The only significant thinkers at the moment are Slavoj Zizek, Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land, Richard Spencer, and that guy who wrote those ebin Holy Roman Empire & 30 Yeas War books. Academic philosophy is pretty much dead, and has been since Heidegger.
Y/N ?
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.is
archive.is
xenosystems.net
twitter.com
What makes Moldbug significant? Isn't he just some fucking blogger?
How can you say
>Academic philosophy has been dead since Heidegger.
and than say
>Slavoj Zizek is signficant
Ziveck's thinking is based on Lacan and all sorts of post-modernism thought that comes after Heidegger.
This is a direct contradiction in your own idea. If Zivcek is significant than so is the post-modern thinking he is discusses.
>Moldbug
pls
>significant thinker
>Zizek
Your list is bad. Derek Parfit obviously belongs and possibly a handful of others if we're counting people still alive but no longer producing. Part of the problem with trying to find significant thinkers in our own time that will become come to be canonized is that canonization is hard to predict. There might be someone writing now who will be hailed as a prophet 100 years from now but it's hard to say who that could be.
there's nothing more to think that hasn't already been thought up
You forgot Stephen Molyneux
What about Dennet and Chalmers?
Moldbug is a controlled-opposition kike.
He makes mental gymnastics to exclude Christian morality and overall doctrine of a movement which has the supposed intention of reviving traditionalism.
Zizek is a smart guy with a very strong cognitive dissonance.
He's blazing new ground.
Zizek hasn't done anything new since the 80s, he stands as a monument to what left-wing intellectuals used to be about.
Analytic philosophy is a plague. I like what I've read by Parfit but still.
You're right.
You're right.
I guess.
Don't forget Sam Harris, Jack Donovan, and Eliezer Yudkowsky
We're living in a fucking stupid era. Everything is devolving into chaos.
There are many things still to be thought up. Know that knowledge is infinite.
>Analytic philosophy is a plague.
No more than "Continental" philosophy is. They're both just names for a hodgepodge of family resemblances between various flawed or otherwise unsatisfying methodologies. There are people doing interesting things from a variety of methodological stances but they are few and far between and don't track any crude distinctions between "style" or what have you.
>two kikes and a faggot
kek
You forgot Noam Chomsky and Richard Dawkins pham
Chomsky, probably
Dawkins, no
>No more than "Continental" philosophy is.
I wouldn't disagree with you, but as I said, philosophy has been dead since Heidegger.
Noam "Pol Pot Did Nothing Wrong Until We Knew About It and I Will Tell You All About The Media Without Mentioning The Ethnicity Or Religion Of Its Owners" Chomsky and Richard "I'm an evolutionary biologist and I coined the term 'meme' but I don't understand religion at all" Dawkins? How are they significant?
>Richard Spencer
>Spencer advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture
I mean, I agree with Moldbug and Land as significant thinkers nowadays, but really? This guy?
>Trusting jews
I'm not going to name names but Richard Spencer is significant because of contemporary attitudes in political discourse that you may be too oblivious to notice, but probably aren't.
Well, Heidegger is one of the more recent canonical figures but, again, it's hard to predict what will be canon in the future.
Not that other user but Chomsky is more significant for his linguistics than his politics.
desu I don't care about Chomsky's linguistics and neither do 95% of his fanboys, until someone brings up one of his political shortcomings.
ok, fair enough
I'll admit that having an actual theoretical basis for this new strain of nationalism in the west already marks a stark difference to original fascism and nazism who were proud in completely ignoring such attempt at any coherent ideological strain.
It still sounds as a very limited and outright dumb way at tackling the current issues with globalism and neo-liberalism...
Moldbug, Land and the Nrx do a much better, much more competent and interesting job.
In comparison, Spencer just sounds like a mouthbreathing tard honestly
>that guy who wrote those ebin Holy Roman Empire & 30 Yeas War books.
This one, I can agree with.
I've read very little Chomsky so I wouldn't call myself a fanboy. I do know he's more widely respected in linguistics than in political theory, regardless of whether you or I like him.
>I'll admit that having an actual theoretical basis for this new strain of nationalism in the west already marks a stark difference to original fascism and nazism who were proud in completely ignoring such attempt at any coherent ideological strain.
Are you implying that Giovanni Gentile didn't exist and that there were no theorists trying to legitimize fascism and nationalism during their initial surge in popularity?
>It still sounds as a very limited and outright dumb way at tackling the current issues with globalism and neo-liberalism...
So does contemporary socialism, which is either a) coopted by international capital or b) nothing but an underground current that can't even acknowledge itself in public without giving away the game or c) Sandersism.
>Moldbug, Land and the Nrx do a much better, much more competent and interesting job.
>In comparison, Spencer just sounds like a mouthbreathing tard honestly
Yeah, you're right. Spencer is important because of the organizational work he does. The whole "homeland for the white race" thing is obviously an ideal that will never be realized. I like Moldbug's formalism.
Like I said, I don't care about them that much. Plenty of people throw his theories about universal grammar under the bus as soon as his name comes up.
>Like I said, I don't care about them that much.
The thread isn't what you care about though, it's about significant thinkers.
>Plenty of people throw his theories about universal grammar under the bus as soon as his name comes up.
Just like plenty of people throw phenomenology under the bus as soon as it's mentioned. That doesn't make Heidegger an insignificant thinker.
>it's about significant thinkers.
Can you demonstrate that Chomsky's linguistic work is significant enough to make him as significant as Heidegger?
>That doesn't make Heidegger an insignificant thinker.
No, but Heidegger was far more significant than Chomsky has been.
Who is the guy?
Peter H. Wilson
Thanks, la'.
No one claimed that Chomsky is as significant as Heidegger. Another user and I have claimed that he is among the significant thinkers of today. If there are any significant thinkers today, he's a good candidate. But, again, it's difficult to predict who will be canonized. I think Parfit is more likely to be canonized than Chomsky but I don't say that with anything close to certainty.
>No, but Heidegger was far more significant than Chomsky has been.
That wasn't the point though. You took work being thrown under the bus to be a reason to think that work is insignificant and noted that Chomsky's work gets thrown under the bus, therefore it would count as insignificant. As I showed, that's a bad argument since someone we agree to be significant has his work thrown under the bus.
>all these meme thinkers
>no morality man
What a shit thread.
>I think Parfit is more likely to be canonized than Chomsky but I don't say that with anything close to certainty.
Then stop saying it.
>You took work being thrown under the bus to be a reason to think that work is insignificant and noted that Chomsky's work gets thrown under the bus, therefore it would count as insignificant.
I said that I didn't care about it, not that it's insignificant. I don't care about it because I'm not interested in linguistics. You're the one who keeps asserting that its significance makes Chomsky one of the most significant contemporary thinkers. My point has never been that it's irrelevant, only that it's the second thing his fanboys care about and that its significance is due in part to its being controversial.
>No, but Heidegger was far more significant than Chomsky has been.
Heidegger and Chomsky are pretty much the same as far as relevancy are concerned.
Both Heidegger and Chomsky are only significant in a specific field, and not outside it. Chomsky's theories of universal grammar are interesting and significant within linguistics, but outside of linguistics, he's literally the worst example of the average leftist.
>Heidegger and Chomsky are pretty much the same as far as relevancy are concerned.
Not really, leftists adopt Heideggerian positions but I've never encountered a right-winger who liked anything about Chomsky. Heidegger's influence is broader.
Do you have credentials that extend beyond Veeky Forums and /int/ shitposting?
>Should I pursue this?
Why not? It's not like all those other books can't be criticized and are the authority on the subject.
Yours might be, if you bother though.
italian fascism seems completely different from what Spencer is defending, which is just an attempt at theorizing pure barbarism (aka Nazism)
thats the difference
>So does contemporary socialism
Never said the contrary
We seriously need a rethinking from both political spectrums.
The only people even close at really tackling the issue in its totality, are people like the Nrx
Though they are really gigantic autists more often than not
>italian fascism seems completely different from what Spencer is defending
Not my point, you claimed that
>original fascism and nazism who were proud in completely ignoring such attempt at any coherent ideological strain.
>We seriously need a rethinking from both political spectrums.
You're fucking living through it. The *chans are literally the place where fascism and Communism are becoming revitalized. There is a digital ideological war going on. Have you not noticed how much people here hate /pol/ and /leftypol/?
Most of the people mentioned in this thread have discussed morality.
>Then stop saying it.
Why? This thread is about significant thinkers of the day. I'm talking about who I think that could be.
>I said that I didn't care about it, not that it's insignificant.
You said both. Again, you not caring about it is irrelevant since that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about significant thinkers of today. It's not clear to me why you made the point about Chomsky's work being thrown under the bus during a discussion of whether or not his work is significant if you didn't take it to be a point about his significance. If it was a throwaway remark, fine, but then you still haven't offered any reasons to think Chomsky isn't a significant thinker.
If your only point is that his fanboys care about his linguistics second to his politics, fine, but that's not a point about Chomsky's significance on the whole. His linguistics, as I said from the beginning of this discussion, is more respected than his politics. Since I did say that at the beginning, and since it is that which you responded to, but now you claim that your only point was about fanboys, I have to wonder why you responded to my post at all.
Heidegger has a broader impact and a much deeper impact than Chomsky in the areas they're most relevant.
>Why?
Because you aren't even making an argument, you're just saying "I think Parfit is more important than Zizek because I think he is."
>You said both.
I don't remember calling it insignificant.
>This thread is about significant thinkers of today.
And you have yet to show why Chomsky's linguistic work actually makes him as significant as the others mentioned in the OP. You're just asserting that it does.
>I have to wonder why you responded to my post at all.
Because this thread was a joke from the beginning.
>Have you not noticed how much people here hate /pol/ and /leftypol/?
Not particularly, no. It seems to me like people are angry about cross board shitposting and raids, but when push comes to shove most go with one or the other.
>Not my point, you claimed that
I didnt explained myself clearly, sorry for that.
>There is a digital ideological war going on. Have you not noticed how much people here hate /pol/ and /leftypol/?
i know my dude
I'm one of those persons.
What about Spivak and Butler lads?
>people on Veeky Forums and reddit are forging the philosophies and politics of the future while people at universities are just analyzing beyonce songs
this is a strange feel
>It seems to me like people are angry about cross board shitposting and raids
Here's a hint: It isn't cross-board, and it isn't raiding: there are committed belligerents, and this is a battlefield.
>Veeky Forums
There's not much being forged here, this is basically our Guernica, i.e. we're testing out memetic weapons on this website in preparation for an even bigger cyber-confluence in the near future.
>Veeky Forums and reddit
honestly these are the very surface of it
Its the popularization and massification vector of ideas from other places in the net, namely the wider blogosphere
>you aren't even making an argument
With regard to who I think is significant and more significant than others, you're right, I haven't justified those views but no one asked me to. If you'd like I can try.
>I don't remember calling it insignificant.
You implied it by mocking the post of someone who suggested that Chomsky is significant and then further implied by responding to my point about his linguistics being more respected than his politics by suggesting that it isn't actually respected.
>And you have yet to show why Chomsky's linguistic work actually makes him as significant as the others mentioned in the OP. You're just asserting that it does.
Correct, but notice that it's still relevant to the thread. Unlike quasi-critical, quasi-throwaway, comments about fanboys.
>Because this thread was a joke from the beginning.
You're responding to my posts because this thread is a joke? You're going to have to explain that a bit more.
MACINTYRE
>He's blazing new ground.
Isn't he a reactionary? I think that by definition means doing the opposite: vainly attempting to put the worms of modernity back in the can.
>I haven't justified those views but no one asked me to. If you'd like I can try.
Yes, please do.
>You implied it by mocking the post of someone who suggested that Chomsky is significant
This is a thread about the most significant contemporary thinkers. Not everybody who is regularly cited can be on that list.
>Correct
Correct.
>You're going to have to explain that a bit more.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me ;)
Neoreaction is basically new ground. I'm unaware of other movements that have tried to turn the word "reactionary" into a badge of honor.
>I'm unaware of other movements that have tried to turn the word "reactionary" into a badge of honor.
Well, there's the reactionaries themselves. My point is that he isn't treading new ground. He's moving over to some old ground that hasn't been used in a while.
>there's the reactionaries themselves.
>He's moving over to some old ground that hasn't been used in a while.
The resurrection of reactionary ideas amounts to blazing new ground in a world where every thought has already been thought.
I'll agree to disagree here. I think reviving old ideologies is basically the opposite of blazing new ground. He's one thinker among many trying to apply a social system that doesn't take into account the cultural, material, and economic realities of the world out of a desire to apply a simple solution to a complex problem.
I dunno, I think of form as being related to content. This is a new form of reaction, therefore there is something new there. But this is semantics, we do basically agree.
>There's not much being forged here, this is basically our Guernica
Good comparison
Can you recommend me some good blogs to read? I've read some Counter-Currents and VDARE, and I'm aware of Moldbug but haven't dived into him yet. And obviously I've read TRS but they're meme-tier. I'm looking for some weightier material to help myself get a handle on the New Right.
I'm looking for the same thing, desu. I don't bother with the TRS forums. I'm currently reading this essay/book/webpage, which is one of the most in-depth critiques of third-wave feminism I've ever encountered on top of being a bretty gud history of science fiction.
archive.is
archive.is
>mfw Fash Britannia is cancelled for the sake of the safety of the hosts
>vainly attempting to put the worms of modernity back in the can
nah, theres a reason why its called NEOreaction and not simply reaction.
Moldbugs and Lands ideas of neocameralism, secession and exit are, IMO, a subversion of modernity through a thorough critique of the tenets of the enlightenment
It has very little to do with people like Evola and whatnot
everything you'll ever need:
Dawkins meme theory has had a massive impact
>The only significant thinkers at the moment are Slavoj Zizek, Mencius Moldbug,
...
Fug, there goes their last female contributor. I actually just started listening to an ep of Fatherland for the first time, it's a surprisingly soothing podcast.
desu I always felt like she didn't really fit with the message.
>Lithuanian immigrant living in London, hosting a nationalist pro-Brexit podcast
There was also one guy on the podcast who seemed like he took himself too seriously and always made me cringe. I liked the accents, though. I'll miss their perspective.
Close down your youtube tabs and open a god damn book son.
>Mencius Moldbug, Nick Land, Richard Spencer, and that guy who wrote those ebin Holy Roman Empire & 30 Yeas War books
Literally who: the list
OP, please.
No one cares about Peter. He's occasionally brought on British talk shows to play the act of stodgy, pissy grump. Not really an act though.
>moldbug
>richard "the eu is a great idea" spencer
"No"
rei koz and icy calm.
and then
me
>forgetting the foremost aryan barbaric surfer-nudist-bodybuilder-pua 140-character philosopher
#smdh
Thanks for the link user. Will read when I have a couple hours free
D-did... somebody say....
>
>
>
>Spencer
>not Greg Johnson the true philosopher of the New Right
>He's blazing new ground
Saying you hate black people and supporting the re-institution of monarchy isn't new ground, no matter how well you articulate your position.
Right-wingers are the new revolutionaries lefties are conformists defending the status quo now. Deal with it.
Hoppe is pretty popular. I dont know if you could qualify him as a philosopher tho. But I am sure as hell that he is going to impact future movements. His ideas around inmigration,could posibly merge the identitary right woth the libertarian one,and create for real a new right.
>Saying you hate black people and supporting the re-institution of monarchy isn't new ground, no matter how well you articulate your position.
Yes it is as it openly questions,the current consensus.
The ideas of racism is bad,inmigration is good,welfare is untouchable and the like are the norm. Questioning them is creating new ground.
>Zizek
>Moldbug
>Land
lmao
Step aside correlationist kiddies,
That's certainly not how things have been working in America. Where do you live?
Brownzil. And I think in Latin America in general, the left is seen as the establishment.
Trump is a result of pure antistablishment,and it has been through the right. The change of the current system will come through a new nationalistic right,as it is happening in Europe and in the rest of the world for that matter. The left is the stablishment currently,and their ideas have started to be questioned
But that is how things have been here. Honestly, there's nothing revolutionary about the American left. Black Lives Matter is a tool of international capital, as is intersectional feminism.
I should check this guy out.
Yeah, on Reddit. It's pseudoscientific as fuck
What's the point of speculative realism?
>EU
>bad
What the fuck are you on about?
Chemistry started out pseudoscientific as fuck too and look what it became. Meme magic is only just now being studied and explored, they now have Librarians of Memes at Tumblr. Its just beginning to move past "the Alchemy stage".
Not him but the EU is the greatest thing that has happened to Europe in a long time. Sorry that you can't see it because it infringes a bit on your country's "sovereignty".
>the alt-left learns from Slavoj Zizek
>the alt-right learns from Nick Land
>SJWs learn from... Beyonce
can't wait for the alt-left and alt-right coalition to destroy SJWs and liberals
Why the quotation marks though? You don't believe nations are or should be sovereign?
Nigga please. You actually think the European nation states are capable of individually achieving any sort of real sovereignty in this day and age? At least united under the EU they have more of a say in their own affairs than they ever would as someone else's substate.
Whose "substate" Switzerland was prior to entering the EU? Does it have "more of a say" in its own affair now than it had before? But when it voted to accept less immigrants it went through all sorts of political pressure by EU officials. How about all the nations that have no obbligation under international law to accept Middle Eastern so-called "refugees" and are being made to accept refugee quotas by the EU? How is that strengthening their sovereignty?
>delusional Euro-fascist fantasies
I distrust and have trouble cooperating with people only from across the mountains, that is just on the other side of the country. What makes you think I'd be capable of cooperating with a dane or swede or pole or greek?
>"sovereignty"
Why the quotation marks? Could you make an argument? The EU isn't a government or a replacement for one, it's rum by people dedicated to solidifying an economic bloc and who don't care about the safety or welfare of Europeans any more than they care about the welfare of Africans. If the EU were a sovereign entity, that would be one thing. As it is, the whole thing is just a front for American interests in Europe. I'm an American so I'm not entirely in favor of European self-determination because it would threaten American power, but the EU is hardly the best thing to happen to Europe.
>so-called "refugees"
>Actually comparing Switzerland to the European nation states
Being forced to take in your share of refugees from other countries in the union you democratically chose to join is a greater attack on your country's sovereignty than being a literal Soviet puppet state or American occupied cash cow market?
>he even put a little photo of himself there
So no arguments then? That's what I thought.