Can someone give me some guidance in reconciling the field of

>>9165752
>it obviously doesn't, and hasn't, governed the actions they've taken that have altered the course of history

On rereading this I realize this is pretty poorly worded, but the point I wanted to convey is that presumably those actions weren't rationalized out in peer-reviewed journals or complex treatises.

File: 1487249499809.jpg (238KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1280x720px

I'm currently on the edge of a vortex of paranoia myself struggling with some of these issues.

>It just really addles my mind, seeing how much thought goes into the philosophical topics that to me seem so esoteric and removed from reality.
Reality is a motherfucker. For many, getting more remote by the hour. Basically, we're in a golden era of reality as subjective perception. Personally I think that luxury is going to come with a high price tag, the cheque for which is going to arrive fairly soon.

Reality, like subjectivity, can be conjectured an almost infinite number of different ways. This has its benefits and its downsides. The benefit is that it leads to all kinds of creativity; the downside is that it is incredibly fragile.

>just in the space of ~250 years humanity obviously hasn't undergone a Kantian moral revolution (or moral revolution whose prerogatives you could attribute to any one philosopher, for that matter).
I don't know if I can agree with this (or even what a 'moral revolution' would look like). Nietzsche's impact has been huge. So has that of Marx and Freud. Would it be so hard to claim that postmodernity itself is not a kind of moral revolution? Contemporary radical skepticism?

What about Bannon? What else is the Fourth Turning but a moral revolution?

>How do philosophers justify their self-worth alongside the current of everything else that happens outside the ivory tower?
One way is by extending the influence of the ivory tower to the edges of the known universe. Again, good for some people, less so for others.

If I wanted to be cynical, I would say that the best way to do it is to dodge the question and infinitely problematize everything (which also requires the permanent combatting of anything resembling heteronormativity). There are academics out there writing good and interesting books. But to me at least the concept of justifying anything seems to be becoming increasingly remote.

I like Peterson's idea: sort yourself out, become competent. That is enough. That is at least the advice I am giving myself these days, since otherwise imagination can run out of control. In the public sphere or in private.

>>9165837
>>just in the space of ~250 years humanity obviously hasn't undergone a Kantian moral revolution (or moral revolution whose prerogatives you could attribute to any one philosopher, for that matter).
>I don't know if I can agree with this (or even what a 'moral revolution' would look like). Nietzsche's impact has been huge. So has that of Marx and Freud. Would it be so hard to claim that postmodernity itself is not a kind of moral revolution? Contemporary radical skepticism?
>What about Bannon? What else is the Fourth Turning but a moral revolution?

That was sort of a facetious statement, because I believe that human nature is governed by evolutionary principles, so any kind of idealistic "revolution" is only fated to be co-opted at some level by our basest desires. So the argument for Marx's initial influence is there, but the revolution was not borne out in reality.

On the topic of reality, I also think it's independent of perception.

>>9165858
>I believe that human nature is governed by evolutionary principles

top kek

File: maxresdefault.jpg (84KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1280x720px

It's not like reconciling philosophy with reality is impossible. People do it in all kinds of different ways, with varying degrees of success. People with particularly refined (or unrefined) positions are capable of espousing mostly coherent perceptions on this stuff. Even if they don't necessarily agree with each other, as in the case of pic related.

But a lot of these questions can take place on a pretty deep level, almost to the point at which one is forced to choose between axioms. Is the individual a discrete and autonomous entity, a member of a collective, a transpersonal being, something else? All of these options are open.

Anyways, I agree with you, Kant is a good look. If one is at least prepared to commit to the idea that Reason does in fact exist, philosophy life becomes a little more manageable. It's just that I think it can be a tall order in the 21C, after a century of Nietzsche putting Kant in the chokehold and the general perception that the Enlightenment was a failed project eight ways from Sunday. Some retrieval of the busted parts and pieces from that noble edifice might be in order. Virtue ethics - via McIntyre, the Stoics, wherever - are appealing to me also, if only because in their absence you can really begin to feel like you're floating in space.

Maybe philosophy is best practiced outside of the academy? I don't know.

>>9165870

Yeah, we're just animals

You have to start from the beginning in philosophy, like math. In math, you start with simple addition. If you were given a high school algebra problem at the beginning you'd think it was esoteric, just like if you started with Kant. In other words, start with the Pre-Socratics.

>>9165894
You're falling into the trap of radical skepticism current society does too.

>>9165902

I resent that claim, just because I believe we're bound by the same physical restraints of biological need and instinctual restraints of our nature doesn't mean I reject the search for purpose

>>9165960
you are a double idiot

>>9165960
If you believe that we're bound by nature and scientific laws there's no real purpose behind that search and you will inevitably fallback into nihilism or antinihilism at best. Whether you call it God, Natural Law or the personification of the Universe - the search of purpose is undeniably theistic in nature. The atheistic/agnostic philosophers inevitably end up in some spectrum of nihilism.

>>9165993
>If you believe that we're bound by nature and scientific laws there's no real purpose behind that search

What if I just want to be happy? I've accepted the fact there is no ultimate "purpose" for humanity or anything, but that doesn't change the fact there are things which can satisfy us in this mortal coil