When did modern philosophy become such a joke?
Since people started using ad-block plus.
>>467236
When money grabbing narcissists like Zizek became the norm
when it stopped being a boy's club
>when did modern x become such a joke
The answer is always, because you are too temporally close to it for the bad stuff to have been filtered out
Music, art, philosophy etc - the good stuff will come out in a century, for now there's too much noise. It was the same in whatever historical time period you consider the best.
>>467236
Post-modern, actually
>>467236
philosophy's always been a joke
philosophy doesn't answer jack shit. always comes down to an opinion
>>467252
So the 5th century BC?
when americans tried it
>>467375
>philosophy's always been a joke
No philosophy is not joke, many famous priests of all religions was philosophers tried to get answers.
>>467236
When it became governmentally sanctioned. All the great philosophers came before universities became dominated by governments.
>>467375
Philosophy is not an "alternative" to science.
Philosophy is a discipline that sometimes uses science in an effort to answer questions science cannot - specifically moral, ethical and spiritual ones. These questions are, yes, fundamentally difficult to conclusively answer - however, if you subscribe to any form of law or guiding moral principles, you are acknowledging the importance of philosophical argument.
>>467411
yes, but it never gives you an absolute, not claiming that is necessary, but some people act like certain philosophies are the end all of reasoning
>>467382
Nah, there were dramatic agents of change in the 19th century.
>>467436
Philosophy is the father of science.
>>467460
garbage. curiosity is
When logical positivism became the norm
>>467236
When nihilism appear
>>467486
Curiosity is the father of philosophy, therefore the grandfather of science.
>>467236
Postmodernism
You can trace it back to the collapse of religion during the Enlightenment. Reasoning and the natural sciences showed religion to be a sham. In defence of religion were figures like Kant and Rousseau who tried to justify religion on "muh feels", Kant going so far as to claim that reason cannot know actual reality. Kant's claim became accepted and led to Hegel, and then Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. At the end of a lot of bullshit you're left with two ideas: 1. You can't know nuffin because reason is subjective and 2. muh feels justify everything.
After the collapse of socialism both in theory and practice during the 20th century left wingers dropped their spaghetti and retreated into the same space that religious folk retreated into in the 19th century. This is called postmodernism.
AFAIK, Philosophy has been mocked as useless since the 1700s. "Philosophy bakes no bread" and all.
>>468024
I want to non-sexually fuck Ruuko
All humanities are a joke.
They should not be allowed to coexist with real careers,they are not university material.
>tfw you can't tell if scientism comes the left-overs of logical positivism or if it's just a reaction to postmodernism
>>468055
>they are not university material.
No, only Theology is University Material.
Law and Medicine are glorified Trade Schools.
The Natural Sciences and Philosophy are either sub-branches or only worth teaching at lyceum.
>>468024
Like a true wikipedia scholar.
>>468231
Awesome refutation
Philosophy was always piffle.
When they decided to take Karl fucking Marx seriously.
>>468298
This. It is just mental gymnastics for the bored and the snobby.
>>468306
>When they decided to take Karl fucking Marx seriously.
You mean the guy who wrote Thesis 11?
>>467236
When they refused to use numbers.
You can't go very far when you fail to find the balance between concepts, and to achieve balance, you need quantities.
>>468409
>You can't go very far when you fail to find the balance between concepts
Fallacy of equivalence.
>>468451
Sorry but I fail to see where there is a fallacy of equivalence.
My point was that philosophical debates often conclude that a balance should be found between two opposing concepts, for example, Liberty and Security, or Individuality and Community. So in order to find such balance, we should first try to quantify these concepts, which philosophers are incapable of doing.
>>468492
Is anyone capable of that?
>>468492
>My point was that philosophical debates often conclude that a balance should be found between two opposing concepts, for example, Liberty and Security, or Individuality and Community.
…
You read pissant political "philosophy" and analytical tripe (as opposed to the good stuff about waifus), don't you?
You're literally talking about pissy dichotomies produced by bourgeois thinkers with no capacity.
Read Foucault on genealogies of knowledge, and, hmm, Hegel and Lukacs on dialectics.
>So in order to find balance
…
>>468507
Postmodernist idiot detected
>>468502
Well, some social and economic scientists are trying to measure things like inequalities, but other than that, I don't know.
The original question of the thread was "When did modern philosophy become such a joke?" so I was mainly trying answer this question, while suggesting that quantifying philosophical concepts may be the key to keep making practical progress in philosophy.
>>468507
>pissant political "philosophy"
So... you accuse me of a fallacy of equivalence and proceed to do an Ad Hominem... Well done.
>>468551
>Can't tell ad hominem from invective
The STEMtard, ladies and gentlemen.
>>468551
>Well, some social and economic scientists are trying to measure things like inequalities, but other than that, I don't know.
They've been trying to "measure" than since 1940. Their theoretical categories are shit.
In 1840 Marx and Engels perceived the appropriate theoretical categories: relationship to social production.
>>468555
Nice trips, too bad you're retarded.
>>468031
Even Socrates was mocked for considering useless questions and having his head in the clouds.
>>468565
Sure, cunt, sure. Show me the "successful" social science studies based on your retarded liberal normative dichotomies.
They don't exist. Most of them failed in the 1960s or 1970s on theoretical bases.
>>468602
Good thing science is driven by failure then.
>>468024
You somehow managed to be absolutely ignorant about everything we're talking about, and also absolutely correct. It's quite beautiful.
>>467236
>le philosophy is a joke meme
How about trying your hand at this problem then:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/
Also note how most papers on it were written in the past 30 years or so.
>>468409
>When they refused to use numbers
Why would they use numbers? They can use variables and mathematical functions, much like theoretical sciences do. There's little reason to use specific numbers outside of specific scenarios (such as game theory.)
>>468615
>Good thing science is driven by failure then.
And when "science" fails because of poorly constructed theory…
>>468671
Simple. Life is not worth living under any circumstances. The mere act of being born is a tragedy of unimaginable proportions.
The only reasonable solution is the one that leads to the least amount of people. The less people, the less suffering. The Repugnant Conclusion is based on the false premise that life can ever be anything but constant misery.
If only we didn't have a biologically damning tendency to avoid death. It'd make everything a lot easier.
>>467236
The joke is people not taking Zizek seriously because of how he "acts".
>>468749
tips motherfucking fedora
>>468749
Schopenhauer, is that you?
>>468749
Lives with negative welfare are already considered in 2.4, so that's not a new insight:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/#RevNotLifWorLiv
What the article fails to address, though, is the question of whether it's better to have many lives with slightly negative welfare or a single life with very negative welfare - a life of constant torture vs a billion lives with occasional discomforts - in effect, a simple inversion of the Repugnant Conclusion.
Ironically, that precise dilemma (how to pick between options that lead to high negative welfare for a few vs low negative welfare for many) is the very reason I got interested in the debate surrounding the Repugnant Conclusion.
>>468913
>citing an encyclopædia
>>467676
Modernism never ended. Postmodernism is just a fancy relabeling of it.
Philosophy was always a joke. Just a bunch of fedoras trying to get quoted.
>>467236
When it got taken over by brooding autistic mandchildren and not by actually smart people.
>>468161
>mfw anon has a grasp of historical perspective
>>468314
>How to know what is good and true
>mental gymnastics for the bored and snobbey
>mfw
>>468024
Try reading some analytic philosophy you fucking retard, the 20th century was the best period of philosophy that ever existed
jesus fucking christ this place is shit
>>468315
>>467236
Since the cultural revolution of the 1960s.
/thread
>>467676
>>469102
Both wrong here. Modernism, child of the Enlightenment, is alive and well and quite distinct from postmodernism, which represents both the true failure of recent philosophical thought and the cause of the discipline's diminished reputation. When and if the inane voices of the postmodernists finally dwindle to a faint murmur, modernism will pick up again where it left off and carry mankind to higher reaches of civilization. I just hope we're able to free ourselves from the claws of irrationality before it's too late.
When Kant blew everyone's minds so hard they couldn't restructure themselves to think of anything better
>>467436
>yes, but it never gives you an absolute
wow just like science
>>468240
Kant never tried to refute the scientific discovers of his age, give examples where he did.
>>467236
When Marx became a legitimate philosopher
>spent 75% of his career discussing nothing but sociology, politics and political economy
>directly referred to philosophy as getting it utterly wrong
h-he's just a junghegelian guys! Really!
le zizek man strikes again
>>467436
Philosophy is about finding absolutes. Even the statement that "there are no absolutes" is an absolute statement that people have argued for through philosophy.
>>467236
When there ceased to be more than token organized resistance to lines of thought predicated on Marxism. The left (for lack of a better term) has had a death grip on the spectrum of discourse since after WWII (complete with throwing previous intellectual objection to Marxism into the memory hole) and now they're pretty much just eating themselves alive because they've exhausted all their other foodstuffs.
>>467236
It's always been shit, because otherwise you'd never have heard about it.
>>467236
>entertainment value detracts value from philosophy
>>469223
You confirmed what that anon just said fag.
>>468031
Philosophy has been mocked as useless since Thales
>>467375
>always comes down to an opinion
are you actually homosexual?
>>468409
They use logic, which is primary to mathematics.
>>469720
HELLO le zizek man
>>468024
How could things such as the falsification principle and Popper appear if everything was irrational post-Kant?
>>468031
>"Philosophy bakes no bread" and all.
Sounds like Protestant platitudes.
>Muh work and muh productivity is how you please the Lord.
>>468024
You're a fucking idiot. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.
>>467375
this desu
>>468024
Someday, you'll get to eat ice cream together with a friend.
>>472918
Science is shitty philosophy working as a bridge before engineers can do something decent with it.
>>472936
>engineers
Glorified technicians. Career for smart but intellectually sterile chumps who are only in it for the money. Also cocksuckers.
t. /sci/
>>469290
Yeah, the postmodernists definitely ruined it; ruined all of the humanities, social sciences, and the hope for Western Civ, really.
>>472918
Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat and asking "Why is it dark? And why am I looking for a black cat in the dark? And why am I looking for a black cat?"
>>467407
Schopenhauer would've really liked you
but what ishe reality??
When it split with Science, its only objective merited component with any practical application.
I like Zizek tbqh family
When Marxism stopped being an important if flawed contribution to economics and political philosophy, and started becoming more and more enmeshed in non-political philosophy.
There are good contemporary philosophers, but they're Kantians, Thomists like Alaisdair MacIntyre, phenomenologists, analytic philosophers, philosophers of consciousness like Chalmers and Dennett, philosophers of religion like Plantinga, etc. Some Wittgensteinians are good too, and Wittgenstein himself is good.
But not anyone who considers himself a post-modernist, a structuralist, post-structuralist, etc.
Anyone who calls himself a Marxist and who is also a philosopher, who is writing after 1960 is absolute cancer.
But really, metaphysics is less polluted with shit than you would think. If you look up a metaphysical problem like "Qualia" or "Free will", none of the people writing on those issues today are particularly bad.
It's only the people that try to comment on political issues, or make some sort of existential statement about living in a shitty society that suck. Whether they talk about how capitalism sucks, or just how the society is anti-intellectual or something like that.
>>467236
when politics control discourse
>>467236
I swear everytime this guy tells a story about his youth and about sex I can't believe a single word, I mean he is fucking retarded, looks like shit, has inumberable ticks like sniffing and polishing his nose to only name two and is generally an unpleasant pretty pretentious guy who does not really know jack shit
>>474364
but capitalism sucks
A better question would be: Why does no one know about any of the good modern philosophers? Take the 40s. Life wasn't too different than today. There was pop culture to distract us, etc. But it seems to me that there was a lot more people in the in the 20s through the 60s that were aware of the great philosophers of their era. If you were moderately educated in the 40s, you probably knew something about Sartre and Wittgenstein, who were writing at the time, as well as a lot about older figures like Kant and Nietzsche and Plato.
And educated people from the 19th century seemed even more aware of all the various figures that were around in their time.
But not only do the general public not know anything about many post-60s philosophers, even people who are super into philosophy mostly restrict their reading to the greats like Kant and Nietzsche and Plato, not trying to find new philosophers who tackle the great problems.
There just doesn't seem to be one or two or three great philosophers of the 2000s or the 1900s or the 1980s, that really grabs peoples attention and become the works that everyone must read, compared to how there are several for every decade of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th.
>>474564
this
idiots who think they can avoid marxism are just puppets of the system
>>474565
Everyone know about John Searle, at least if you work within computer science or neuroscience.
What's wrong with Žižek?
>>474584
The jokes get stale and you need to comp him coke.
>>474584
nothing, it's just that you foreigners think of him as something else other than a stand up comedian for some reason
>>473140
Zizek is a good philosopher because he's the stone in the shoe of everyone: liberal postmodernists, radical materialist leftists and obviously any kind of idiot who think they can reach pure objectivity with either science of shitty metaphysics, religion, etc. And of course Zizek is despised by any hardcore advocates of the system, even though he's not as "radical leftist" as he himself claims he is (he's not a leninist).
>>474622
>even though he's not as "radical leftist" as he himself claims he is (he's not a leninist).
He makes it very clear he's a stalinist.
That's a joke. That's the thing, also. He confuses people that don't know very much about the history, traditions and positions of the left.
A good book to start with that is "History of the left in Europe" by Geary.
>>474643
You need to read more on Stalinism.
>>474626
he makes it very clear that he's being ironic as well
BUT IT'S NOT JUST CLOTHES
>>474669
Zizek transcends the irony/sincerity dichotomy. He is fully stalinist. He is fully anti-stalinist.
>mfw all these plebians don't know what philosophy even is
Here's an excerpt from the introduction of The Secret Teachings of All Ages. This will sufficiently explain what philosophy is.
PHILOSOPHY is the science of estimating values. The superiority of any state or substance over another is determined by philosophy. By assigning a position of primary importance to what remains when all that is secondary has been removed, philosophy thus becomes the true index of priority or emphasis in the realm of speculative thought. The mission of philosophy a priori is to establish the relation of manifested things to their invisible ultimate cause or nature.
"Philosophy," writes Sir William Hamilton, "has been defined [as]: The science of things divine and human, and of the causes in which they are contained [Cicero]; The science of effects by their causes [Hobbes]; The science of sufficient reasons [Leibnitz]; The science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible [Wolf]; The science of things evidently deduced from first principles [Descartes]; The science of truths, sensible and abstract [de Condillac]; The application of reason to its legitimate objects [Tennemann]; The science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason [Kant];The science of the original form of the ego or mental self [Krug]; The science of sciences [Fichte]; The science of the absolute [von Schelling]; The science of the absolute indifference of the ideal and real [von Schelling]--or, The identity of identity and non-identity [Hegel]." (SeeLectures on Metaphysics and Logic.)
(Cont.)
>>474768
The six headings under which the disciplines of philosophy are commonly classified are:metaphysics, which deals with such abstract subjects as cosmology, theology, and the nature of being;logic, which deals with the laws governing rational thinking, or, as it has been called, "the doctrine of fallacies";ethics, which is the science of morality, individual responsibility, and character--concerned chiefly with an effort to determine the nature of good;psychology, which is devoted to investigation and classification of those forms of phenomena referable to a mental origin;epistemology, which is the science concerned primarily with the nature of knowledge itself and the question of whether it may exist in an absolute form; andæsthetics, which is the science of the nature of and the reactions awakened by the beautiful, the harmonious, the elegant, and the noble.
tl;dr Philosophy a best. Deal with it nerds.
>>474687
>>474687
>Zizek transcends the irony/sincerity dichotomy.
>>474769
Should be organised under hedgehogs.
Zlazloj is bae t b h
>>474863
Agreed. He's pretty shit.
>>475217
Toilets, excrement, plastic vagina. Stamina training unit. You flush the toilet and all the shit comes back. Pure ideology.
>>475217
Here, I violently disagree
>>468409
What kind of Plos One-tier pseudoscience is this? FFS
ITT: shit scientists and shit philosophers argue over which of them is more shit
>>474564
sucks less than anything else, dorkwad
>>472918
8/88
>>468507
>Read Foucault on genealogies of knowledge, and, hmm, Hegel and Lukacs on dialectics.
>Read the biggest hacks I can think of
Hegel, maybe; at a stretch.
>>474669
Not really. His main criticism of Stalinism is that he wasn't violent enough.
>>472918
Threadly reminder to return to Aristotle.
>>478388
>
>>469290
rationality is literally a meme
t. Baron Munchausen
When it became a form of ancestor worship.
>>472918
damn this is some good bait
>>474565
People read more for fun.
>>467236
Everything after the scientific revolution is just about completely irrelevant except in moral and political theory and most of that is trash too.
t. ba, ma, phd, non-tenure track but published phil person
Stopped reading at
>Read Foucault
