What is the philosophical current that best describes the current century (2000-2016) and who is its leading...

reminds me of a mixture between diogenes and voltaire

This, and further that whatever is likely to be looked upon favorably in light of posterity is probably something hitherto unpopular and relatively unknown, until it is revealed to have been the germ of a larger movement. Anyway, I nominate John D Caputo. Not because he lives up to the bill of a transcendental thinker like Kant, but because he will at least have shown himself to be on more or less the right track, compared to most of academia which has completely lost the plot.

nobody has any fucking idea. no point in pretending otherwise

it's footnotes to Heidegger for the next 2000

>compared to most of academia which has completely lost the plot.
For example?

In broad terms, having an atomistic ontological worldview that creeps into every mode of inquiry such that only objects devoid of meaning survive the process and are deemed fit as knowledge. In other words, an institution productive of knowledge of things only, and all the wacky consequences that go with that

I heard he's kill or in prison.

Maybe this new-realism stuff for 2017-2027.... it seems like a meme though desu

Hi guys I'm here to talk seriously about a super serious topic you guys

ass

Habermas senpai

less than two decades isn't enough to be considered a century

there's no one atm. have a go at it if you think you're decent. the best philosophy starts with basic ideas

Most analytic philosophers these days feel an obligation to be at least minimally literate in and to make at least minimal contact with the methodologies, aims and results of contemporary mathematical and empirical science.

>object oriented ontology

This just seems like another flavor of Platonism bulked up to address the most obvious criticisms arising from a modern philosophy of mind. What new does this really bring to the table?

It seems like a slightly less caricatured version of what Rorty attacks in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, yet the core of those criticisms appear to be unaddressed here. Maybe I just don't understand the scope of their claims.

...

widespread scientism was a mistake

what anime is that?

Will our next great thinker be a Jung-like traditionalist, once we realise how stupid our radical scientism and materialism is?

>uses scientism unironically

t. 14yo Buttmad Analytic Autist

>[...] the most common intellectual types today, the type of a mind that will not apply its intelligence except through the scientific method. This type of mind is apt to undermine common sense, on the ground that future scientific discovery might disprove any certainty. It discredits philosophy, because the objects of philosophy (God, the spiritual soul, cause, substance, etc.) cannot be weighed or measured, can neither be reduced to a mathematical formula, nor observed in a test tube. And finally, this type of mind discards all revelation, on the ground that religion is not a channel of knowledge and that its value is purely emotional and unintellectual. This is the attitude of mind that is gradually being recognized as a cultural danger by educators and social thinkers, and is coming to be called “scientism”. Scientism is not the same as science, but is rather an abuse of the scientific method and of scientific authority.
that was in 1946 so don't happy thinking you acquired the status of an 'intellectual', 70years later this view is the most common dumbshit view and not of any self respecting intellectual

Numbers and scientism is the new epitome of thinking.

>If you can't prove it by science, you are wrong
>But have can the mind and social structure analyze itself
>???
>BECAUSE SCIENCE

Really. I had a fuckbuddy who was a psychologist. Every statement has to be backed up by scientific methodology. I have nothing against it, but science should ALWAYS stick to STEM, and never come in contact with things concerning human interaction and living.

>implying we're not living in a post apocalyptic time
>the apocalypse was giving psychology and sociology the same credability as STEM.

Philosophy should always be debateable. That's what makes a good idea.
Now we're all pill popping asslickers who all can be catogeriesd between autism and ADHD. We humans have became jokes, and oversimplified to the point that happiness lies in a pill

We have forgot what happiness is.
Thats why we don't even need thinkers anymore.

Hermetic memeticism

Nick Land

I heard he took a complete hiatus off of the internet in order to finish everything he was working on.

Regardless, his philosophy is shared by all of the people running the world at the moment, and all of the top entertainment studios, and will continue to be shared by these types in the future.

Late capitalism and neoliberalism define the majority of the people's conceptions of values, at least in the industrialized world.

It's less philosophers who seem to define these values than nihilistic economists.

Those who represent something legitimate would be academics and intellectuals, just Google search contemporary thinkers. Of course much like history their ideas if they ever do bloom, will happen many years after their thoughts.

Post-Modernism. There isn't a singular one.

>nick land

Ta-Nehisi Coates

>the industrialized world
bihh we post-industrial

Somewhat, but in this context it merely means first world, developed nation, etc.

Basically OECD countries.

Nick Bostrom

So a new metaphysics that is largely irrelevant to our lives, or the fact that we all face existential doom as a civilization?

Scientism.

Stefan Molyneux

Now you're starting to understand the significance of the famous Wittgenstein quote "the limits of my language are the limits of my mind."

All the sokal hoax type stuff is pointing this out but from the inside of the box, wherein people refuse to believe something could be cognizable if it doesn't conform to rules of syntax and common usage, etc...

Putting language first in this sense means that the ontology implicit in its usage will always in some day way rule the thinking of culture and people that use it. The primary use of language at first seems to have been a kind of engineering such that its no wonder that as we've refined it we've achieved an incredible degree over the world as objects. But inasmuch as we've internalized language and thus thought to function *only* in that way we've pushed out meaning and other categorically similar ideas.

While speaking in contradictions or apparent contradictions is confusing for people who can't even use language in a straightforward and correct manner to begin with, it is also likely that it is symptomatic of highly developed intuitions that the language itself was never really developed for the purpose of. But since its the only thing we've got as of yet, we're forced to use it.

One other thing: the academy needs work to churn through to justify its existence. The current ontology that dominates their thinking gives ample raw material such that the machine can sustain itself for the foreseeable future and as such there is disincentive to undermine itself from the inside out.

Also it isn't fair to say that no one is aware of this in academia. There are people doing a lot of good work, laying the groundwork for the future that we hope resolves a lot of these contradictions.

The problem is, science, which has given rise to scientism, in its immature form, has established such a strong base, its a lot like Christian theology in late antiquity through the middle ages, where to really begin to transcend it literally took a millennia.

You can think of us, in some sense, as being in the dark age of science where the present mode of thinking has us so strongly within its grip, it could take centuries of groundwork to chip away at it, in order to give rise to a transcendental thinker. All during the Christian dark age we see lots of things going on that ultimately point to the renaissance and enlightenment and likewise today we have those pre-figures but its incredibly subtle and the future is unknown

>While speaking in contradictions or apparent contradictions is confusing for people who can't even use language in a straightforward and correct manner to begin with, it is also likely that it is symptomatic of highly developed intuitions that the language itself was never really developed for the purpose of. But since its the only thing we've got as of yet, we're forced to use it.
That has to be the most arrogant justification for spouting non-sense I have yet to read.
You remind me of a freshy who literally used "my wall" and "coconut" as citations in an essay about "Ueber Sinn und Bedeutung". (And no, he didn't touch the subject at all. He quit after a semester, because he realized philosophy wasn't about everybody monologuing at each other.)

So here are some questions for you:

How does one tell the difference between someone who "overcame the boundaries of his language"?

Why not simply invent more language, like every scientist and philosopher and mathematician... or simply human beings, have done before?
And no, saying that all languages have an implicit logical system in place is not an argument, since it is quite easy to design a formal language, as long as you yourself understand what you want to show. Since we are already at Wittgenstein...

rate this fucking meme

I'm not trying to justify anything, just that in principle language has its limits and any idea that could conceivably transgress those limits would beyond my ability to convey through traditional language use. Since ontology is tied up in language it is very likely that my conception of the world is likewise limited in exactly the same way my language is. Anyone can misuse this notion but just because this conception of language allows for abuse doesn't mean that it can't in some sense be true. Your friend would probably retort that we're all abusing it already, since it has no innate rules, but we've culturally erected norms around its practice that people will enforce on one another as if it were something real. This makes it a kind of game, wherein people agree to participate and those that don't obey the rules don't get invited back.

Nihilism + neuroscience, baby!

Ted Sider, van Inwagen, the Churchlands, Metzinger.

Its good

>Ted Sider, van Inwagen
Only the former argues for nihilism. van Inwagen is a Christian making the two mutually incompatible. You don't want this.

Me, unironically.

Nah, I don't plan on being *the* leading philosopher; but one of them, at least.

Specifically, I'm working on becoming the Nietzsche of our time. Unironically.

So what? The enforcement of rules only lasts until a) a critical mass of people have been memed or b) a single person makes a valid case for an adjustment. Oh, or c) simply using a different language.
And while language does give your general cognition a frame work, it would be quite silly to assume that this frame work isn't regularly overcome. Especially b and c is common practice among scholars.

I feel like you missed the part about Late-Wittgenstein basically telling is to not take language too seriously.
Also that language is a socially dynamic thing. That's why it is a "game". One of the "rules" is that unless others understand what you are saying, it's just noise.

Metzinger isn't a nihilist. At worst he is a natural philosopher.

I'd prefer it if you became the Kant of our time.

a) and b) are functionally identical because a) determines who is deemed to have achieved b); further using a different language is exactly what the people who are deemed incomprehensible are doing, which is why they are deemed incomprehensible. C) is already here, you're just in the out group

>Implying I want to be the leading secular apologist for slave morality

He's already a cunt.

Lipovetsky

I don't understand OOO, but a fine arts student created her final project based around the idea.
She made an event on Facebook that Jeremy Corbyn comes to the university.
It turned out that instead of Corbyn there was a box with his name written on it.

No, because b can still be a simple working hypothesis. To invent a word or a phrase and defining it to peers for further personal use is different from natural evolution of language.
Again, something that is done in academia all the time.
And it isn't the same as someone rambling.

Shit pham, people like Locke banged out new (and in the historical context unintuitive) concepts like a lyrical genius and did so organically, all the while making fun of Descartes.

Stop making excuses for people unable or unwilling to express themselves clearly.
We both know that 99% of the time these people either have no logical argument to begin with and attempt to hide (both from others and themselves) that fact by being convoluted.

Look, I'll prove it to you:
>I describe a person, who is willingly convoluted and makes no effort to express himself clearly, as a "Zizecancer". If said individual has anything meaningful to say is, for this definition, beside the point. Important is, however, that this individual attempts to appear as though his convolutedness is a sign of the complex and therefore is of surperior faculty of mind and intuition. The Zizecancer.

There. A new working term. Could be used to separate meme-continentals from proper ones, by making the simple differentiation of pseudo-intellectual self-gratification. The point being that I am literally the only one using it right now. But I could compose an entire Essay, explaining who does and who doesn't fall withing this category, based in its definition. And you would understand what I was saying, even if you didn't agree or thought my definition is shit.

>science is free from all forms of bias
found the fucking retard

>I have yet to read
So you didn't read it?

>the scientific method isn't free from bias
Found the fucking pop-science retard

Negro, I'm fresh out of an exam waiting on my pizza, posting on an anonymous Kantonese shadow theater board.
Cut me some slack. I'm not gonna look over shit.

>science isn't conducted by people which are corruptible and can make false conclusions
sure is getting stupid in here, OP better open a window and defenestrate you

Nope. You're right. OOO is a meme that exists solely on the internet and isn't taken seriously in the slightest in academia.

Hagglund rekt Caputo

>tfw an actual philosophy postgrad student reading this thread

Philosophy has been in a coma since 1900.

The sporadic seizures between then and now do not count as actual activity..

You probably listen to classical music too

I'm sick of pornography

when I am Caesar all pornographic materials will be banned and there will be public decency laws in regards to dress

>philosophy postgrad

Nah, he's exactly the kind of wheel-spinning content churning academic that characterizes this era of pseudo-progress. I mean its just a restatement of feuerbach and Freud in deconstructionist clothing

Who the hell doesn't, other than uncultured inner city trash?

That's what deconstruction is though lel

perfect for the modern age

lol Caputo is total reformist shit. He is fucking BLIND!!!

Almost everyone on earth. You're the uncultured one.

>muh Kanye

modern music is as bad as modern art

Oh I agree. I just think Hagglund's reading of Derrida is more accurate than Caputo's (but Rorty's reading is actually my favourite).

Caputo is the best

absolutely, I also think Rorty is on track and Caputo is essentially attempting to do what Rorty in a more general sense advocates

Obviously, its all a work in progress, but they're the good guys of philosophy

I'm so sorry, user.
Just... about everything.

jesus

Where did I mention Kanye. Stop pulling things out your ass.

...

The Kant of our generation

>hurr if you don't listen to contemporary music you are a pleb

eat a cock pham

He tried, I guess.
But others have done it far better.

more like the Kunt of our generation

By definition you are. what even is "contemporary music", particularly in the way you're describing it. I'm not sure I even want you to get into music, lord knows you'd be listening to folk punk.

Torture is 100% moral.

The point, you inbred swine, is that culture on the whole has been in decline since the close of the 19th century. All facets.

On the contrary you've been able to learn more and read more and listen to more and create more, than any other time in the past.

Looking at the past with rose colored glasses is pointless, it avoids it's very real faults, it's discourse killing.

Right, and look what most people do with all this knowledge at their fingertips. Sit on instagram and twatter all fucking day.

this right here

They mostly do what you do. Have no grasp of it and have a false sense of self protective annoying/embarrassing superiority that's transparent.

this, or hyperrealism.

Mostly butt.

lol why