Why has philosophy become completely stagnant in the 21st century(no new ideas in the 21st century)? Has all the ideas already been done? Or is it to early to tell? This century is only 22 years old after all…. Maybe we shouldn’t be judging the age we’re in so quickly….
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Virtue has died, stop mourning it!
the most profound philosophy of our age is being shared anonymously on forums like this one
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is true. The depressing thing about anonymous schizos on the net being the ones making new philosophy is that it’ll be literally forgotten almost instantly. Even if it’s made by a REAL life person in a book or something it’ll probably be forgotten to. Problem with our age maybe? Only fake fame chasing shill Silly homies that scream and yell the loudest are remembered or known for half a second before they’re remembered to. But maybe the past was like this to ngl
There’s also the case that some schizo can make something now. Be forgotten then rediscovered years after his age and death then be famous then after his time…. I’m hoping this’ll happen to me at the least if I write a book.
I want to believe that among our ranks will be one day some of the most important thinkers and writers of this century or the next decades at least. Not associated, not really inspired by this place, but introduced maybe at some point.
Those few who'll make it will meet on some conference in who knows how many years and almost inadvertendly, not expecting to find a IQfyizen in real life, talk about a meme or mention some mannerism particular to this board, and both will know then that they've made it.
>he thinks we're talking about people who browse IQfy
we're talking about boards such as /b/, /LULZ/, and /x/ you fricking moron
If this is the case then we need to formalize schizo posting. Assume that any two anons who are replying to one another are speaking to each other in a discord call.
Open individualism is pretty rare, but most people don’t care or don’t have the intuition for it. It lays the foundation for the morality of the future. It will become more and more important with time. Of course it is not new, hardly anything is new. But it’s probably new to most people
It has been stagnant for at least half a century.
The fact that Chomsky is considered the most significant living philosopher should tell you enough.
In the past most significant thinkers were recognized during their lifetime.
chomsky the most significant living philosopher?
who considers chomsky the most significant living philosopher? did the ny times write that or what?
Chomsky is not even a philosopher. He is an important figure in linguistics because of what he wrote sixty or more years ago, sure, but all he's pretty much known for nowadays is his "America is... le BAD?" foreign policy takes.
Read my substack. Philosophy has not died, you are just ignorant
Are you implying philosophy is surviving through you and we’re ignorant for not knowing about you?
Are you replying to a parody post?
I’m autistic.
Yes
>Read my substack
name?
why do i get the feeling you nothing about contemporary philosophy and make no effort to read contemporary philosopher?
why i feeling you esl?
the question answer him
The 21st century is actually the most vibrant time thanks to the rise of online forums and apps. It's only dull if you're talking about academia and the trash books they churn out. The real thinkers clash online and call each other moron in long forum threads.
The materialists ruined philosophy. These gays need to learn that without metaphysics philosophy withers and dies. They chucked out metaphysics because they thought it was "spooky," and surprise surprise, philosophy is dead.
With all of the books warning of a society run by the "virtues" of science, you would think that people would get a clue.
Good, philosophy is a dead end, just like all the other aspects of old "science" like astrology and the like.
Astrology probably has more followers now than it ever has in the past
If philosophy can't survive without metaphysics, then it doesn't deserve to survive
If you can’t survive without your heart you don’t deserve to survive
Science can't exist without metaphysics. Metaphysics isn't mysticism either you nonce.
Wittgenstein already solved it
>Early life
>Wittgenstein's mother was Leopoldine Maria Josefa Kalmus. Her father was a Bohemian israelite.....
People are still pointing out philosophical realizations but not in a way that the culture at large is willing to hear. The culture would rather cling to liberal nihilism like a not-so-much-safety blanket since the alternative would lead to some uncomfortable realizations.
Like what realizations? Other then the obvious?
object oriented philosophy i think began in 2007 or around then
For me it seems like it’s been a question of addressing presuppositions inherent in a philosophy. Kurt Godel can bring you all the way back to first principles, but it would make abandoning your Nietzsche fangirling or your academic philosophy uncomfortable for sure.
What's the point of a liberal struggle of power when no individual is equal, and most are not even individuals to begin with?
The estranged men are the real thinkers and academics, but in the tyranny of the common npc they also happen to be strangled without exception. Humanity has reached a point where, in its search for erroneous ideals, it has done away with everything but meaningless stagnation. And so the years will pass and all will turn to sand. The individual stands only to be atomized, or to prostitute and waste his talents for mere hylics.
The problem of 'equality' is yet to be resolved, which your post only demonstrates.
Yes, it's working towards absolute atomization. The point is equality should actually be a vice, and we should actively work against it. "equality" should be seen in the same light as "inequality" is now.
Atomisation doesn't necessarily stem from equality by itself.
Yes it does. If things are not equal then by definition they cannot be atomic.
Then you have some task ahead of you to claim that atomisation is bad, of course without equating it with some sense of alienation.
there was barely any philosophy between say, Epicurus and Cicero, and also between the end of the Neoplatonic school ~6th century BC and the advent of Scholasticism. There are plenty of gaps of decades and centuries in the history of philosophies where there were only one or two philosophers who are still relevant and oftentimes they were not themselves very original. It's only been the 21st century for 22 years. You think nothing is happening because you are viewing reality through your narrow generational lens.
>6th century BC
AD*
you're talking about a world with a population a fraction of the size of our own
population never mattered. Africa and Asia have always had more people than Europe and Europe has always produced more philosophy than them. The population of ancient Athens was practically nothing compared to modern day cities and they created philosophy as we know it. The generational fluctuations in the quality of civilizations are independent of population, and that works both ways. more population doesn't equal more philosophy in the same way less population doesn't equal less philosophy.
population matters somewhat since you need a stable tax base to create an aristocratic or priestly caste
you also certainly can’t say that China did not produce a ton of philosophy. and Africa didn’t write anything down so we’d never know
>Why has philosophy become completely stagnant in the 21st century(no new ideas in the 21st century)?
Philosophy has become stagnant, because it is a reflection of the stagnation of the 21st century outside of philosophy - thought reflects reality. The rate at which new information comes is stagnant.
> Has all the ideas already been done?
To an extent, yes it appears the majority of ideas have been done. Our analogy is that just as economies have a tendency of the rate of profit to fall, so too does philosophy have a tendency of the rate of new thought to fall - it's literally "diminishing returns" and the ancients picked up all the low hanging fruit. You have to remember that the concept of a "primitive" past is merely a concept and that the ancients, had for the most part, roughly the same empirical data to rationalize and think from. Plato and Aristotle were still on the same Earth as the rest of us, the thing is that they thought through so much of it, constructed so much metaphysics from it, that it is likely they rationalized through the majority of possible human modes of thinking about reality. From there, every improvement of scientific instruments, from telescope to microscope to the present, particle accelerators, required an increasing amount of human thought, inspiration labour and capital to produce the same philosophical output (diminishing returns.). So finally, it appears that not all the ideas have been done, but that from each new event onwards, it merely takes more thinking to 'do' an idea.
>Or is it to early to tell?
It always is too early to tell until the afterlife. From the principle of plenitude, there should be no ruling out of apparently paranormal such as xeno space aliens. If (and only if) humans make it outside of the Solar System, there is the real possibility of gathering more information, perhaps even the Holy Grail of xeno philosophy, xeno thought. German philosophers formulated new ideas through exposure to Asia (Leibniz, Schopenhauer) and extrapolating from here, synthesized new ideas.
Philosophy reflects real life and the philosophy of the 21st century will probably relate to AI, space exploration, the unresolved philosophy of the past (it took ages to rule out 'squaring the circle'), genetic engineering, ecological degradation, economic philosophy OR if things go awry, post-apocalyptic philosophy, the philosophy of rebuilding civilization (how and even if it is possible), game theory with billions of humans, the philosophy of the End Times etc.
>Maybe we shouldn’t be judging the age we’re in so quickly….
Yes. Epoché appears to be key.
Countless times in history have people claimed there are no new ideas
What contemporary philosophy have you read, OP?
Nobody has topped Mr. Marx sadly. Maybe we should apply his lessons.
read nick land, he´s the georg hegel of the 21st century
"The Hard Problem" is the string theory of philosophy. All of the money, attention, and best minds went into it and its turning out to be crap.
We are beyond the age where entire political, religious, and philosophical movements come down to a few very privileged, educated, aristocratic individuals' ideas
>Why has philosophy become completely stagnant in the 21st century(no new ideas in the 21st century)?
Virtue has died.
The point of the postmodern era is the end of the old forms, they can no longer exist because society and life has changed. Philosophy is no longer a viable option for us. you come to this if you think about it at all. No one here reads, and the millenials who read and are intellectual have no sense and don't think.
what does this mean? who are you? how gay and moronic can one sad poster be?
We must ensure the possibility of a future for metaphysics and its survival
Oh, wise biscuit-shooter what slung ham an' eggs / At th' puncher straight out o' th' west. / She was perty an' sweet an' was trim on her pegs.
Thus the festival-goer is tangibly and emotionally 'freed' from routine and enters willingly and with anticipation into a temporally and spatially special environment.
Philosophy will be revived in 10 years when Derrida becomes popular again and everyone wonders why they didn't take him seriously 20 years prior.
QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME QUOTE ME
>QUOTE ME
Philosophy has hit the impenetrable bedrock of unfalsifiable axioms that lay beneath everything else.
There's literally nothing beneath this bedrock. Every philosopher since Spinoza has just been trying to reinterpret this bedrock in ways that fit their narrative.
You are correct. One small change,
>There's literally nothing beneath this bedrock
More like "There may as well be nothing beneath this bedrock."
Philosophy died after neoplatonism.
Platonism died before Plato.
There's no law of nature that says that philosophy has to be making huge, rapid progress at all times. Western philosophy was pretty stagnant from the collapse of the Roman empire up to the time of Descartes. The medieval scholastics were largely, in my view, sort of like today's analytic philosophers. They dutifully carried out their work, elaborating their framework of Aristotelianism + Christianity, but I don't think that can be called genuine philosophical innovation. They were more like the sort of professionalized knowledge workers that we have today - they didn't fundamentally challenge the rules of the game.
The period of philosophical progress that we saw from Descartes up until the start of the 20th century was essentially a reaction to the advent of scientific materialism (and the new liberal political order enabled by a scientific, atomistic conception of the individual human), what its philosophical implications were, and what it meant for the traditional Christian worldview. The scientific worldview was a great stimulus of philosophical thought, but its victory was not yet complete and total, which is what gave thinkers like Kant and Hegel room to dream up elaborate new philosophical systems as they navigated the philosophical and material conditions of modernity.
It's possible that we're entering a period where the scientific-rational worldview is as dominant to us as the Christian worldview was for the medieval scholastics. Science has won; it's not possible right now to challenge the fundamental rules of the game. All we can do is be knowledge workers, elaborating this or that particular niche problem, until history gives us something new to play with that enables a real paradigm shift. Or maybe scientific materialism really is the final paradigm. Who knows.
I also don't think the impact of the internet and the professionalization of philosophy as an academic discipline should be ignored. It's a lot harder for any one person or idea to get noticed now because there's just so much philosophy being produced. And you can't be sure that what's relevant to your philosophical interests will be relevant to someone else's.
Nice post. I just want to add that darwinism and the big bang theory is so dominant in this era that any further discussing on metaphysics is instantly rejected. Any ethical arguments that doesn't embrace our origin as animals is similarly ignored.
Most arguments therefore boil down to moral relativism, so essentially there is not much left to talk about. "God is dead" as someone pointed out
Causality is the gaping wound at the crotch of the scientism troony. They are trying to come up with correlative realities, but it remains meaningless nonsense so far.
dont worry, i will revive philosophy, and it wont be cringe homosexual shit like french philosophy from 20th century
don’t worry, I will give you losers something to debate about when I create my magnum opus, combining the purest and coldest logic on the identical nature of physical and metaphysical laws, a postmodern ontology of mystical states and how to achieve them with technology and drugs (and exactly why you should achieve these states without), and a brand new moral philosophy that will transform the USA into a thousand year reich
it’s coming real soon, be on the lookout in 2045
what do you mean by philosophy "becoming stagnant"? I doubt that there was ever a time when more philosophy was written, published and read. And its not like that every philosopher has his own monologue, detached from all the other monologues. Nowadays the sources are available, we can access almost all of the texts which history has provided us within a few clicks, or within a few weeks, if there is no digital copy available. If a philosopher puts forth a new account/theory etc of anything, he often does not only engage with his contemporaries but with almost anyone significant who dealt with that problem.
But all this does somehow still not seem to satisfy your requirements. What are your requirements? When was philosophy "not stagnant" according to you, if it ever was?
Because it's already solved.
The two streams of contemporary philosophy are the analytical/rortyian group who are very precise but boring and only interesting to a niche group of academics and mathematicians. The story about the cab driver asking Bertrand Russell “what is it all about?” and Russell having no answer illustrates how this tradition is so well grounded that it is really incapable of anything attractive.
The other stream is the homosexual Hegelian stream that only attracts LGBT weirdos and people with serious mental illness. You can reject this tradition based on this alone.
that reminds me that the whole philosophy of quantum mechanics and atomism is booming, even if it’s completely moronic Rick and morty shit
And where do the pessimists fit in? Or did you just forget we were here because its easier that way?
Retroactively refuted by Nagarjuna. We don't come from nothingness. There is no coming or going. Emptiness IS form.
Because it isn't profitable.
Moderns get shit on constantly. Contemporaries ignored. Ancients worshipped. So it goes.
> "Killing people is wrong!"
For killing people to be wrong, there has to be the property of wrongness - concrete or abstract. Yet the property of wrongness is not apparent to the empirical senses. Moralists will argue that killing is wrong, because our feelings say so - yet that it to suggest that feelings relate to the property of wrongness anyhows. They might even resort to a tu-quoque, "would you like to be killed?", as if the Form of Wrongness participates in the Will to not be Killed. Yet that would raise the question, how would Will determine Wrongness? Ex-nihilo?
Paul Skallas and the concept of lindy is new and fresh
because liberal democracy has captured the globe, so all the arts and academies have been stripped of soul and aspiration