Is he the most important philosopher of the 21st century? I say yes.

Ben Stiller?

>>9284061
No, that would be Plato.

File: Nick Land.jpg (11KB, 171x266px)

11KB, 171x266px

>>9284073
No

>>9284061
Every pore of that man's face radiates the most subtle concentration of smugness I've ever seen. You can tell he does what he does for the wrong reasons. His whole career seems to be to try to get other people to snap while not snapping himself. The complete embodiment of a troll.

>>9284073
Beat me to it.

The act of both asking and answering this question are for pseuds

>>9284091

>smug troll

That's a jew for you.

File: 1489895169779.jpg (60KB, 528x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 528x500px

>>9284061
step aside and sort yourself out

File: Alice.Claudia.full.1880668.jpg (403KB, 650x819px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 650x819px

>>9284061
We don't really have any important ones. We have important political philosophers and critical theorists and shit but the field of philosophy has wrongly invested everything into so called post-Christian post-metaphysics and similar shit like non-reductive materialism.
The only dude who really knows what the current task of philosophy is is zizek, and zizek is not groundbreaking but he also is not full of shit which is rare, though in fairness he is full of snot.
The current task is to figure out the relationship between ontology and quantum theory, tho maybe I shouldn't put it that way.
I don't think the path zizek took is the right conclusion to hegel, zizek says that God falls into his creation and thus becomes the meaninglessness that he created, epitomized in the Christ as he himself becomes an atheist on the cross etc, hence zizek is an atheist but his atheism is additive and metaphysical whereas traditional atheism is subtractive and materialistic.
But although God falls into creation, zizek doesn't realize that this very act is what allows man to fall into Godhood by the same kind of mechanism. It's commutative. I think zizek missed that, and I think he missed it because he doesn't understand the divine nature, he understands scholasticism and st thomas etc but he hasn't really lived it and hence can't approach it in a patristic manner.

>>9284189
a drinking game: listen to sam harris and do a shot every time he says "discourse"

File: 1428298415249.jpg (28KB, 280x280px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 280x280px

>>9284290
don't really know where to start with this.

gb2 youtube comments

>>9284061

The most important philosopher of the 21st century was Jonathan Bowden. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDGWr8kMBk8

>>9284301
Whatever Slavoj.

Philosophy hasn't been 'important' for at least 200 years now

File: bob-author-photo.jpg (18KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x400px

>not reading tomes on inferentialism and critiques of sellars

plebs

>>9284079
the 21st century started in 2001, not 500 BCE...

Aldous Huxley
Alan Watts
Terence McKenna
Sam Harris
Eckhart Tolle
Richard Dawkins
Steven Pinker

A few in the light of modernity...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP20eBfp2oM

For those who are interested in learning

>A Jew who hates Christianity and just wants to do Jew things and can't even defeat the strawman version of Christianity he created.

>>9284363

Thank you, jew. You are so smart. I am so glad for you to inform me about the nature of the universe.

>>9284360
Aldous Huxley
Alan Watts

yes

Terence McKenna

maybe

Sam Harris
Eckhart Tolle
Richard Dawkins
Steven Pinker

no

>>9284061
lol, are you fucking 12?? the 21st century started in the year 2000. theres another 85 years left. also noam chomsky is alive and well. they are not even in the same league. This new atheist 'philosopher' is just another blogger and public speaker at best.

I would consider nick bostrom a science based philosopher before this fucking guy

>>9284091
haha well said

>>9284061
I really don't get the hype. He seems to be like 7 decades late to the whole "science can solve ethical problems" meme. He doesn't even seem to acknowledge he's a dirty, dirty consequential. I bet he's even a basic Utilitarian at heart.

>>9284061
Alasdair MacIntyre

>>9284643
Also this to some extent.

>>9284376
Right on the money

The whole determinist atheist philosopher meme is getting old

>>9284424
What could possibly be wrong with utilitarianism.

>>9284091
come on everyone wants to get laid some people just don't have any actual ability.

>>9285058
It's based on situation rather than character ethics, and so it leads people to make "ethical" decisions that are actually designed to get them off the hook. Rather than get lost in an invite regress of ethical possibilities, we can decide what makes a good person and try to BE that person always. This makes it way harder to actually lie to yourself in daily drama.

everything

>>9285058

>The greatest happiness of the greatest number
>"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - G.B.S.

Think about the second quote and you'll quickly figure out why Utilitarianism is trash.

Is he a yootoober

>>9285058

People usually recognize evil, even if they are reluctant to recognize good. Some might look at an apparently heroic action and imagine a selfish motive behind it--the desire for fame, or praise, or monetary reward. Few people, however, will hesitate to call evil by its name. Yet, once they have done so, they have placed themselves in a bind. They have bound themselves by law. Because evil is possible only as the perversion of something good, the opposite of something good, the denial of something good. Once people acknowledged a transcendent standard of good, they themselves have placed the world under a law.

They can't escape the bind by saying that law exists, but merely as a utilitarian stopgap, to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people either. For even then they are invoking transcendent standards: the notion, for example, that the greater good: or that anyone should be concerned with another person's safety. Utilitarianism cannot suffice to prevent murder or theft, because some individuals sometimes find these actions quite useful. Yet they are actions universally condemned, by civil law and common morals. Such condemnations are among the moral truths that human beings naturally know. -These norms witness something that philosophers describe as "natural law."

>>9284396
you're getting better at b8 m8!

>>9284349
Yeah, but do you have any empirical proof of this?

File: IMG_7212.jpg (110KB, 640x864px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 640x864px

>>9284061
Just a typical Jew promoting nihilism and a pathetic moralistic charity sustained goy philosophy. How can people still trust Jews in the information age?

>the same type of people who like Sam Harris are the same types who thought Carl Sagan added anything to the world
These people are just Jews who make money of lemmings via magic of verbal sorcery.

File: 1462458069242.jpg (45KB, 720x436px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x436px

>>9285865
This. Dude is an idiot.