What philosophical limits still remain? By this I mean, what philosophical taboos still exist?
Are there any modern philosophers who dare to be either indifferent towards, or in favour of, slavery - for example? Can such a case be argued?
>>8126643
Any sperglord can claim to be a philosopher and advocate anything he feels like, but no you'd be hard pressed to find any that are actually respected in intellectual circles
>>8126643
>Are there any modern philosophers who dare to be either indifferent towards, or in favour of, slavery - for example? Can such a case be argued?
There's at least one. And yes, it can.
>>8126650
>Muh STEM
>>8126665
I'm not talking about STEM, I'm talking about in actual humanities departments
>>8126666
So what, philosophers aren't respected in 'actual' Humanities departments?
>Implying I want the respect of Social Policy/African Culture Studies lecturers
>>8126643
I can see it happening.
Eventually, alt-right reactionaries will run out of 'liberal/left wing' bogeymen to rebel against.
Basic bodily autonomy, or rather the abolition of it, will one day be their next campaign.
>>8126678
Truth does not fear investigation, faggot.
Anyway, I think if we ever do go beyond Good and Evil, as Nietzsche advocated, then these debates will properly be had. For now, most meaningful philosophy is too eclipsed by the shadow of Judeo-Christian morality.
>>8126643
The only 'philosophers' who would be prepared to have this retarded debate, are those who believe and think they would be the master (rather than the slave).
comedians, entertainers, some argue for an acceptance of things (louis c.k.'s I'm a racist bit). A lot of philosophers considered themselves entertainers first my dude i.e. either/or is meant to be a 'book'. Anyways I don't think philosophy, at least in America, is happening in our failing higher education system
>>8126643
You have no clue what philosophy is.
>>8126670
That's not what that guy is saying at all, you dip. I hope you're just b8ing and your reading comprehension really isn't that bad
>>8127714
Elaborate.
>>8126689
Well, are they wrong?
What's so bad about arguing for things that would be in your interests? Which would benefit you directly, even.
>>8127798
>What's so bad about arguing for things that would be in your interests? Which would benefit you directly, even.
Nothing at all, if you're honest about it.
The trouble is they won't be, because who is going to abide any sort of ideology/philosophy that doesn't serve their interests?
Why would slaves argue in favour of slavery?
>>8126643
>What philosophical limits still remain?
Philosophy is being slowly replaced by science until it reaches human barriers like morality or economic interests.
Part of the reason why we need to exterminate all philosophers is because they are prepared to doubt such things as the blatantly obvious immortality of slavery/paedophilia/etc.
Consider yourselves lucky if we spare you in the STEM utopia to come.
>>8127825
>paedophilia
I don't see anything wrong with this if it's consensual.
>>8127825
>STEM utopia
>>8127825
>Stirenr pic
>talks about morality
My Godt.
>>8127803
>Why would slaves argue in favour of slavery?
Have you never seen a NEET vs Wageslave thread before?
>>8127786
Philosophy is not your "opinion" about random shit.
>>8126650
>you'd be hard pressed to find any that are actually respected
Yet Chomsky is still adored in spite of his "anarcho syndicalism"
>>8127840
>Children
>Consent
>>8127860
Philosophy is by definition, opinion.
>>8127860
There are serious philosophers who put forth good reasons why it basically is just opinions. Here you are, spouting what amounts to just an opinion counter to that one.
>>8127862
>Implying anybody can really consent.
>Implying the ban on little girls is not because older women realised that guys want them cute and young.
>>8127878
>This line of argument
>Existing
>>8126643
Convincing fedoras to accept that God is literally a proven fact and has been for a long long time.
>>8127890
I can't think of anything more disappointing than any incarnation of the Judeo-Christian 'God' being real.
I don't give a shit about your Middle Eastern cults, and I refuse to believe that your absurd beliefs provide any real explanation for the way things are.
>>8127890
Good one ;)
>>8127840
the basic fact is, if you're made to do something you don't understand, you don't want to do it, and it's not consensual. that's why so many girls at your highschool thought you were cute until you tried asking her about masturbating. she didn't watch porn almost at all or had never seen it, her mom tried to shelter her from boys making unwarrented sexual advances like happened to her, but the whole time you thought "everyone knows," smug smile to the camera, "we all watch porn. we all masturbate. she wants this as much as I do." nah, she thinks a magical prince is going to save her, while you think she wants her clit sucked at school because *everyone* likes sex, right?
most teenage boys are essentially pedophiles because of how innocent girls are kept while boys completely shatter their innocence by starting to watch porn regularly in 7th grade and assuming everyone else is like them.
If so many teenage girls aren't ready for sex because they're sheltered and don't understand it, children sure as shit don't.
it's that easy. *ahem* yes, pedophilia is wrong. that's the true answer.
>>8127914
Creepy post, dude.
>>8127914
>that's why so many girls at your highschool thought you were cute until you tried asking her about masturbating
Any more gems from your childhood anon?
>how innocent girls are kept
You literally never spoke to any girls when you were 11 did you? Not even the pedofag you sent this to btw
>>8127914
You're now on a list.
>>8127861
>anarcho syndicalism
Many respected philosophers disagree with how the current system of power relationships in human beings is managed. This is far from a perfect world, things can be changed. Things can be fixed. Things can be brought together. We have the resources to make positive changes, we just exist in a time or place where they're managed without any kind of respect or responsibility.
Advocating there's something beyond this, isn't the same as "advocating for slavery". It's advocating the opposite, and it's dumb and psued of you to even suggest it.
I'm not even a fan of Chomsky. You're making me into a Chomsky-Honk by saying stupid bullshit, and I don't appreciate it.
>>8127945
Your whole post is a response to something that was never implied.
>>8127859
why is the dude on the NEET side so sexualized/objectified?
also
>no financial obligations
yeah how the fuck does that work?
>>8127945
His post
>Any sperglord can claim to be a philosopher and advocate anything he feels like, but no you'd be hard pressed to find any that are actually respected in intellectual circles
>Your response
>Yet Chomsky is still adored in spite of his "anarcho syndicalism"
You are working to compare the OP's advocation of slavery with the other poster's "edgy position yet still respected point" to, you get the picture.
>>8127914
>tfw little girls asked me to "touch" them without doing anything to suggest that.
Are you real, anon? Child sexuality is real, and denying it makes it worse for everybody (muh christian morals, we don't have to educate kids about sex).
You're like that kind of people who victimise young girls who had happy consensual relationships with an older guy. Now the girl commited suicide because of the social pressure and the guy is in jail, being attacked by murderers. "Damn, those pedophiles are so bad!"
Do you realise that "pure" girls are something extremely rare?
>>8127945
Total misunderstanding, well done.
Anon asserted that there are no respected philosophers espounding outlandish theories today, are you implying anarcho-anything is not ridiculous and regressive attemp at philosophy?
>>8128022
Shut the fuck up holy shit
>>8128026
>Anon asserted that there are no respected philosophers espounding outlandish theories today
There's a difference between "outlandish theory" and advocation for slavery, so attempting to group them both within the realm of "outlandish theory" works to generalize and not specify.
>are you implying anarcho-anything is not ridiculous and regressive attemp at philosophy?
Yes, actually. I don't actually think there's a limit for what people are capable of accomplishing through different means of organization. Whether they are good for human rights is another question entirely, but limiting the theoretical discussion of it is complete bullshit and the real "regressive attemp at philosophy", whatever "regressive attemp at philosophy" means.
>>8128022
>>8126678
???
what are you talking about?
>>8128043
Not that anon, but It's fairly simple.
No one in this thread has any clue what philosophy is. It's fucking disgusting.
>>8128059
You don't have to argue to pedophiles, it's a moot point since they don't understand how trauma and abuse work.
If you really want to have legitimacy for wanting to fuck children, or defending the want to fuck children, go to Utah and join a cult. Not a college campus.
>>8128049
it really isn't
>>8126678
>he said, fearing the alt right boogeyman
what a hypocrite you are
>>8128067
>You don't have to argue to pedophiles
Why are you in this thread?
>>8128071
The Alt-Right bogeyman at least has legitimate effects of simplifying previous discourse to an insulting level, everywhere it goes and everywhere it touches. It stifles discussion more than it fears discussion is being stifled by its opposition.
>>8128059
You don't deserve the dignity of a proper response.
>>8128072
Why are you? Do you want me to argue with you in the specifics, on why you are stupid?
>>8128074
Are you serious? The far left is just as bad. They want to create a hugbox where peoples' feelings trump all, and meaningful discussion is stifled because it could hurt somebody's feelings, no matter how much of a logical leap needs to be taken from what was said and how it hurt someone.
Don't try to make one side evil and one side on a pedestal, they're both awful.
Slavery is necessary for any advanced society
>>8128097
>Are you serious?
Yes
> The far left is just as bad.
Having dealt with both, the least hazardous is the Left. At least they constantly work upon new ideas keeping discussion flourishing, and not bogged down upon older ones. There hasn't been a right rejuvenation within academia in decade upon decade for this reason.
You either have to adapt to the way discourse is headed and learn, without digging your heels in the sand, or you don't learn to thrive with new theory at all. That's the problem. The right has always been simplistic in its world views as opposed to complex, when simple and complex meet, it's easier to simplify the complex. That creates issues, and in my mind the more lively the discussion, the better.
I don't find the Far Left in academia as harmful as the Far Right could be, especially when it can disregard so much theory put forth.
>They want to create a hugbox where peoples' feelings trump all, and meaningful discussion is stifled because it could hurt somebody's feelings, no matter how much of a logical leap needs to be taken from what was said and how it hurt someone.
While this is a problem, it's not much different than what the Alt-Right wants.
>>8126643
Implying slavery in this age isn't extant
>>8128117
>At least they constantly work upon new ideas
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
ITT: People who think the left/right dichotomy is actually real and not just a mish-mash of constantly changing and conflicting positions.
>>8128125
Find where the Alt-Right is working upon newer theory that isn't in the economic or libertine, and I'll eat my hat. It doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for quite some time. The Right is infested with traditionalists, and get mad when they discover it isn't compatible with our ever changing world.
>>8128131
if you step outside of the made up 'alt-right' you've got NRx, accelerationism, the Nouvelle Droite, anti-democratic libertarianism
>but they don't count because I don't like them
this will be your response
meanwhile the left is busy calling Zizek a fascist
>>8128033
It's regressive because it is doesn't add to any existing discourse - which by itself is no problem - but nor does it have any basis in observation or empiricism. It's reactionary posturing by a guy too stubborn to have a dialogue with contrary opinions.
There should be no limit on theoritcal discussion but if it's not grounded in reality why even bother duscussing it?
>>8128117
you're implying that academia is the only field in which progress can occur. While I agree it's probably the most important, neither the right nor left substantially touches the STEM fields these days; it's mostly relegated towards discussion of philosophy and politics and things that are less grounded in facts and more grounded in opinions.
>They constantly work upon new ideas to keep discussion flourishing
new =/= good, and besides, I have not seen any evidence of this. If anything, the left is simply furthering old ideas that were never socially acceptable in the past (such as gay rights, transsexual rights, gender equality, racial equality, etc)--these are not new ideas at all.
>there hasn't been a right rejuvenation within academia in decade ...
not sure what you mean by rejuvenation, but from what I know, academia is mostly left, but isnt spurred by any leftist agenda, the two are coupled not because leftist ideas spur academia, but for other reasons
>you either have to [...] new theory at all
Just because an idea is new, doesn't necessarily mean it is good or even worthy of testing. And just because an idea is old, doesn't mean it is bad, worn, or deserving of being kicked to the curb for a new idea.
>The right has always been simplistic in its world views as opposed to complex
you're the one oversimplifying by calling the right simple and implying the left is complex, or in fact any more or less simple than the right
>>8128146
>NRx
Search comes up blank, if they were coming up with new ideas they'd certainly leave a bigger foot print.
>accelerationism
Which doesn't have a political ideology. You are basically saying further the destructive economic conditions to their destructive conclusion, is a generally "right" position, when it isn't even really a position.
>Nouvelle Droite
Again what I said. Infected with traditionalism in its simple criticisms of academic work. It isn't taken seriously for a reason.
>anti-democratic libertarianism
I specified "that isn't the libertine"
>but they don't count because I don't like them
No, it's not because I don't like them, but because they cannot come up with ways that benefits discourse instead of destructively simplifying it. That's the problem. It harms the same way "safe spaces" harms, it simplifies all complexity into singular responses and reactions, and so does away with the complexity of discourse. It's a regressive and censoring force.
>>8128180
please for fuck's sake start saying something
>it's regressive and simple!
please explain why
>the left is more complex!
please explain why
it is also quite clear that you have no idea what's going on with the modern right
>>8128107
Why should we want to be "advanced" if it necessitates slavery
>>8128164
>you're implying that academia is the only field in which progress can occur.
No I'm not. I'm saying that the right is filled with traditionalists and within or without the academic doesn't really matter. When you are banded with tradition instead of change, you lose the ability to adapt. Here, there, everywhere. That's always been the right's problem, the new "Alt-Right" movement won't be any different because it's still based upon the bruteness of its predecessors.
>new =/= good
True, but it's better than old=good. That works to simplify our understanding of the culture, and the world around us. If you can't criticize the old in different ways, you fail to come up with anything new, it's a vicious cycle. I find the right's philosophical foot print in the 21st century more regressive.
> If anything, the left is simply furthering old ideas that were never socially acceptable in the past (such as gay rights, transsexual rights, gender equality, racial equality, etc)--these are not new ideas at all.
There is far far far far far more to theory than this.
>not sure what you mean by rejuvenation, but from what I know, academia is mostly left, but isnt spurred by any leftist agenda, the two are coupled not because leftist ideas spur academia, but for other reasons
Mostly finnancial ones.
>Just because an idea is new, doesn't necessarily mean it is good or even worthy of testing
How do you test philosophy, especially continental philosophy? The problem isn't "testing", or exploring. The problem is the inability of the right to combat criticism of it effectively.
>you're the one oversimplifying by calling the right simple and implying the left is complex, or in fact any more or less simple than the right
I'm not simplifying it, that's just the unfortunate truth of the matter that the right has not produced sufficient material.
>>8128204
>please explain why
I have been. The right doesn't want to work with any sort of new ideas, and puts them under umbrellas. By doing that and not exploring criticism, philosophy, literature. Either labeling it as post-modernism or leftism, never working above that and assuming all of it is wrong, or doesn't work with its own philosophies; it works to not only censor its own discursive abilities but the discourse around it.
>>8128228
Whether you like it or not, the distinctions exist. They're problematic and we shouldn't have them, but nonetheless the differing ideologies exist.
>>8128244
>The right doesn't want to work with any sort of new ideas
I literally just told you the new ideas and you dismissed them because you clearly can't grasp them
>but they're traditionalist
they have elements of traditionalism, you may as well dismiss all leftism because it's infested with Marxism (also an old idea)
>the right is dumb (because traditionalism) and the left is smart (I won't explain why though) and that's why academia is leftist
throughout all of your posts this is all you have said
>>8128269
>I literally just told you the new ideas and you dismissed them because you clearly can't grasp them
If your "new ideas" consist of four or five, that have nothing to do with one another, two being organizations; then they're not "ideas". They aren't relevant to discourse because there isn't anything to be said by yourself about them to the argument alone, you need to be more specific.
There doesn't seem to be anything that counters what I have to say about the new right if I search for you, anyways.
>>8128293
most of those ideas are related
again another post saying absolutely nothing
>relevant to discourse
there isn't a discourse, the left has done all it can to purge right wing thought
I don't know why you expect the right to 'add to the discourse' when leftists will never ever understand it and will resort to physical violence when confronted with (actual) right wing opinions
>>8128034
lookin good sam
>>8128131
>Traditionalism
>Bad
>Wrong
>>8128333
>most of those ideas are related
By problem isn't that they're related, my problem is that what you listed aren't relevant because by themselves except for accelerationism they aren't "ideas", and aren't ideas that criticize my point.
>>8128359
Yes that is what I'm saying. Philosophy and traditionalism go hand in hand like chloroform and infants.
You people are idiots. Right/left is a bullshit dichotomy, literally created so people can be manipulated into having a false "us vs them" mentality.
The "left" gets off on "muh progress, lol conservatives are stupid, stuck in the past" and so on.
The "right" gets off on "muh tradition, lol progressives have no experience, have no understanding of the issues" and so on.
>>8128376
>If philosophy isn't left wing it's infanticide
>>8128388
The Right is right, though.
Reality stands as a testament to this.
>>8128401
you're proving my point
>>8126643
I don't think there ever were firm boundaries but philosophy has largely been a practice of degrading human understanding and unsuccessfully trying to refute the pessimism of Schopenhauer for over a century now.
>>8128426
>unsuccessfully trying to refute the pessimism of Schopenhauer for over a century now.
>unsuccessfully
>>8126670
he meant philosophers like OP's example, idiot, not in general
>>8128390
No, but if philosophy isn't open to criticism it dies. I never compared it to infanticide, just the effects of simplistic high school level discourse to infanticide.
>>8128401
If it was in any way intelligent it would have kept up with philosophy up into this point, and not whined about its lack of inclusion throughout.
>>8128458
>The enemy hijacks philosophy
>Stop crying for not playing on the enemy's terms!
>>8128454
Nobody in this thread understands what philosophy even is.
>>8128467
>The enemy hijacks philosophy
Not it hasn't, nobody has "hijacked" philosophy, if it was that clear cut and simple the right would have found an effective way to combat it, but it hasn't, because it isn't interested in working with discourse but destroying it in toto.
>>8127860
he didn't say it was, he asked if there were any philosophers who were arguing really unconventional points
>>8128481
>in toto
You think you're Schopenhauer, huh?
>>8128479
Yes.
>>8128487
It's a nonsensical question. It's like asking whether there are any mathematicians that enjoy the number 17.
>>8128487
You're confusing philosophy with social commentary or some shit.
>>8128253
There is no distinction. You cannot argue about what the Left or Right thinks or is when there is no coherent ideology in either. Some self-identified "lefties" are further right than many righties and so on.
Left/Right is a form of tribal bickering, there's no sincerety or sense in either.
>>8128518
How would you identify yourself politically?
>>8128518
>when there is no coherent ideology in either
Define coherence, and its importance in what I'm saying.
>>8128083
>Do you want me to argue with you in the specifics, on why you are stupid?
Please do.
>>8126678
>>8128071
>>8128074
>>8128097
>>8128388
Can we please stop calling them left and right? Economic policies and governmental structure aren't what people take issue with for the most part.
It's conservative versus liberal and (to a somewhat lesser degree) authoritarian versus libertarian.
>>8128228
also this
>>8127914
>the basic fact is, if you're made to do something you don't understand, you don't want to do it, and it's not consensual.
So basically: me getting a job is rape. Finally someone who undrestands!
>>8128557
Conservative/liberal is just as meaningless as left/right.
Authoritarian vs Libertarian makes more sense.
>>8128359
>traditionalism
>not bad
y'all need Jesus
>>8128517
That would be the OP, not me, but I think not.
Philosophy should be able to discuss any subject, right?
The question was simply:
Are there any subjects, or stances on them, that no philosophers these days are actually willing to discuss?
>>8128647
Thank you.
>>8128507
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygqIfLHGTu4
