So do they still have philosophy in the modern day? I don't think anyone really talks about Pythagoras or Plato or Kant or Nietzsche in the modern day, nor does there seem to be any successors to their thought in the modern day. Has philosophy finally become obsolete, and only relevant to historians?
So do they still have philosophy in the modern day...
Justin Foster
Other urls found in this thread:
physics.nyu.edu
twitter.com
Jayden Parker
The problem of induction especially over time is pretty relevant, though that's a continuation of Hume. Most all of the ones you listed are still relevant in philosophy (Pythagoras not so much but he's taught in mathetmatics to school children, no?) especially in regard to ethics, metaphysics, or even media and mass control. Habermas for instance is influenced by Kant and a range of philosophers influenced by Hegel and/or Nietzsche.
Cameron Kelly
we need more science
not that gay meaningless philosphy shit going around in circles
fuck trump
Jaxson Brooks
philosophy is alive and well
Colton Ramirez
is this meme
Wyatt Moore
But does anyone really care about these philosophers anymore who has any influence on modern thought? It seems that philosophy is entirely useless in the presence of science.
Nathaniel Gutierrez
What the fuck are you talking about, science has failed us, trump got elected because in the end science doesn't mean shit, only ideology. We should be spreading logic and philosophy instead to combat this.
William Phillips
>he doesn't realise that scientific positivism does not exist in a vacuum but has itself grown from existing philosophies which are themselves predicated on earlier philosophies
>he doesn't realise that positivism is the only philosophy which denies its roots and is self-validating, i.e. answerable only to itself
>he doesn't realise that Trump is the next necessary stage in the great dialectic of history
Levi Taylor
>It seems that philosophy is entirely useless in the presence of science.
So you haven't read Nietzsche....
Joseph Garcia
So basically, what you're leading up to is that Nietzsche is wrong. Got it.
Tyler Bell
no, more science, more science, more science
rednecks today have to get their brains FACTED if we want a woman in the white house
Levi Williams
>Has philosophy finally become obsolete, and only relevant to historians?
No. Philosophy (especially moral philosophy) is more needed nowadays then it ever was. Problem is, there are no good philosophers out there. Continental philosophy is still trapped in postmodernism and postmodernism is the diametral opposite of anything philosophy and science is about - it's pure anti-science.
Anglo-american philosophy on the other hand is a little bit overmodest and only occupies itself with logic and the philosophy of language. While I think this is an important subject - it's not everything philosophy is able to achieve.
(Philosophy of mind is another interesting subject, but I think philosophers only have a minor part in it.)
We are in desperate need of an ethician of the calibre of Kant or Platon.
Carter Roberts
Philosophers of the present and future will need to be well versed in science. Beyond subjects like ethics, we'll still need people to help us make sense of and understand why certain discoveries are relevant to our lives as well as what to do with them and where to go next. To put it simply, I see science as discovery and facts, and philosophy as the understanding of human experience. But I also know next to nothing about either science or philosophy, so someone help me out or tell me I'm wrong.
Jackson Bailey
>We are in desperate need of an ethician of the calibre of Kant or Platon.
got you
William Campbell
Where can I learn more about postmornism? Is there any good secondary literature that explains it, without having to go read all it's vanguards?
Lucas Butler
This
Also western culture is completely dumbed down so most social circles don't discuss philosophy.
Anthony Stewart
...
Benjamin Campbell
which people would you say "have an influence on modern thought" and how do we tell which philosophers these people care about
Nolan Murphy
reminder that the "i le fucking love science xD why do republicans hate it??" people don't actually believe in science, but just use it as a word for things they think are smart and good
Christopher Wright
Sure, why not? Also at the end of Crime and Punishment there isn't really any punishment and he just goes off and lives on the landlady's money. Saved you even more time with that tip.
Jeremiah Flores
Well, I'm not an expert on postmodernism, but there's a certain irony in asking for "good secondary literature that explains it".
On the one hand postmodernism is pretty simple: it's all about the destruction (postmodern philosophers would call it "deconstruction") of power relationships. While this seems to be likeable wish, it brings the destruction/deconstruction of truth with it, since a predominant truth is simply seen as an instrument of power. This is the very core of postmodernism.
But this core makes it incredibly complex on the other hand.
The act of interpreting something means nothing but saying: this is the truth about it, this is what he/she really said. Postmodern philosophers would simply reject that, because there is no predominant truth to anything. Interpretation A is as good as interpretation B which is as good as interpretation C and so on. The "fact" the earth orbits the sun is as true as the "fact" the sun orbits the earth, and "fact" is a stupid word because there are no facts at all, there are only opinions and interpretations/constructions.
Therefore, if you want to have "any good secondary literature that explains" postmodernism, you want to know what's the truth about it - but according to the very idea of postmodernism every secondary literature is as good as the other.
Postmodern texts are normally labeled "difficult" because they use a certain jargon which is loaded with big words. They sound very sophisticated, but in fact they are incredibly vague. If you criticize a postmodern philosopher they tend to tell you you didn't understand them, but if you ask them to explain it in simple words they can't and instead take refuge in their monstrous words full of hot air again.
You asked for good secondary literature that explains postmodernism. Well, I know a text which represents it quite well (imho):
physics.nyu.edu
But you've seen I'm not exactly neutral in the matter...
(Sorry for the bad English btw.)
Lucas Cooper
Thank you.
Gavin Anderson
i think you should be more worried about what the schools are teaching rather then science itself but is right
Christopher Myers
>well I'm no expert in postmodernism
>uncapable of citing even one source
>proceed to describe postmodernism in a way that literally no postmodern thinker would approve of
For fuck's sake, just admit that youre entire education on postmodernism consists of youtube videos, reddit threads and Veeky Forums. You're full of shit, yet you're so ready to just say that philosophy as a whole is plagued by a 40 years old dead movement, wich you can't even summarize, since you have no experience on that line of thought in the first place.
To other anons: completely disregard this post, it's utter trash.
Zachary Reyes
O-okay. Where can I learn about postmodernism?
Samuel White
Contemporary philosophy is still a thing but stuff like speculative realism (Nick Land and his associated memesters) is much more closely aligned with cultural theory than academic philosophy
Parker Wright
>Philosophers of the present and future will need to be well versed in science.
Why? You don't need to know the exact know-how of technological advancement and new discoveries to understand their relevance and importance or even ethics.
You need to know what it is, have a vague idea about how it works, and most importantly, what effect it has on the future of humanity.
A philosopher doesn't need to know how a sword is forged or a gun is made to consider the ethics of their use, nor does he need to know a television works to understand its effects on society.
Leave science to scientists and philosophy to philosophers. The two should work hand-in-hand, but they shouldn't mix.
Carter Walker
>uncapable of citing even one source
Well, I hope you know the source I cited at the end...
>just admit that youre entire education on postmodernism consists of youtube videos, reddit threads and Veeky Forums.
I wish it would. It would have spared me a lot of time reading all those French poseurs.
>proceed to describe postmodernism in a way that literally no postmodern thinker would approve of
Of course they wouldn't approve it, otherwise they weren't postmodern "thinkers".
You are free to describe postmodernism yourself, I think the other user is really interested and will be grateful if you do it. As I said, I'm not an expert on the topic, but I've studied enough of it to make me want to vomit as soon as I hear/read the label Postmodernism.
Josiah Hall
You're talking about the ethics of the applications of science, and I agree. I guess what I'm getting at that I may not have made clear is what to do with what we learn, how certain ideas or discoveries about the mind or the nature of the universe could impact and challenge our belief systems, really whether you're atheistic or religious.