"Culture isn't dead."

you forgot joe rogan

File: 1494707190790.jpg (3MB, 3445x2454px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3445x2454px

>>9571666
Don't worry, I didn't!

>>9571664
I won't deny there has been a massive decline, but I love how the people who make these kinds threads don't keep up with actual 21st-century high culture---there are still good philosophers, good music, good literature, good film, and so in being created all the time.

>>9571664
In the 21st Century, we've democratized culture making it retarded; it's a fact.

>>9571664
Rockefeller got his nation of workers. Shame about the globalized culture. Now we are all workers building the temple of nothingness.

>>9571681
>Yuri
Why is he on that list? Did he talk beyond the strategy of subversion? Heck, if that qualifies, every teacher in history should be added to that list.

>>9571664
The intellectuals of the 21st century all contribute to journals and books.

>>9571694
We've also industrialized democracy and media. Every breakthrough in psychology is used to control the masses, and one of the methods is telling the masses that they have the power.
I remember a psychology test with inmates and lamps. If they were told they could turn off the light, they had less stress than if they knew they couldn't. Only lasted so long as the illusion, though. They never had the power.

>>9571681
this picture is insane. shouldn't it just say "ignore everyone?" by those standards who isn't a pseudo-intellectual rhetorician? chomsky, zizek, hitchens, bloom. i don't

>no peterson

hmm

>>9571681
>tfw can't find a single person I don't hate on that list
I must be on the right path.

>>9571715

>>9571664
Silly. None of those figures were revered in their life time the way pop culture figures are now. Literacy is higher than it has ever been. Your average college math student knows all the theories of mathematicians up to about 1900. Your problem is adhering to "cult of the genius" ideology.... We have plenty of brilliant thinkers right now in many different countries.

Manners have certainly taken a hit, though.

>>9571715
>this picture is insane. shouldn't it just say "ignore everyone?" by those standards who isn't a pseudo-intellectual rhetorician? chomsky, zizek, hitchens, bloom. i don't
>>no peterson
>hmm

You're a pseud. Sorry, buddy.

>>9571722
>Silly. None of those figures were revered in their life time the way pop culture figures are now. Literacy is higher than it has ever been. Your average college math student knows all the theories of mathematicians up to about 1900. Your problem is adhering to "cult of the genius" ideology.... We have plenty of brilliant thinkers right now in many different countries.

Reverence is a side issue, you absolute buffoon.

The point is the quality of their work. If you honestly think any modern """"philosopher"""" matches the likes of Hume then you should kill yourself with a cattle rod.

>>9571681
Comedians aren't supposed to be intellectuals. That's a problem of the audience, not the comic.

>>9571722
hi
don't about what you don't know
thanks

File: yomikokig.jpg (11KB, 160x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 160x240px

>>9571735
what gives you the right to decide quality and not the populace masses? the worker has liberated your aesthetics.

File: zizek.jpg (435KB, 2000x1334px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 2000x1334px

>>9571664

>>9571715
>>no peterson

Peterson is there

>>9571748
shit you're right

>>9571745
>the right to decide quality
Probably the same thing that gives you the right to demand lawful behavior towards you. No, it is not the state.

You know we're only 17 years into this century, right?

>>9571664
Where are Bob Brandom, Slavoj Zizek, and Gorgio Agamben

>>9571735
Hume's ideas have dissolved into the popular culture. Nobody needs to "match" him.

>>9571766
That's not the point, brainlet.

>>9571762
by 1917 we had a world war

what do we have? ain't shit

File: 1456034034263.jpg (201KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1600x900px

>>9571758
do you honestly think the state matters anymore? completely fluid movement is possible over the borders of the world. all that matters for power is money. the economic output of the disney corporation, fed by supporters around the world could topple nations.

with the rise of outsourcing, nations don't matter anymore. only ideologies retweeting each other into the long dark night.

>>9571766
Tell me you are a woman. I need an excuse to forgive your lack of ambition.

>>9571765
Slavoj Zizek is a sad old bear with his rusting guillotine that has to keep jumping through self-crated loops of voodoo jargon "theory" to make Marxism even thinkable in the 21st century. Not that he doesn't have interesting ideas, but still.

>>9571735
People still reach the same quality of writing and thought but it's just more specialised non-fiction than what early industrialist societies produced. Capitalism has advanced since then and with it literacy and education. I take it you don't read much non-fiction?

File: mfw.jpg (69KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x960px

When did you realise Capitalism is the cause of all of this?

>>9571681
>Chomsky is a pseud
>Atom-bombing Man-Dingo is identified as an intellectual

Literally what?

>>9571776
>do you honestly think the state matters anymore? completely fluid movement is possible over the borders of the world. all that matters for power is money. the economic output of the disney corporation, fed by supporters around the world could topple nations.
So, the states don't matter because the corporations use the enforce their will?

I mean nationhood has always been a trash concept, but clearly its not irrelevant when they make laws that the proletariat must obey and are still considered an authority by most people.

>>9571664
>compares great artists/polymaths/philosophers/scientists of yore with pop-entertainers of now
No shit, Sherlock.

>>9571802
>nationhood has always been a trash concept
Rootless cosmopolitans get the fuck out. I seriously hope you're some sort of antinatalist, people devoid of thymos like you shouldn't procreate.

File: 1494535213299.jpg (128KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 736x736px

>>9571776
The state has had me serve a year in slavery. The state these days is about number crunching and management. All for the ease of commerce, because people would buy their ideal lives if they could. Or maybe they would sell them.

There are no ideologies anymore. Not in the sense that ideals would guide people. No, the only thing that remains is a set of opinions, reactions and social signaling. All three ideologies are dead, and good riddance. They were all different methods of reaching the mouse utopia anyway.
What follows is barbarism, obscuriantism, occultism, vanity. The brutality of man will rear its head soon enough, since the social constructs of old were in the way of the mouse utopia. Makes me wonder if this is all a more extravagant iteration of the lemmings and their behavior.

>>9571791
A while ago. When did YOU realize that communism isn't the solution to the problem?

If anything we need to return to mercantilism and monarchy.

File: rZOaHhx.png (56KB, 192x154px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 192x154px

>>9571808
>lack thymos
>for a legal fiction that has only existed for 200 years

>>9571811
Both already collapsed

>>9571791
>because our mouse utopia will never be there, since you will all die in poverty and violence

>>9571791
Communism isn't any more concerned with the truth than Capitalism is, though, except when it's to further ideology - a model of reality that is both unquestionable and false. Re: The collapse of biology under Stalin with his pet lamarckian fraud.

>>9571814
>legal fiction
The union of the little Germanies would like to have a talk with you.

>>9571810
shit dude i forgot about prison. the ability to incarcerate someone is indeed powerful. it isnt, i would hope, something the disney corporation could get away with. at least not yet.

let me restructure my claim: the state is no longer the most powerful decider of global change.

can even the power of a president prevail against the deep state? bumper sticker manufacturers and late night television hosts can alter the enforcement and litigation of public policy by getting enough of their drones to retweet things

>>9571664
>those lists
well, that's what you get for sticking with the baroque past the 18th C: rococo. don't say voltaire didn't warn you.

>>9571815
Monarchism fell to lies. If you are looking for political prisoners, look for US/NATO prisons, look for the laws and regulations that allow detainment of political threats or their eradication with machines. If you want to look for tyranny, see how brazenly the globalists act in sovereign states of Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq... Look how Brexit is being handled! Revenge after revenge, threat after threat. Same for Crimea.
Equality has brought only horrible things to this world, and is the reason beauty can be solely found on the pages of history, right before we return to prehistory.

>>9571806
>>compares great artists/polymaths/philosophers/scientists of yore with pop-entertainers of now
>No shit, Sherlock.

Name 10 greats of today.

You've got 10 minutes.

>>9571827
I wasn't in prison, I was conscripted. Your point still stands, I merely wanted to point that out.

>>9571822
So nations are a thing, just ask the diverse German tribes that were at each others throats for ages until they were united by the Franks? Then kept fighting each other until Bismarck? Lmao, great unity of spirit you have there bro.

>>9571829
>Monarchism fell to lies

Nah

>>9571815
I know, but what I'm saying is that if we're looking for a "golden age of culture," then most people would peg its span from the beginning of the Renaissance to start of World War I. What ran the world in that time? Monarchy and mercantilism.

>>9571830
Not him but I just want to confirm you're purposely being disingenuous right?

>>9571843
Six minutes, now.

>>9571842
You can never go home again

>>9571835
There were no political prisoners found, and most of the negative of the economic policies were a direct follow-up to enlightenment thinking and new policies.
The revolution was bullshit, and so was everything that followed. Why would you decapitate your equals? Why would you force marriage upon your equals? Why would you do it en masse? To have revenge for prisoners who never existed? To free the jewry?
They did it because they were subhumans, and their amount grew too high for the political structure to hold together.

>>9571681
Take Varg out!

>>9571850
>their amount grew too high for the political structure to hold together.

So you mean it collapsed.

>>9571843
>Poster derides me for comparing the greats of the past to pop-icons today
>Ask him to name greats of today
>Still can't do it

Wew, this debate is always easy to win:

>"You just have to find them!!"
>"Ok, can you give me some names?"
>"..."

>>9571845
Like I said, not him, but you answered my question indirectly.

>>9571863
Yes no one is going to engage with someone being disingenuous. If you were serious I would have helped you think.

>>9571856
Only in France did the collapse happen by its own force. After that, it was foreign banks funding revolts one after another. Now that we have the Internet, we can finally go back since we have access to forbidden knowledge, such as the pyramid scheme of banking and usury, the validity of antisemitism, religious beliefs, social structures, patriarchy, beauty... Would there be no Internet, we'd be tied to TV, newspaper and Radio, which are all controlled sources of information.
Books of course would exist, but their importance is always a niche.

>>9571869
>Yes no one is going to engage with someone being disingenuous. If you were serious I would have helped you think.

12 minutes up.

Thanks for playing.

>>9571872
I could, but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna receive some autistic contrarian hurrdurr about greats not being great enough or not great at all. In the end, isn't edgy memeing the whole point of this shitty thread? So why bother.

>>9571872
Now your turn, name 10 greats of 1717. You have unlimited time.

>>9571884
Literally named 10 great 18th century thinkers in the OP.

>>9571870
Why use real knowledge when we could just LARP as monarchists

>>9571856
Not really, look at the Vendeé and the Bourbon restoration. The system only collapsed because some aristocratic and bourgeois retards thought that Reason was something transcendental, and half of them got executed for it - look at Condorcet and Robespierre. Only Napoleon managed to save the Revolution by making it resemble the previous system.

>>9571883
>I could, but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna receive some autistic contrarian hurrdurr about greats not being great enough or not great at all. In the end, isn't edgy memeing the whole point of this shitty thread? So why bother.

Just name them. I'll be honest with my opinions. Ignore posts which are not sincere. They won't be mine.

>>9571887
1717, follow instructions

>>9571894
Nice try, pleb but my request to the other poster was for the past 17 years not a single year.

Keep trying, brainlet.

>>9571890
>"It wasn't a real collapse!"
>system is still defunct

File: 17991915_1489656721106680_3056901798726064030_n.jpg (58KB, 623x573px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 623x573px

>>9571664
Google "survivorship bias."

>>9571897
I don't mean people born in 1717 you idiot. It's a direct parallel to your request. It's not hard, stop stalling

>>9571904
Reddit.

This possesses the inherent assumption that there WERE people that didn't survive which is a false comparison to those that DID INDEED survive because we have factual evidence that they did.

Nice Wikipedia article, loser. I love using logical fallacies in my reddit debates!

>>9571904
that doesn't really seem relevant

>>9571888
Well, we can't. Law enforcement would be onto us quite quickly. Despite their reluctance to honor social constructs, they do like to pretend that those advantageous to them hold value. Hence we have conscription, despite being led by globalists. Likewise, they may not like revolutions that want to decapitate them as much as they worship the revolutions that decapitated their predecessors.

The world works with money now, so the correct solution would be to become a mafia and then spread mercantilism. The kingpin would end up the king. No need to have too quick changes all around, we like conservatism. As Hitler said, if you want to change a rule, you obey the rules of the system, get on top and change the system.

>>9571902
Yeah, France never recovered from the Revolution. It was a superpower that threatened to take over Europe thanks to its comparatively huge population and now it's an USG protectorate

>>9571905
>I don't mean people born in 1717 you idiot. It's a direct parallel to your request. It's not hard, stop stalling

>Isaac Newton
>Jean Meslier
>Giambattista Vico
>Dimitrie Cantemir
>Justus Henning Boehmer
>Benito Jerónimo Feijóo y Montenegro
>Christian Wolff
>Ludvig Holberg
>George Berkeley
>Emanuel Swedenborg
>Montesquieu
>Voltaire
>Benjamin Franklin
>David Hume
>Jean-Jacques Rousseau

All lived during 1717

>>9571914
Only people who were great during 1717. Please use your head

>>9571919
And the goalposts go round and round... Why not just chin up and accept your defeat with dignity? This is an anonymous forum, after all.

>>9571919
You won't receive any more responses from me, you redditor.

I never compared years. I compared centuries. I know what you are trying to do.

>Haha, you can't name 10 great from 1717 therefore your arbitrary timeframe doesn't make sense!

As though the timeframe of a century I used in the OP is in any way comparable to the one of a single year you have given.

TLDR; Kill yourself.

>>9571919
Your point isn't as great as you try to believe.

>>9571925
I don't think that humans have a real issue to admit defeat to others. At least for men, not submitting after a loss can mean death, so there is a mechanism letting it happen. However, a defeat to yourself... How on earth would biology cope with that? By evolving a consciousness to handle such cases?

>>9571925
The goalposts have been the same the whole time but it is purposely being misinterpreted. It's a request in the spirit of asking for great thinkers of 'today' transposed to the early 18th century. What was Voltaire doing that was so great in 1717? If he were alive today we wouldn't know his name.

>>9571931
>If Voltaire wasn't Voltaire, we wouldn't know his name

Wew, really made me think...

>>9571872
Pretty sure this is a fruitless exercise anyway because we won't know how important this or that thinker will be in 300 years. Not all the people mentioned in the OP had their sucked as hard back the as we do now.

Will Eion Musk be the Isaac Newton of the 21st century?

Will Chomsky be the Thomas Mann?

Either way if you mention those two, you will get people calling you a pleb anyway because of the naysayers.

>>9571926
You're comparing a complete century with an incomplete one. That's why I was asking if you were being disingenuous because it's quite obviously a stupid thing to do. Do you want me to tell you all the great people of 2075?

>>9571931
There has been a steady flow of geniuses up until recently. Who shut it down?

>>9571932
If he was some 23-year old arrested for speaking out against the government he wouldn't qualify as 'great'.

>>9571933
Chomsky is a pseud.

Elon Musk is intellectually inept but a great man in terms of innovation and technological progression and clearly intelligent. Stupid people don't become billionaires. That being said, he lacks a philosophical capability and suffers from the same Silicon Valley autism that Thiel suffers from.

>>9571934
>You're comparing a complete century with an incomplete one. That's why I was asking if you were being disingenuous because it's quite obviously a stupid thing to do. Do you want me to tell you all the great people of 2075?

Except you still haven't named ONE. Throughout this entire discussion. You didn't name ONE of the past 17 years.

>>9571936
No one shut it down it's just specialised knowledge now or dismissed because of politics.

>>9571933
>Pretty sure this is a fruitless exercise anyway because we won't know how important this or that thinker will be in 300 years. Not all the people mentioned in the OP had their sucked as hard back the as we do now.

If the people in this post are revered in 300 years time then we are truly lost >>9571681

>>9571715
>shouldn't it just say "ignore everyone?"
That's some solid advice though, anon.

>>9571941
Like I said I wasn't the guy you requested that of. You can use that same Wikipedia timeline of Western philosophers and skip to the 1900-2000 section if you want some idea. You should probably note how long it is compared to the 18th century.

>>9571943
>or dismissed because of politics
They did it with Voltaire and Gandhi. Voltaire is now buried in the Panthéon of Paris and India might get plumbing in the next millenia.

>>9571681
>E-Rodg isn't in the pic
As it should be

>>9571939
>Chomsky is a pseud
>proving me right.

Thanks bro. Either way we will have to wait until the end of the century to give you a full list of people you disagree with now but are considered intellectual greats 400 years from now.

>That being said, he lacks a philosophical capability and suffers from the same Silicon Valley autism that Thiel suffers from
Remeber that time that time when Isaac Newton did all kinds of Harry Potter shit to try and prove there was no Trinity of Christ? I member, but most people don't because they only care about gravity and science.

>>9571948
>Like I said I wasn't the guy you requested that of. You can use that same Wikipedia timeline of Western philosophers and skip to the 1900-2000 section if you want some idea. You should probably note how long it is compared to the 18th century.

Wew, this brainlet is so insecure that he not only thinks I haven't memorised the article word for word 6 years ago for this exact discussion but that Wikipedia is somehow an unreliable source.

>>9571953
>Wikipedia is somehow an unreliable source.

How did you infer that? And if you've memorised it you know where the answer is so you can probably go ahead and delete this thread now or hang out in the /his/ version.

>>9571952
Don't put Harry Potter, theology and occultism in the same pot.

>>9571956
I'm not the OP. Paranoid?

>>9571960
Are you satisfied with this reply? You left the main points of the argument untouched.

>>9571957
Its not like I can tell the difference. 300 years is long time to clean away all the crap and only leave the good that these thinkers did. Considering we aren't even a quarter into the current century we have no idea what will be soon considered important.

>>9571945
Most of that list are internet personalities that only have popularity within their fan base. There are probably billions of examples of small time nobodies in the 18th century no one remembers without a google search. Then again, we won't know if until 2500 which one's will survive as important thinkers won't we?

>>9571692
I'll disagree with you on good film and literature. I think film is in a weak place right now (the last 4 palme dors were questionable) and literature is stale because everyone either makes a big magic realism epic novel or they write about the 20th century.

>>9571956
Wikipedia is a reliable source. (1 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 (7
However, recent postulations have made questionable claims that it isn't (? requires confirmation*

>>9571908
>>9571907
The point isn't that the old garbage has literally disappeared. You can still dig up reams of incorrect science and awful poetry from earlier points in history. The point is that nobody studies the old garbage anymore, because everyone knows it's garbage. We only ever hear about the historical greats, but we hear about modern mediocrity all the time. That's the nature of thought — there's more thinkers than scholars, so critics and academics need time to sift through the swill and find the good stuff.

Besides, OP isn't even citing actual 21st century intellectuals, just pop-culture figures. Joyce died in poverty and went relatively unread. Same for Van Gogh. Fame =/= intellectual achievement.

If I had to make an actual list of 21st century intellectuals, I'd start with:
>Dennett (someone had to be the STEM autist in philosophy of the mind, and he articulates it reasonably well)
>Searle (someone had to stop STEM autism from ruining philosophy of the mind)
>Chomsky (for his linguistics, not his politics)
>Zizek (for his application of Lacan to film, not his politics)
>Wallace (essays & short stories, not Jest)
>Derrida (more 20th than 21st century, but wrote until his death in 04)
>Bouriaud (formalized relational aesthetics, completely changing the course of art history)
>anyone who's published a significant quantum algorithm, take your pick

>inb4 OP tries to discredit the 21st century by pointing out that these thinkers started writing before the year 2000
They're still writing now.

>>9571972
>They're still writing now.

I'm sorry, but a bunch of them are dead my man

>>9571967
>Its not like I can tell the difference.
Fantasy and fiction are different. They do no claims of reality, or over reality. They create their own. Theology attempts to explain God or the Divine, and is largely responsible for our attitudes towards humans in general. Occultism is forbidden knowledge.
> Considering we aren't even a quarter into the current century we have no idea what will be soon considered important.
Humanity does not reset based on calendar. You should know this. There should have been a steady inflow of genius, but instead the post-ww2 world has been oddly void of such people.

>>9571972
>>Dennett (someone had to be the STEM autist in philosophy of the mind, and he articulates it reasonably well)
le brain separated and attached to electrodes man LMAO

>>Searle (someone had to stop STEM autism from ruining philosophy of the mind)
le speech acts

>>Chomsky (for his linguistics, not his politics)
le anarcho-syndicalism

>>Zizek (for his application of Lacan to film, not his politics)
le simplify philosophy for the masses and starbucks coffee

>>Wallace (essays & short stories, not Jest)
le this is water bro

>>Derrida (more 20th than 21st century, but wrote until his death in 04)
Fine

>>Bouriaud (formalized relational aesthetics, completely changing the course of art history)
Fine

>>anyone who's published a significant quantum algorithm, take your pick

HOLY SHIT LMAO

>>9571735
That's silly and presumes philosophy to be akin to music or painting; it isn't. Philosophers don't produce self-contained 'works', they follow on from what came before them and their work is absorbed into the body of knowledge. The next generation will use it as it sees fit. Its a discipline that develops in an evolutionary arc.

>>9571976
>but a bunch of them are dead my man
Some of them were born prior to the 50's. We haven't gotten an Einstein yet.

This whole argument is just a retarded.

>>9571717
Why do you hate Buckley

>>9571982
I can't believe I spent over an hour in this thread.

>>9571893
Szemeredi, Tao, Gromov, Smale, Tate, Mochizuki, Witten, Knuth, Tanenbaum, Hofstader, Penrose, Stiglitz, Sowell, Dennett, Dreyfus, Habermas, Derrida, Kripke, Gettier, Searle, Kahneman

Not going into arts and politics because it's going to be a shitfest.

>>9571982
>it's a contrarian babby uses greentext and edgy reductionism as an argument
Well, who would have guessed. You totally were interested in discussion and not just being an autistic imbecile.

>>9571980
>They do no claims of reality, or over reality
That's basically semantics my dude. The point is no one cares.

>Humanity does not reset based on calendar
It sure doesn't.

>There should have been a steady inflow of genius
It sure does.

>but instead the post-ww2 world has been oddly void of such people
And we won't know which ones the people of 2400 consider important because any suggestions are smacked down by autistic pseuds like >>9571982.

I mean the other anon said

>not for his politics

And the only criticism he has are for his politics. you literally can't win and this argument is pointless. Even I disagree with anon because the political observations Chomsky made in the late 20th century were very important.

>>9571991
Adding: you have an hour to browse the Wikipedia and come up with edgy ebin meme replies, I'm leaving for work after.

>>9571976
I think you're confusing Bourriaud with Baudrillard. Everyone I mentioned besides Wallace and Derrida is still alive.

>>9571982
>specifically say Chomsky's politics should be ignored in favor of his linguistics
>"le anarcho-syndicalism"

Dennett and Searle are much less one-note than you're making them out to be. This is the equivalent of reading Wittgenstein and going "le meaninglessness of words LMAO."

Again, Zizmeister was the first to apply Lacan to film, and that's noteworthy. He only simplifies philosophy so he can give people the prerequisite information to the conversations he actually wants to have.

Wallace's New Sincerity (even though he never called it that) is incredibly influential, and a lot of his prose tricks are slipping into the mainstream.

Quantum algorithms are today's analytical engine. Impractical, but important as theoretical exercises for showing the relevance of new types of computing. Or were Babbage and Lovelace not intellectuals?

>>9571987
The broader point still stands. Smart people exist.

>>9571991
>Szemeredi Haven't read
>Tao Haven't read
>Gromov Haven't read
>Smale Haven't read
>Tate Haven't read
>Mochizuki Haven't read
>Witten Haven't read
>Knuth Haven't read
>Tanenbaum Haven't read
>Hofstader Haven't read
>Penrose Haven't read
>Stiglitz Too pop-econ
>Sowell Shit (Read Mankiw)
>Dennett Shit
>Dreyfus Haven't read
>Habermas Alright
>Derrida Good
>Kripke Great
>Gettier Don't like
>Searle Don't like
>Kahneman Haven't read

>>9572000
>That's basically semantics my dude. The point is no one cares.
Yes, yes, keep building your mouse utopia, then.
>It sure does.
The specialization of scientific fields has resulted in philosophical midgets having a tremendous say in how things are. That image earlier in this thread, for example.

>any suggestions are smacked down by autistic pseuds like
I agree, although I can't really compare any of them to Hume. Well, Derrida. I hate them both, however. Since they were so far ahead of others, they should have realized something better.

>>9571681

> scaruffi

why

>>9572014
>haven't read
>makes a thread about muh intellectuals
Now, wouldn't it be more rational to read them instead of shitting up this already awful board?
>Mankiw
Thanks for recommending. Excellent undergrad textbooks, but hardly an intellectual.

>>9572010
>Smart people exist.
Smart does not equal cultural, or culturally relevant. There are plenty of genius computer scientists, physicists and so forth. Cultural influence is almost strictly limited to technology and political control. Although the Internet does imply that God still does not play fair, and that there is always a way out.

>>9571926
Holy shit you're stupid

>>9572036
Mostly because he kept responding.

>>9572032
>>haven't read
>>makes a thread about muh intellectuals
>Now, wouldn't it be more rational to read them instead of shitting up this already awful board?

Those are all Mathematics individuals, friend. A rather specific topic.

>>9572034
I see the disconnect now, two different understandings of "intellectual."

Still, I'd argue plenty of intellectuals exist. Wallace, Derrida, and Bouriaud are all definitely cultured & culturally-relevant. Zizek probably qualifies, too.

I'd also consider bringing in Dan Harmon, since his story circle theory is generating a lot of buzz right now. Understandable if not everyone thinks of him as an "intellectual," though, because his literary theory is relatively simplistic and his storytelling is low-concept.

>>9572043
Not only maths, but yeah mostly true. I don't know what you expected - we are well past the point in time where a single individual can be a genius polymath and contribute in a major way to several major spheres. Sciences have become incredibly complicated nowadays and even reaching the point where one can meaningfully create new knowledge takes a considerably larger amount of time than it did hundreds of years ago. "Where's my Leibniz" is a pretty silly question considering that math undergrads of today study the totality of Leibniz's mathematical work in a matter of years.

>>9571835
>this is your mind on naive liberal-positivism

>>9571939
>intellectually inept
>clearly intelligent
unlike this poster I assume?
what a joke

>>9571681
literally everyone in that picture is a genius and you should show some RESPECT

>>9571664
we're 17% into this century

>>9571664
nice cherrypicking op
>Gabe Newell
>Mark Rippletoe
>John Carmack
>Roger Ebert
>Ron Paul
>Ha-Joon Chang
>Tony Abbott
>Markus Persson
>Seth Godin
>Geroge RR Martin
>Robert Greene
>Hideo Kojima

>>9571722
Your problem is adhering to "cult of the genius" ideology.... We have plenty of brilliant thinkers right now in many different countries.

This. We will never have another single "briliant" thinker celebrity like in the past for two reasons:

1)All the big theories have been taken. You just can't come up with a third option in, say, the idealism vs materialism debate without sounding like a teenager that knows nothing about that.

2)All informed people nowadays know that the world and life is way too complex to be encapsulated in a single theory made by a single man. Look up chaos theory. There are still very passionate and capable people but they content themselves with minor but firm contributions to their area instead of creating more forced theories hoping for celebrity.

And yeah, don't forget that you certainly wouldn't have known who any of those guys if you were contemporary with them unless you were in university.

>>9571681
Eddie did nothing wrong

The flat horizon
-----------------------------------------------

>>9571745
>what gives you the right
Spooked hard

>>9571692
That's why it's easier to just ignore this, seriously that is for the most parts just list of celebrities

>>9572772
Also I'm pretty sure person who made this thread is American, so why wouldn't you post at least someone worthwhile, Steven Lee Myers or whoever jesus.

>>9571681
Fantano never struck me as trying to be intellectual.

File: image.jpg (66KB, 471x590px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 471x590px

>go to /classical/
>ask for a contemporary tonal composer
>they link me minimalist pieces
>tell them that this won't do it for me, I want a new Beethoven: someone that, without being derivative, touches the artistic and technical peaks that were touched by the great Western composers
>dude listen to Arvo Part, you think he's not the new Beethoven only because you've got prejudices

This is it, all hierarchies in art are gone. In 50 years from now people won't even know what you mean when you're asking for a new Beethoven, for they are incapable of making judgements without objective proofs. Humans are losing their edge, the inability of being arbitrary will, in the long run, definetely kill, slowly, everything that is and has been beautiful in the world.

>>9573369
that's a big horse

>>9573369
What the fuck does asking for new Beethoven mean? Technique? Innovation? Muh feels? You're basically giving as vague a criteria as possible and complaining about it. All the modernist atonal fags are not particularly long dead. They would feed all 3.

>>9573369
You're retarded for thinking history occurs in a fixed system. There will never be another Beethoven because there will never be a duplicate of the same conditions that allowed Beethoven to be Beethoven.

>>9573369
that's one lanklet hippo

>>9573379
It means "sublime"and "insightful", scores that can mend one's sould and which deserve to be studied for centuries. I'm not asking for a carbon copy: the fact that you can't get it is sad.

>>9573382
Who cares about the style of Beethoven, who cares about people wanting him to finish his pieces in a I-IV-I progression?
These are only superficial elements of the great artists. I'm not that naive.

>>9571972

Dontcha forget Habermas, Streeck, and Honneth >:(

>>9573477
>I'm not that naive.

I'm not convinced what you replied has a whole lot to do with my post.

>>9571715
chomsky is the only one who should be taken seriously and even then all of his books are written for a general audience, except for the language ones of course. The other three don't need to be mentioned

>>9573369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM
Western civilization is not the only thing there is. I hope.

>>9572024
12 year old

>>9571681
Mimi is /ourgirl/ though

>>9573477
>literally as pseud as it gets
Sublime and insightful are entirely subjective characteristics. There are people who think Britney Spears is sublime and insightful. Either give some objective aesthetical/technical/cultural criteria or fuck off.

>>9571664
Culture has become a schism. Those (Pre and Post) Enlightenment sought to better the world with insight, scientific and knowledge and spread it to the masses.

No one considers McInnes, Hopkins, Spencer, Molymeme, A. Jones or Sargon intellectuals. For they provide NOTHING but misguided rhetoric, false truths and pandering bullshit. If Christopher Hitchens was alive today he'd destroy each and everyone of them in a matter of seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ih6SAMxYmM

>>9571969
Film isn't in a weak place, it's not because the palme d'ors were average for their standard that all films are average.

They moved into science.

Philosophy was left for sociologist retards.

>>9571664
>>9571681
As others haev said OP, there's plenty out there, they just aren't celeberties.

>>9571810
luckily we have this guy and unabomber

>>9571681
>fantano
>wh.......tf

how did this thread even get so many posts

>>9574286
Do you have a counterpoint to OP?

>>9574286
le youtoob generation

>>9571664
Right now we're waiting for the last relics of the 20th century to die.

Plus, you're talking about mass cultur, which was always shit. The 21st century has barely begun.

>>9572352
>1)All the big theories have been taken. You just can't come up with a third option in, say, the idealism vs materialism debate without sounding like a teenager that knows nothing about that.
Are you serious? All ideas have been taken? lol

>>9572312
You forgot Donald Trump

>>9574286
Most of us don't like the contemporary world. It's an archaic monument to nothingness.

>>9572312
Elliot Rogers?

>>9573382
>you can't go back becuz the world has progressed
Literally Whig history. Please, tell me why the modern world somehow makes it impossible for poets to rhyme or composers to wrote tonal music.
>>9573731
>subjectivity is bad
Hmm sounds like a subjective judgement to me

>>9571775
we have memes and shitposting

world wars have been reduced to banter and are otherwise irrelevant now

>>9571811
you base too many of your opinions on your experiences in computer games

>>9574403
Not him, but where do I find video games that portray monarchy and mercantilism positively? Even games about civilizations tend to lean towards progressivism.

>>9571664
There wasn't any good rappers or producers in the 18th Century.

It was a shit period for film directors

Web design sucked back then too

Maybe culture was dead then.

>>9574468
>rap
>film
>fucking Web pages
Just stop

>>9574348
this

>>9574484
>what is 2+2? No, not 4! Give me a real answer!

If you don't think Beyonce or Nicki Minaj are vitally important artists that reflects badly on you.

Either of them has more influence on contemporary life than Hobbes or Gibbon.

Maybe you need to change your definition of great artist to include women of color

>Comparing 100 years to 17 years, not even doing it that honestly and adding Alex Jones as one of the best examples of a 21st century intellectual, and declaring the 21th century to have dead culture

>>9574598
It's also, on top of that, inherently hard to see genius immediately after genius appears because their ideas are radical and they aren't accepted as genius until people realise they're fairly impervious to criticism.

>>9574541
>current flavor of the month McDonalds burger is vitally important
>it has more influence on contemporary life than centuries of culinary traditions and national cuisine
top yourself my man

>>9574633
I bet you listen to Beyonce more than Beethoven.
She's the equal of anyone on OP's list, in terms of artistic quality and cultural reach.

>>9571664
>Intellectuals in the 21st Century
Cringe

File: Pieter Brueghel the Elder - The Fall of the Rebel Angels.jpg (408KB, 1280x924px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1280x924px

>>9571850
>>9571870
The reason the monarchy collapsed in France, and in general in the rest of the world (see the american revolution) was because of massive famines and a general toxic financial climate. Although this had natural and socio-economical causes outside of the monarchy control, the primary cause was the kings own hubris. Society could no longer support their wars of ever-growing scale, and so monarchy collapsed. It's true, Louis XVI was a fair king, and they were few state prisoners. The reason the people viewed him as a tyrant was not because of the bastille, but because they were sick of dying in wars that had nothing to do with them (the same thing happened in Russia again in 1917).

The collapse of monarchy was inevitable, because fondamuntaly it was a form of government antithetical to the concpet of modern state which appeared in Europe from the sixteenth century onward. Monarchy is a system directly herited from feudal society. In a monarchy the king ,through the nobility, is the owner of the land. But the state emerge directly from the collective will of all the citizens, and owning the will of the people is a very futile endavour. But since the notion of state had emerged precisly from monarchic societies, kings owned states. At the height of their power, they even proclaimed themselves to be the state. "L'état c'est moi." And power it gave them. European monarchies could levee an important amount of troops, and they were amazing mécène for the art. They grew depedant on the power of the state, and when they lost the fragile control they had over the peoples will, it all exploded with so much force that a thousand years of traditions were not enough to stop it.

Monarchy collapsed because it no longer had the trust of the people. But that wasn't the result of some conspiracy, this was the was the result of monarchy own failures. The kings were unfit to rule. They always were. The "greater" the king, the more his people suffered of his excess. The king took everything and he gave nothing back in return. In the end, crumbling under debts and war exhaustion, the king could no longer feed his people.

The French didn't revolt for the ideals of democracy, but because they were hungry. The bourgeoisie took advantage of this oportunity, believing that they could be better rulers than the kings. We all know of the many failures of the bourgeoisie, but the kings were the only ones responsible of their demise.

>>9574689
what are you doing here intelligentposter

>>9574653
Holy shit lol somebody unironically believes this shit

>>9574689
>fondamuntaly
?

File: tiggered.png (351KB, 504x504px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 504x504px

>>9574689
>posting a wall of coherent text in a contrarian meme thread

>>9571664
>>Richard Spencer
>>Owen Jones
>>John Oliver
>>Bill Mahler
>>Alex Jones
>>Christopher and Peter Hitchens
>>Neil Degrasse Tyson
>>Gavin Mcinnes
>>Thunderfoot
>>Sargon of Akkad
Intellectually bankrupt and quite braindead.
>>Richard Dawkins
>>Stefan Molyneux
Legitimate free thinkers.
>>Katie Hopkins
Based british banter.

>>9574718
Sorry, typo. *Fundamentally

>>9574689
I'm pretty sure it was mostly the consecutive crop failures and grain shortages that led to the civil unrest during Louis XVI's reign, which despite his best intentions he lacked the leadership qualities to adequately deal with. The collapse of monarchy opened up a pandora's box of (for lack of a better term) problematic concepts, nationalism being one of them. The French "patriots" (enemies of monarchy and friends of the French state) ended up being the first to field an unprecedented total war on the rest of Europe.

This whole thread is on a level of discussion that wouldn't be out of place on /tv/

>>9574333
>I say big theories
>anon understands ideas and laughs out loud

>>9571681
Chomsky, Zizek, and Bloom should be removed from this picture immediately. The rest seems accurate if I have not missed anything.

>>9574386
>you can't go back becuz the world has progressed

I never said anything about progression but it's clearly a different time, which in turn would influence any 'return' to past modes of music production.

>makes it impossible for poets to rhyme or composers to wrote tonal music.

Why would I argue that? It's not impossible. What a ridiculous thing to say.

>>9574386
>subjectivity is bad

It's bad as in inadequate for the discussion. There's no use you asking for music to cater to your specific, idiosyncratic ideas of 'sublime' and 'insightful' since no one else knows what you mean by that.

File: SevenYearsWar.png (41KB, 1357x628px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1357x628px

>>9574929
>I'm pretty sure it was mostly the consecutive crop failures and grain shortages that led to the civil unrest during Louis XVI's reign, which despite his best intentions he lacked the leadership qualities to adequately deal with.
I agree, but I think you underestimate the impact the incessant wars had on french agriculture. Society simply couldn't sustain such war efforts, and famines like these were common in this era. There was a massive famine under Louis XIV too, but it was violently repressed because Louis XIV was a "greater" king.
>The collapse of monarchy opened up a pandora's box of (for lack of a better term) problematic concepts, nationalism being one of them.
The French revolution was a total failure, and nationalism is indeed a "problematic" idea, but my point was that the kings had it coming.
>The French "patriots" (enemies of monarchy and friends of the French state) ended up being the first to field an unprecedented total war on the rest of Europe.
Altough Napoleon was a tyrant too, the Napoleonic wars were not the first to be waged by all of europe (and more).

File: pseud.jpg (3MB, 3460x3012px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3460x3012px

>>9571681

>>9576912
It needs to keep getting bigger lel

>>9571791
Yeah communism is just going to produce a Goethe on every corner right Trotsky