6:42 AM
| The great irony of MALers here who jizz themselves over the brilliance of Tractus and Wittgenstein is how relevant he is to postmodern studies, and how many French postmodernists (Deleuze/Guattari/Derrida) grapple and and expand upon the linguistic notions and word games built originally by Wittgenstein's philosophy and works. But no, Tractus is what we care about and all postmodernists are frauds hurr durr Read a book before you embarrass yourself. |
Yudina said: I mean this is the kind of non-intelligent write off that's not worth engaging. If you're not going to comment on any of the authors presented, don't say anything. It just comes off as useless grandstanding that confirms my suspicion that most people who write off postmodernism haven't actually read anything substantial enough to make sufficient critiques. :p e: Okay, having read your nonsensical blog post on postmodernism and PC, there's no reason to engage with you on postmodernism. It's very clear you have not read any material and don't understand anything beyond its superficial aspects, all of which you can find on Wikipedia. M'kay. I am under no obligation to discredit your sources. Behave. And know this, Wittgenstein's work was the antithesis to postmodernism. |
JustaBrer said: This is how you know someone hasn't read/understood Wittgenstein or postmodernism. First of all, yes, Wittgenstein is often scoffed at in postmodern circles. He predates a lot of post-structuralist thought, not completely dissimilar to what Derrida or late Barthes would have written, but my post has nothing to do with whether or not their theories are compatible (note: they can be), but rather how despite this site's insistent orgasmic reaction to anything he writes, their write-off of postmodern thought as a direct conversation to his own demonstrates a disturbing amount of ignorance and lack of engagement. Uniting Wittgenstein's thought with the likes of Baudrillard or Deleuze would be an incredibly interesting endeavor, especially since French postmodernists are the few philosophers testing the linguistic limits that Wittgenstein described in Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.Yudina said: I mean this is the kind of non-intelligent write off that's not worth engaging. If you're not going to comment on any of the authors presented, don't say anything. It just comes off as useless grandstanding that confirms my suspicion that most people who write off postmodernism haven't actually read anything substantial enough to make sufficient critiques. :p e: Okay, having read your nonsensical blog post on postmodernism and PC, there's no reason to engage with you on postmodernism. It's very clear you have not read any material and don't understand anything beyond its superficial aspects, all of which you can find on Wikipedia. M'kay. I am under no obligation to discredit your sources. Behave. And know this, Wittgenstein's work was the antithesis to postmodernism. You're under no obligation to discredit my sources. I'm totally within my bounds to say you don't know anything about anything you're talking about. :3 Alas, this often happens when people who seem principally concerned with science and mathematics start talking about philosophy. Much of Wittgenstein, the post-structuralists, and the postmodernists are largely applicable from an artistic/literary perspective (Wittgenstein was, after all, considered a poet's philosopher), that is the establishing of a defensible aesthetic/artistic/literary sensibility. In that particular category, there is so much to learn and consider. |
YudinaMay 9, 2017 12:15 PM
Yudina said: JustaBrer said: This is how you know someone hasn't read/understood Wittgenstein or postmodernism. First of all, yes, Wittgenstein is often scoffed at in postmodern circles. He predates a lot of post-structuralist thought, not completely dissimilar to what Derrida or late Barthes would have written, but my post has nothing to do with whether or not their theories are compatible (note: they can be), but rather how despite this site's insistent orgasmic reaction to anything he writes, their write-off of postmodern thought as a direct conversation to his own demonstrates a disturbing amount of ignorance and lack of engagement. Uniting Wittgenstein's thought with the likes of Baudrillard or Deleuze would be an incredibly interesting endeavor, especially since French postmodernists are the few philosophers testing the linguistic limits that Wittgenstein described in Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.I am under no obligation to discredit your sources. Behave. And know this, Wittgenstein's work was the antithesis to postmodernism. You're under no obligation to discredit my sources. I'm totally within my bounds to say you don't know anything about anything you're talking about. :3 Alas, this often happens when people who seem principally concerned with science and mathematics start talking about philosophy. Much of Wittgenstein, the post-structuralists, and the postmodernists are largely applicable from an artistic/literary perspective (Wittgenstein was, after all, considered a poet's philosopher), that is the establishing of a defensible aesthetic/artistic/literary sensibility. In that particular category, there is so much to learn and consider. It's funny that I come from mainly an artistic background, but anything I heard about postmodernists make them seem like a bunch of doubters who can point out holes but no alternatives. That said, I do think people are doing too much science without philosophy. They don't understand mathematics is a type of language that doesn't exist in nature in and of itself, but it's helpful so we use it. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
TheBrainintheJar said: I mean, in order to first understand the postmodernists, you need to first read modernist literature and/or modernist writers who eventually wrote postmodern works (Nabokov, Joyce, Beckett).Yudina said: This is how you know someone hasn't read/understood Wittgenstein or postmodernism. First of all, yes, Wittgenstein is often scoffed at in postmodern circles. He predates a lot of post-structuralist thought, not completely dissimilar to what Derrida or late Barthes would have written, but my post has nothing to do with whether or not their theories are compatible (note: they can be), but rather how despite this site's insistent orgasmic reaction to anything he writes, their write-off of postmodern thought as a direct conversation to his own demonstrates a disturbing amount of ignorance and lack of engagement. Uniting Wittgenstein's thought with the likes of Baudrillard or Deleuze would be an incredibly interesting endeavor, especially since French postmodernists are the few philosophers testing the linguistic limits that Wittgenstein described in Philosophical Investigations and Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. You're under no obligation to discredit my sources. I'm totally within my bounds to say you don't know anything about anything you're talking about. :3 Alas, this often happens when people who seem principally concerned with science and mathematics start talking about philosophy. Much of Wittgenstein, the post-structuralists, and the postmodernists are largely applicable from an artistic/literary perspective (Wittgenstein was, after all, considered a poet's philosopher), that is the establishing of a defensible aesthetic/artistic/literary sensibility. In that particular category, there is so much to learn and consider. It's funny that I come from mainly an artistic background, but anything I heard about postmodernists make them seem like a bunch of doubters who can point out holes but no alternatives. But if you're coming from an artistic background, and think the artistic/philosophical importance of postmodernism with regards to art is just blowing smoke for no apparent reason, then you should probably not be reading Jorge Luis Borges, Thomas Pynchon, William Gaddis, Vladimir Nabokov, Samuel Beckett, John Barth, and others (hint: you should read them all). |
| @Yudina Look, I understand you're a thud. (Wittgenstein was, after all, considered a poet's philosopher), that is the establishing of a defensible aesthetic/artistic/literary sensibility. In that particular category, there is so much to learn and consider. Scratch that you're fucking deluded. Here, if you think Postmodernism is so great then provide us with the strongest arguments you can gather. Keep it brief though, I have minimal time for bullshit. Also, define postmodernism so you're not providing irrelevant arguments. |
JustaCratMay 9, 2017 3:27 PM
JustaBrer said: Oh please. If you're surprised to hear of Wittgenstein's reputation as a poet's philosopher, then you're way too under read to be even talking to me. Scratch that you're fucking deluded. Here, if you think Postmodernism is so great then provide us with the strongest arguments you can gather. Keep it brief though, I have minimal time for bullshit. Also, define postmodernism so you're not providing irrelevant arguments. I'm not going to argue with someone who hasn't read the appropriate material. Come back after you've read Capitalism & Schizophrenia, Simulacra and Simulations, and Of Grammatology. Until then, fuck off. I don't have to cater to your confrontational proclivities when you've displayed zero understanding of postmodernism outside of mainstream, cliche, and superficial dismissals. I am under no obligation or need to provide any definitions or to provide arguments defending postmodernism when a user too ignorant to know Wittgenstein's reputation is doing it for me. |
Yudina said: Oh please. If you're surprised to hear of Wittgenstein's reputation as a poet's philosopher, then you're way too under read to be even talking to me. I'm not going to argue with someone who hasn't read the appropriate material. Come back after you've read Capitalism & Schizophrenia, Simulacra and Simulations, and Of Grammatology. Until then, fuck off. I don't have to cater to your confrontational proclivities when you've displayed zero understanding of postmodernism outside of mainstream, cliche, and superficial dismissals. I am under no obligation or need to provide any definitions or to provide arguments defending postmodernism when a user too ignorant to know Wittgenstein's reputation is doing it for me. You're a fucking rocker like... Get a grip of yourself. |
| How about you read some books first? Any philosophical discussion should be based on some form of reciprocity. Any discussion on postmodernism between two people should be based on the understanding that we've at least read enough to properly discuss the extent to which it has developed and is understood by academics and intellectuals. Based at you scoffing at Wittgenstein's reputation, which is discussed and confirmed by his writings in Cultures and Values, I have determined you don't know Wittgenstein as much as you think do. Based at you having not responded to any of the texts I've cited, I've determined I cannot discuss seminal postmodern thinkers like Spivak, Zizek, Jameson, Derrida, D&G, and Baudrillard with you. If I can't discuss the works of postmodern writers, what's the point in me saying anything to you? There's no reciprocity, and thus no benefit for me trying to debate content that you have either not read or do not possess the capacity to read and understand. So, again, read a book before you embarrass yourself. |
| JustaBrer the problem here is that you tried to come off as intelectual man, trying to discuss your views in postmodernism, but when someone post his views and opinions, you dismiss it with one liners because it's clear you can't win an argument about the subject inquestion and that you have no idea what you're talking about. So i suggest you either ask mods to close thread or try to write a counter argument on how you think this guy is wrong |
 "Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss |
| Philosophy used to be the domain of the most respected academics in the world, now it is largely the domain of edgy teenagers on the internet. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Yudina said: How about you read some books first? Any philosophical discussion should be based on some form of reciprocity. Any discussion on postmodernism between two people should be based on the understanding that we've at least read enough to properly discuss the extent to which it has developed and is understood by academics and intellectuals. Based at you scoffing at Wittgenstein's reputation, which is discussed and confirmed by his writings in Cultures and Values, I have determined you don't know Wittgenstein as much as you think do. Based at you having not responded to any of the texts I've cited, I've determined I cannot discuss seminal postmodern thinkers like Spivak, Zizek, Jameson, Derrida, D&G, and Baudrillard with you. If I can't discuss the works of postmodern writers, what's the point in me saying anything to you? There's no reciprocity, and thus no benefit for me trying to debate content that you have either not read or do not possess the capacity to read and understand. So, again, read a book before you embarrass yourself. So now you want to argue? Nah nah, it doesn't work like that. Everything you say is bullshit, and half the site can see that without me going out my way to refute every last piece of shit that comes out your mouth. Jog on halfwit. I'll declare now that I will not respond to any more of your posts for the sake of keeping my thread clean. @Xykko The thing is, I have no patience for pseudo-intellectual assholes like him who want to force their way in matters with a childish attitude and utter nonsense. Should we have any tolerance for this on MAL? No. When an asshole like this comes along this is how you deal with it. Just leave it at that. Because of this user's impossible attitude we were not able to debate any ideas properly. That's no problem. Let's move on, and not derail the thread any further. |
JustaCratMay 9, 2017 5:56 PM
| >now you want to argue bruh I've been making points since you first went "you feel a lot" I'm sorry you got called out for having not read a single work (or even essay) by a postmodernist and being completely out of your depth even discussing a philosopher you think you understand, but it's very clear you're too under read to be intellectually engaging in any capacity. If only you had read Wittgenstein's commentary on the writing of philosophy to not expose yourself by not knowing Wittgenstein's dedication to poetic composition. Don't let your illiteracy keep you from discussing things with the kids though. I'm sure you can assert your mainstream superficial superiority over them because they're just as lacking in the necessary and prerequisite readings on the discussions of the postmodern as you are. I mean the very fact you couldn't even comment on the very well known translation of Baudrillard's Precession of a Simulacra from English to American that is essentially known to any philosophy student who is both enthusiastic of the subject and has taken some semblance of a philosophy class, confirms your lack of reading. By the way, appealing to the site's understanding of my tomfoolery is asinine. First of all, 95% of the site is probably just as illiterate as you are, and I will treat them as such. Second of all, any appeal to an authority as pathetic as this community's casual discussion members is tantamount to baby whining and "losing." And third of all, saying you're going to refute things coming out of my mouth (you mean fingers?) implies you have actually understood anything I have said. I highly doubt that. But you're too much of an intellectual coward to actually prove you know anything about postmodernism instead of your casual "it's just people being pretentious and brainfarting and circlejerking." If you do respond, I eagerly await the tons of information I'm sure you'll have pulled off of wikipedia, r/philosophy, /lit/, and Stanford's philosophy page to supplement an argument that furthers your substantial lack of capacity for reading and understanding. \o/ |
YudinaMay 9, 2017 6:00 PM
JustaBrer said: Yeah, that shit's pretty edgy, but that's on the less serious and less professional level. People like Blaire White are also great philosophers of this era. Philosophies are elucidated worldviews supported by logic. Iconic quotes are conclusions that left a logical impact on the hearer. I'm sorry, Blaire White as in the transgender YouTuber? I would hardly call her a philosopher. As Jar has pointed out, Habermas is still a live and considered to be one of the most influential social theorists. There are also people like Giddens who focus on more global social theory, Baudrillard who focuses on culture, Butler who focuses on gender, and Dennett who focuses on religion and cognitive science. If you look hard enough, you could find many modern philosophers who have something interesting to say. Peter Singer is regarded as one of the most influential modern philosophers in philosophy of ethics. Even Sam Harris has some interesting things to say about ethics and politics. I think you're feeling the void of philosophical intellectualism due to several reasons: 1. You simply haven't looked hard enough. 2. You might be confusing the popularity of classic philosophers in their time with the praise they enjoy now. 3. The intellectual field might be too saturated and thus harder to filter through. It seems the barrier for entry is much lower with blogs, book deals, and academia. In the time of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived, a much lower percentage of the population knew how to read or write and they were even less concerned with pursuits of philosophy and logic. Arguably, the average person in modern times isn't concerned with philosophy and logic either, but many more people have access to it. Hence, many more people are producing, but I feel like not that many are consuming. As a subject, I don't think philosophy is dead. It just faces an inherent problem of a stalemate where nobody seems to provide definitive answers for some of the most important questions even the earliest of philosophers asked. Is there a God? Do we have free will? Is there objective morality? What is death and who actually dies? How do we know what we know? These questions have line-ups of strong arguments, but to my knowledge, nobody has given the definitive argument equivalent to an axiomatic truth. Perhaps we are asking questions without answers, or perhaps we aren't capable of attaining these answers yet. Regardless, it is important to keep asking them. Personally, until I started college, most of these things never crossed my mind, yet taking philosophy classes really helped me get a firmer grasp on life and rationality. |
 |
| @Saucy Blaire White is intellectually active, good at logically clarifying her thoughts and debating in a sound manner. She also has a great following. These reasons made my judgement. In my view someone sound is better at philosophy than an established academic who has complicated and technical ideas, whose philosophy is not sound. I think you are right about why I was feeling the void of philosophical intellectualism. Mogu-sama also made good points about this. The thing is, refuting or elucidating big works is a time-consuming procedure. Whilst it would very intellectually productive, I like what I'm doing just now. As I said to TPO, this is all stuff I'll get around to when I've crystalised postobjectvism. That's my priority. I don't want people to think I'm arrogant in my own views and lazy to read other works. As a subject, I don't think philosophy is dead. It just faces an inherent problem of a stalemate where nobody seems to provide definitive answers for some of the most important questions even the earliest of philosophers asked. Is there a God? Do we have free will? Is there objective morality? What is death and who actually dies? How do we know what we know? I'll try to elucidate what we can actually know with regards to the big questions as an epistemological philosopher and philosopher of language. I may be able to provide definitive answers one way or the other with some of them. I'm the closest to answering the two bold ones. |
| I noticed that recently political ideology often overwrites religion/philosophy and astonishingly even science now. |
 |
Yudina said: TheBrainintheJar said: I mean, in order to first understand the postmodernists, you need to first read modernist literature and/or modernist writers who eventually wrote postmodern works (Nabokov, Joyce, Beckett).It's funny that I come from mainly an artistic background, but anything I heard about postmodernists make them seem like a bunch of doubters who can point out holes but no alternatives. But if you're coming from an artistic background, and think the artistic/philosophical importance of postmodernism with regards to art is just blowing smoke for no apparent reason, then you should probably not be reading Jorge Luis Borges, Thomas Pynchon, William Gaddis, Vladimir Nabokov, Samuel Beckett, John Barth, and others (hint: you should read them all). I admit I haven't directly experienced any postmodernism and I will give them a chance. Pynchon actually looks like a lot of fun from here, and so is Deleuze. Derrida seems like 'well you can't understand anything' from what I heard. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| No. Religion's grip is too strong on those who are shakeable. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
TheBrainintheJar said: Which is kind of the point. Derrida is one of many philosophers where people's impressions fall on the extremes. One either believes that he's completely nonsensical, talking in concentric circles and constantly shifting goalposts (see Searle), or that that there's a very clear point that he's trying to delineate. I happen to fall somewhere closer to the latter, especially since Derrida mentioned multiple times that his writings were just as much philosophy as it was about performing it in his writings to evoke a sort of response from his reader. While reading his writings, that sort of attempt (despite the fact I have not read him in French) certainly comes through.Yudina said: I mean, in order to first understand the postmodernists, you need to first read modernist literature and/or modernist writers who eventually wrote postmodern works (Nabokov, Joyce, Beckett). But if you're coming from an artistic background, and think the artistic/philosophical importance of postmodernism with regards to art is just blowing smoke for no apparent reason, then you should probably not be reading Jorge Luis Borges, Thomas Pynchon, William Gaddis, Vladimir Nabokov, Samuel Beckett, John Barth, and others (hint: you should read them all). I admit I haven't directly experienced any postmodernism and I will give them a chance. Pynchon actually looks like a lot of fun from here, and so is Deleuze. Derrida seems like 'well you can't understand anything' from what I heard. Then there are those who say they're not "Derridean," without realizing that that's precisely what Derrida would also say. As far as readings, Pynchon is a bit heavy to start with. I think a more appropriate progression from 1930s American literature from writers like O'Conner -> Nabokov -> Faulkner would help to contextualize the literary tradition that Pynchon is coming into. Readings of Gaddis's The Recognitions is also recommended, but that's a near 1000 page book that requires both an adequate understanding of Goethe's Faust, TS Eliot's The Four Quartets, and more, so I guess that sort of speaks to the sort of traditional difficulty in approaching the postmoderns or immediate precursors to them. Finally, it's important to understand that postmodern comes to form in different categories. The postmodern tradition in literature, while not completely separate, is at times seemingly dislocated from the postmodernism that surfaced in culture/philosophy/social thought, much of what is a response to the idea of late capitalism (see Jameson). That's why the poster I responded to appears to me an infant when it comes to discussing these ideologies, they are so wide in scope that it seems blatantly obvious his only conception of postmodernism is what he's seen on social media, attributing things in the mainstream to a larger state apparatus of postmodernism while throwing people like Butler, Baudrillard, and Derrida under the bus along with them in a completely and utterly moronic act of naivety. Saucy said: For the user you're responding to, it's definitely #1. *shrug*1. You simply haven't looked hard enough. 2. You might be confusing the popularity of classic philosophers in their time with the praise they enjoy now. 3. The intellectual field might be too saturated and thus harder to filter through. It seems the barrier for entry is much lower with blogs, book deals, and academia. In the time of the greatest philosophers who have ever lived, a much lower percentage of the population knew how to read or write and they were even less concerned with pursuits of philosophy and logic. Arguably, the average person in modern times isn't concerned with philosophy and logic either, but many more people have access to it. Hence, many more people are producing, but I feel like not that many are consuming. |
YudinaMay 10, 2017 7:53 AM
More topics from this board
» Why do Americans work ( 1 2 )vasipi4946 - May 6 |
50 |
by xMizu_
»»
27 seconds ago |
|
» do u guys have friends irl? ( 1 2 )removed-user - Nov 7, 2023 |
88 |
by Loyal_Sheepling
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» What are you doing right now? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )-Mayhem- - Dec 25, 2020 |
449 |
by tsukareru
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» Oddly specific thing in your house that isn't really hurting you but it's super annoying to deal with?StrawberryBlxxd - 9 hours ago |
10 |
by tsukareru
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» How much IQ points do you lose when you interact with people in real life?LenRea - Yesterday |
18 |
by Serafos
»»
11 minutes ago |