Is it just me, or has very little philosophical ground been made since the latter half of the 20th Century? What famous philosophers of the likes of Descartes, Plato, Nietzsche, Locke, etc. can be named since 1950? Has humanity reached a philosophical dead end? What "new" thoughts are there to be had?
You're assuming L. Ron Hubbard isn't important, the man within the space of a few decades created a massively powerful religion from scrath.
>Are you implying Plato isn't much of a philosopher.
He's a philosopher. Just not a good philosopher despite being very important.
Philosophy is now focused on short papers in specialist journals rather than fat books, so it's harder for philosophers to get public attention. And now the intellectual celebrities are scientists who claim that philosophy has nothing more to say.
Are you kidding?
>two dogmas of empiricism published in 1951
>downfall of logical empiricism
>Rebirth of metaphysics within the analytic tradition
>Strawson, Austin, Putnam, Chalmers, Parfit, ...
>Great strides in philosophy of mind
>Dennett, Chalmers, Searle, Kim, ...
And then just recently you've got the speculative realist lot including >>679634 as well as Graham Harman (the most famous of them), bringing about a rebirth of metaphysics within the continental tradition.
Its a good time to be a philosopher, the discipline's a lot healthier than it's been in a while. Especially since the latter half of the 20th century.
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
I think it'd be unfair to call it shallow. Though I can't say I agree with him (nor many of the speculative realists), he seems to have some interesting insights here and there.
Plus he's one of those guys like >>679679
and >>679721 who keep getting cited everywhere, which I think makes lots of people unnecesserily hostile to him, cause he's 'too mainstream' and stuff like that.
The sickest cunt to ever live
I guess they wanted to fight communism in every possible world
This is true.
you've got the basics nailed down. I'd like to add Wilfred Sellars, Donald Davidson, McDowell, and Kripke (though that's all I have off the top of my head). \
Dawkins is pop-lit, doesn't count. Dennett may have lots of academic publications, but he's also pop-lit as far as I'm concerned. I would've agreed with your choice of Chalmers five years ago.
I took a class with him once. Really chill guy and susceptible to flattery.
Academic standing, more or less. Though Dawkins has no pretenses to be an established academic. Nietzsche is taken seriously be academics and other people academics take seriously. However, both are high-school tier shit. Never read Nietzsche in a philosophy class. To me, Nietzsche is a gateway drug to better philosophers.
The objectively most influential contemporary English speaking philosophers within the discipline are Quine, Kripke, Lewis, Chalmers, and maybe most significantly Rawls. Chalmers (and perhaps Lewis) get there spot more for pissing peoole the fuck off and bumping a discussion to the front page by baiting more than fot actually winning a lot of people over.There might actually be more now worth reading and more high quality brain power doing phil than at any other time in history. It's important to understand the people in OP's post are considered great because they stood the test of time, so by definition nothing in the present can be said to reach that level
>It's important to understand the people in OP's post are considered great because they stood the test of time, so by definition nothing in the present can be said to reach that level
only because the field what ravaged by positivist and structuralists beforehand. but I know that people love to get medals for doing nothing.
A logicist holds the view that all of mathematics can be grounded in logic, the foundation of analytic philosophy. Russell and Whitehead were major proponents of this view who composed the volumes "Principia Mathematica" which attempted to build up the whole of mathematics from predicate logic up. It used around 400 pages to prove 1+1=2 starting from the construction of sets and then the construction of natural numbers.
Somewhere during the publication of the second volume, Russell came up with Russell's paradox which made his model of set theory unusable, as there are constructible sets that cannot exist a priori. Russell proposed type theory, in which only sets of equal types can be made from one another. Whitehead went ahead with the Principia Mathematica but Russell abandoned the project soon after.
Now a few years later Goedel came up with his incompleteness theorems, the first of which forces any formal system capable of proving its own consistency to have unprovable but true statements in itself, while the second tells you how to construct such a statement.
This made Russell and Whitehead (along with many other mathematicians) abadon logicism, or at least classical logicism. Neo-logicism is still alive and well but not much had came from it.
>lication of the second volume, Russell came up with Russell's paradox which made his model of set theory unusable, as there are constructible sets that cannot exist a priori. Russell proposed type theory, in which only sets of equal types can be made fr
yes but this is logics, not analytical philosophy.
today, analytical philosophy is just philosophy of language and philosophy of mind.
In his 1963 paper Realism he popularised a controversial approach to understanding the historical dispute between realist and other non-realist schools of philosophy such as idealism, nominalism, Irrealism etc. He characterized all of these latter positions as anti-realist and argued that the fundamental disagreement between realist and anti-realist was over the nature of truth. For Dummett, realism is best understood as accepting the classical characterisation of truth as bivalent (every proposition is either true or false) and evidence-transcendent, while anti-realism rejects this in favor of a concept of knowable (or assertible) truth. Historically, these debates had been understood as disagreements about whether a certain type of entity objectively exists or not. Thus, we may speak of (anti-)realism with respect to other minds, the past, the future, universals, mathematical entities (such as natural numbers), moral categories, the material world, or even thought. The novelty of Dummett's approach consisted in seeing these disputes as, at base, analogous to the dispute between intuitionism and platonism in the philosophy of mathematics.
Yeah, it's literally muh gentile authority conspiracy nuts. Why is it okay for Jews to accuse whites of conspiring? It's not even true. At least it's accurate when whites accuse Jews of conspiring.
Madness and Civilization, Discipline and Punish, The Order of Things, Hermeneutics of the Self, Fearless Speech and a few of the biopolitics lectures. Why?
He's a decent prose stylist and critic but there's little philosophical substance to be found in it.
>it's, like, you know, Discourse with a capital D, maaaaaaaan
>look I'm talking about "knowledges" in plural maaaaaaan
>"Subject" is kind of similar to "subjection", like... what if....? Whoa, man, whoa..
I loved his books in undergrad but don't call it philosophy m8
His analysis of panopticism, like that of power and language, is systematically ambiguous and boils down to being either true and trivial or interesting and flat out wrong depending on how you define it.
>Is it just me, or has very little philosophical ground been made since the latter half of the 20th Century?
Are you shitting me?
Advances have been made in epistemology with Gettier more or less ruining and kickstarting the field with a 2 page long paper followed with a surge of thinkers such as Nozick, ethics with the like of Singer is famous outside of philosophical circles, the whole field of political philosophy as something completely independent of ethics is arguably started with Rawls, and philosophy of the mind didn't had the concept of qualia and computationalism until very recently. And that's not even mentioning Kripke's contribution to logic.
I don't think we even bothered to read anyone before the start of this century because their views are better developed by contemporary philosophers. Descartes philosophy of the mind and Berkeley's subjective idealism is two exceptions.
I'm not talking about them, actually, I'm talking about analytic philosophy. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Rawls and Kuhn, those two highly cited currently relevant analytic philosophers? Both Jewish. Nozick? Jewish. Putnam? Ayer? Jewish. Kripke? Well, yeah, he's a Jew. The list goes on.
There are Gentile
Do people outside France know about based Michel Henry?
I know it's an awful test but his English Wikipedia page is rather long so I guess he must have taken hold beyond France.
Jean-Luc Marion and Paul Ricoeur are interesting too. Just throwing names from here because it seems only the trash of our country is spoke about on this board.
Michel "Ayatollah Khomeini best regime" Foucault, seriously?
The rationalists of any rationalism hate this situation, since they cling, out of despair before their sterility, to their fantasies of objectivity, reality (more or less floating around, but we cannot see it!), truth, universality, even though, for millenia, they have been failing to show us a knowledge that is not personal.
Let's begin with the formalization of the various reasonings : the formal languages are just a superior level of abstraction of the abstractions of the natural languages, with some implicit fantasy of being more communicable than the natural ones.
we have dozens of and dozens of formal languages and the particular goals of the people formalizing languages is really the formalization of ''reasonings'' which means the inferences [=going from one sentence to another one].
we have plenty of method of reasonings, the most famous is the deductive reasoning, a bit less formalized is the inductive reasoning. the other reasoning are not trendy enough to be stated here. Since the deduction is trendy, the deduction has been formalized by various people, each people formalizing what they think is ''deduction''.
so far, thanks to science, we have:
-no perfect consensus on anything, not even in pure math [which logic to choose, what field is more important]
-the research is geared towards what scientist like and avoids what scientist dislike [say if you want to do research on perpetual movement, you cannot]
-science is hardly communicable [most people do not care, the few people who care cannot into science, and then the few who remain always fight on what model is right and what model is wrong]
-scientist and general population rely on faith towards other scientists who claim that such or such part of such or such model is ''verified'' in their laboratory
-then scientists say ''if we can claim that it hold a few times in our laboratory, then it hold everywhere, every time]
-there is no consensus on how to rank models/theories
which means that there is no consensus on what is true [in positing that science gives what is true]
-plenty of scientists say that predictions matter, but scientists cannot say why why predictions matter.
[and predictions are always flawed by their proper essence: to stem from an inductive process over initial abstractions[concepts] which are generalized through space and time]
they say that this question is for ''philosophers'' [which they despise, because philosophy does not give ''computers, cars, more pleasures, less pains''.
why do scientists get up in the morning ? nobody knows
why must we finance their activities ? nobody knows
yet scientists do not hesitate to ask for money again and again.
to be more precise, there is nothing beyond the ''striving of the scientist for more and more fine predictions''.
-you ask a scientist why predictions matter, he will not answer you.
-you ask a scientist why finer predictions matter, he will say as the cliché: because it has better applications than the applications than we have today.
-you ask why having (better) applications than we have today matters, he either does not reply, or replies ''because easing the life of the humans matters''.
-and when you ask why ''easing the life of the humans matters'', there is no answer again.
the conclusion is that:
-science/technology has always been easing in our life, and conflating this explicit purpose with ''giving us knowledge in accessing truths about the objective reality'' and other realist-rationalist fantasies to legitimate the development of this field [pure hedonism having always bad press] have clearly failed.
the populace who dwells now in liberal-libertarian doctrines still has faith in a progress in science, but even the academics begin to stop caring about this -- they still take their monthly salary though.
at best, the rationalist falls back, from his faith in the concept of objectivity, on the faith in the concept of ''inter-subjectivity'' which is roughly the faith in the concept of ''objective criterion to rank personal choices, once that a person wishes to solve some problem''
-even without applications, pure predictions are nothing but a concept and having faith in it shows how much the humanity clings to the abstraction of certainty in a desperate attempt to refuse the contingency of events [and it is a choice, in the first place, to think in such terms of contingency/necessity of life/events].
=> thanks scientists for making humanity better hedonists.
I'd argue that the advent of stronger and stronger ai has cause scientist to make some serious philosophical statements and questions.
A big one is "what is the safest way to make an intellegece vastly superior than oneself and can we truely trust it?"
The reason why you can't see them is because the impact hasn't been felt yet.
The two biggest names in the second half of the 20th centuary philosophy are Bauldrillard and Focaulst, both are french.
Derrida is also french and his biggest influence (the guy he claimed is the only reason he has anything to say at all) was Heidegger he was German.
All 3 of them also have their philosophy directly derived from Nietzsche, hell so did Heidegger. If you want to do philosophy in the 20th centuary you need to do Nietzsche philosophy...or be an analytic and you probably need to French for it even matter.
Analytics basically wants to reduce everything to math and linguistic lawyership, of course you are going to end up with a bunch of Jews. Math and law are the two subjects they excell at more than any one else.
>Analytics basically wants to reduce everything to math and linguistic lawyership
The only people who still peddle this line are people who haven't read any analytic philosophy and think the Vienna Circle is still relevant to the tradition
>I don't think we even bothered to read anyone before the start of this century because their views are better developed by contemporary philosophers.
wud le fug
The greater the historical and cultural distance, the more interpretation is varied and meaning obscured, and often the less substantive the appraisal. Many people believe, say, Aristotle to be some gilded footnote in the history of philosophy, rather than observing the thinkers of antiquity as actually having distinct and meaningful ideas on their own terms. Philosophy is not some linear progression in which every subsequent epoch better systematizes and improves upon the previous.
*tips fedora but remembers you Kant*
Philosophy is argument followed by counter-arguments. Unless you're a high-school student or studying philosophy of history there's no reason to study Aristotelian ethics instead of contemporary philosophers carrying out his tradition and who may have modified his position to counter objections since he couldn't do it due to being, well, dead.
>there's no reason to study Aristotelian ethics instead of contemporary philosophers carrying out his tradition
That's practically as vulgar as suggesting that all translations of The Republic equally loyal or accurate to the source material. Except in that case, you might have the knowledge to properly reference the source material. Interpreting an interpretation is far harder and far less logically concise. You study the source material by reading the source material, then you may or may not decide to interpret the interpretations for the sake of elaboration through corroboration.
I just can't believe you fail to see any dissonance in the method you're suggesting.
Not sure how you rationalise that you'd be doxing yourself considering that said philosopher likely has hundreds of students. You don't want to talk about the teacher you've referred to, so in a sense you might as well have not posted.
It's not that uncommon though. I've studied under Graham Priest, who has done a lot of notable work in paraconsistent logics.
>Not sure how you rationalise that you'd be doxing yourself
I just don't like sharing information about myself on 4chan in any capacity beyond greentext with real proper names replaced with fictional ones.
>It's not that uncommon though.
Which is the only important thing. It's not like philosophers are another breed of human.
Tell me why Ayn Rand is an improvement on Aristotle than.
After all according to your own retarded logic philosophy follows a linear progression of the same ideas improving. Since Ayn Rand is a continuation of Aristotle she must be saying the exact same shit but with all the weak bits ironed out!
>no need to study Socrates because Plato is just an improvmement
>no need to study Plato because Hegel is a direct upgrade
>no need to study Hegel when Marx continued his work
>no need to study Marx or Hegel when Ziveck is Marx+Hegel 3.0
Fuck man might as well burn all philosophy books older than 50 years because philosophy is a field with linear progress!
>People doesn't know modern philosophers because their theories aren't easy accessible by hundred years of popularization.
Foucault says knowledge doesn't exist, only power does, and that everyone is powerful but they keep doing the things they do because the episteme makes them only capable of thinking power in certain ways.
Have I debaunched him enough?
Oh wait, and all the "epistemes" are in our bodies.