Post who you think is the greatest living philosopher and I'll

>>9740157
Me

It's obviously Kripke. Discovery of aposteriori necessity actually gives me an excuse to continue being a useless waste of space and puts all self-help individualist betterment ventures to shame. Also his takedown of type identity theory is interesting

>>9740329
Discovery that Bitcoin revives Kant's philosophy is more relevant.

>>9740175
I was going to post the same thing, but actually in all seriousness.

>>9740157
why is it pic related, OP?

Kripke or Habermas

>>9740157
I don't have a clue. I'm very new to philosophy - especially those of the living.

What do you think of Robert S. Corrington or Timothy Williamson?

Kripke is horrible, the only person who's made more of a laughingstock out of analytic philosophy is David Lewis.

I think the greatest living philosopher is Donna Haraway. The whole speculative realist movement is a bunch of people who are insecure about science for no reason but Haraway has satisfactorily developed theories where we can deal with science as a real historical and material process and at the same time take it seriously. Post-structuralists and their descendants are the best at this but for some reason a bunch of people feel the need to revive a bunch of naive old-fashioned garbage about how math gets to the foundations of reality or something stupid like that (I'm looking at you Badiou).

My second-place choice would have to be someone in analytic philosophy of mind but I can't decide between like five different people.

>>9741831
> I think the greatest living philosopher is Donna Haraway.


Unless you're a finist going muh cyborgs I see no reason why you'd think this.

>>9741861
*feminist

>>9741861
I spent a paragraph explaining why I think she's so important so I don't know why you're still unsure why I've made this decision. She's the only person alive today imo who is properly acknowledging our epistemic/philosophical situation. She has a lot of work that isn't just cyborg metaphors. She's got papers on epistemology, a few books about our relationship to animals, etc.

>>9741884
> She's the only person alive today imo who is properly acknowledging our epistemic/philosophical situation

Don't speculative realists (at least Brassier and Grant) discuss scientific notions as well? And some deleuzians like DeLanda although that may not be as relevant to contemporary issues.

>>9741831
>>9741884
Sounds good

It's me, and I'm not even a philosopher.
>>9741831
ANAL-y-AUTISTIC philsophy has always been a laughing stock.
Science belongs under the shed.

>>9741897
They address them but not adequately. Brassier wants to model science as a destructive and negatory enterprise (basically a filtered down Adorno/Horkheimer) but understanding scientific reason as essentially negative is committing the same kind of fallacy, I think, that Foucault criticizes people for committing when they equate the exertion of power with repression: they fail to realize that power creates just as much as, if not more than, it represses. We know just by looking around ourselves and listening to what people say that the so called "disenchantment" of the natural world through mathematical physics has done nothing of the sort. Just look at the ideology of the "New Atheists" where the origin of humanity in fundamental particles ('we're all star stuff') is something sublime and psychologically liberatory, not some tragic fall from grace. People who understand science as essentially a negative and destructive enterprise can't reconcile this hypothesis with the very real beliefs of working scientists with regard to the consequences of their work. So Brassier is stuck with insisting that he knows better than people who actually study science what science is all about, which makes him sound really stupid and obnoxious.

Another problem with Brassier and co. is they insist on bringing back the disembodied understanding of reason, which I would say is, ironically for people who insist on stressing science, a move that's very much reactionary against what we've seen from science recently. Just look at the way he criticizes the Churchlands (people who *actually* care about the science of mind) in Nihil Unbound--the best he can say is that their conclusions are "unappealing". That's not an argument at all. Donna Haraway, in contrast, actually has a degree in science and does a lot of work to figure out what's going on in science. So she doesn't do anything lazy or dishonest like this.

>>9741954
>le 'scientists know EVERYTHING about science' meme
Get that dick out of your mouth. All you care for is a sappy image of intelligence. Oh WOW, this KIND and GRACIOUS husband to SCIENCE wants to SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS! how NOBLE!

>>9741702
elaborate?

>>9741960
I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. The average scientist knows very little about many parts of the operation of science, but the disenchantment thesis is, by construction, partly sociological. If your sociological claim is that the natural outcome of a certain set of beliefs is a certain further understanding of the value of the universe, your place in it, etc., and none of the people who actually hold these beliefs most regularly and deeply feel this way then you're wrong about the consequences of those beliefs. The question isn't what scientists know, but what they believe, and the things they believe aren't in accordance with what they should according to Brassier's theory.

nick land is for nerds who masturbate to world of warcraft

>>9741985
>should
This is why nobody takes you types seriously.

>>9741988
Care to elaborate?

>>9741995
No, not particularly. I don't fetishize intelligence or popular 'intellectual actions'.

>>9741987
it's spelled mastarbate ya dingus

>>9740157
*sips nihilism*
SLAY KING, SLAY

>>9741831
>>9741884
>>9741897
Speculative realism wouldn't exist without the work of Land.

>>9741702
yeah but he's wrong about btc

land is a hack and his followers are naive contrarians

>>9742614
Based Walrus Man, what was his name again?

>>9740157
Beerfriend & Gearfriend

>>9740329
This easily

>>9741831
confirmed for never having actually read kripke