A list of puns related to "Contemporary philosophy"
Hello
I just graduated from physics-philosophy major(I did a double major) this year, but I was always more interested in philosophy. I took the class ''Philosophy of Marx'' in my last semester. I really liked Marx's philosophy and I want to study it at the graduate level and in PhD.
I want to ask; I want to know what are the current, hot topics in contemporary Marxist philosophy in Europe, especially in France? Is there any contemporary Marxist that their ideas in relevant in the academy? I want to know this because I want to find a topic that I can work on being accepted to a University. I wanted to study the scientific method of Marxism or science and ideology, but a teacher of mine suggested to me I should find a topic that applies to 21. cc.
The 14th of the 39 Articles, "Works of Supererogation", condemns belief in supererogatory works:
>Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
For those who believe in this Article β how do you relate it to the work done on supererogation in contemporary academic philosophy, beginning with J. O. Urmson's 1958 article "Saints and Heroes"?
I find it interesting that as well being taught by Catholicism and defended (from a secular viewpoint) by a number of contemporary philosophers, the same basic concept is found in Rabbinic Judaism (Maimonides' understanding of lifnim mishurat hadin) and Islam (the ahkam of mustahabb in Sharia law). Should this Article be read as condemning the viewpoints of those contemporary philosophers, and also those Jewish and Islamic doctrines? Are all of these thinkers guilty of "arrogancy and impiety"?
Full disclosure, I can't recall a major change to web design that felt equal or better to what it was before the change, but I've never seen a trendy thing that felt important enough to post this many words about, either.
This recent pattern has finally pushed me to a rant.
Like every recent and terrible redesign, IMDB feels even more like a mobile app, and as this web trend has altered other sites I used to frequent because they've pretty much cornered the market in what it is they do, I've stopped looking for information about entertainment. Not entirely, but it's a fraction of the amount.
The pictures are gigantic, and flashy visuals take priority over now minimalist text and information. It takes longer to scroll through, with less info immediately available on the page. This is partly because there is so much more white space as it displays on my computer now that it feels like massive voids exist between each bit of info, but also because the spacing and location of that info is abysmal. I don't care what data they have on the human eye's relationship with UI/UX from top ranked university research endeavor, this is fundamentally horseshit.
When I finally get to what most people are looking for when they visit IMDB, the cast list, I can no longer glance down a vertical list of actor names because they are spaced out in two side by side columns of big circle pictures of actors, whose faces are poorly framed because those pictures were never intended to be cropped for a social media style circle. My eyes dart all over the page trying to read visual information, and straining to do so even when looking directly at any part of it.
Rottentomatoes and Metacritic are distant memories with no adequate replacement, thanks to recent overhauls very much like this one. I disliked all of the changes they made in previous years too, just as I did IMDB when it became more stuffed with pictures and videos, but this recent trend feels especially drastic and desperate.
Making the pain of this more intense, each redesign of this type comes also with an PR writeup about how they heard our calls for a cleaner, simpler experience, proudly framing their hard work as directly incorporating user requests and feedback into an exciting new vision that NOBODY WANTS. I've seen no evidence of a human being outside a graphic design department indicate anything positive about the direction of these sites.
I'm horrified, and here's why:
As other sites have done this, I've g
... keep reading on reddit β‘David Hume asserts four claims.
>1. Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the "slave of the passions". 2. Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. 3. Moral distinctions arise from the sentiments: feelings of approval and disapproval by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action. 4. While some virtues and vices are natural, others, including justice, are artificial. - SEP https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io
What are some of the arguments against these claims, and is Hume also guilty of making ought inferences, if we classify these claims as him positing universal facts about our moral psychology?
Any reccomended texts would excellent as well.
I graduated with a degree in philosophy a few years ago. I was planning on pursuing a PhD, but through strange circumstances I ended up with a music career. At the time, I was mostly interested in metaphysics and philosophy of mind, and my professor told me that panpsychism was the all-the-rage in recent years.
I am quite curious on what are some new ideas (or old ideas that are being given new attention) that have emerged in your area of specialization (or otherwise). I suppose you can interpret 'fashionable' however you want, and it can be as specific or general as you want.
Simply asking to sate my curiosity about what people are studying, reading, and discussing these days. I do plan on going back to school at some point. Cheers!
He is a Germen philosopher working in Macau university and is really working on rigorous Taoist philosophy.
His channel is here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnEuIogVV2Mv6Q1a3nHIRsQ
In this channel, you can really hear the way he talks about contemporary issue through a vigorous philosophical lense. You can really tell his thinking is heavily affected by Taoist philosophy and he uses that to explore modern ideas of art, social media (the idea of profilicity in profile building), modern American civil religion. It is essentially an application of Daoist thinking on modern issues.
Another channel specific about interpretations of Zhuang Zi
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrGQmh7lzx5NtDW05Fsj9Qw
I'm going through his very contemporary reading of the Zhuang Zi titled Genuine Pretending. I find his consideration of contemporary work from both the East and West, as well as taking into account the historical context during the Hundred Schools of Thought, in particular how Zhuang Zi was developed in a way shaped by and " opposing" Confucianism.
Obviously, philosophers of science sometimes make normative arguments about how science should proceed. This raises an interesting question- can the philosopher ever usefully correct the practices of working sciences, acting, as it were, as a philosopher concerned with epistemic hygeine, or would this be a spectacular form of epistemic hubris given that science is sometimes held up as a paradigmatically successful epistemic endeavor, whereas philosophy has never reached a consensus on anything much.
Can people recommend the classic readings on this topic? I've had a look for them because I should probably do a head nod to this literature in my thesis, but I'm not sure of what the keywords for the debate are.
It seems to me like there may be some interesting parallels between certain developments in contemporary philosophy of mind/consciousness and buddhist philosophy. For example, the notion of the construction of the self is (as far as I understand, I am very much a layman in all eastern traditions of philosophy) a central idea in buddhism and also extensively discussed in work of e.g. Thomas Metzinger (and I am sure many other contemporary thinkers). Perhaps another example would be the dissolution of the object-subject distinction, non-dual thinking and the exploration of the human mind through introspection, which (again, as far as I understand) is central both in buddhist thought and phenomenological approaches, which in turn are influental in contemporary philosophy of consciousness and embodied cognition approaches.
Is anyone aware of any ressources on this topic or has any insights they would like to share, perhaps on other interesting similarities between buddhist and contemporary western philosophy of mind? Any answer is highly appreciated. Have a good day.
I don't know if this is the correct subreddit to post this. But between the different philosophy subreddits, I feel this is the most friendly community and not "just academic papers" bullshit. This is a post to write down my frustration with philosophy.
Ok, first some context. I am 22 years old, trying to find a job after finishing my (non-philosophy related) college degree. In the last 5 years, I have been reading philosophy in my free time. Until now, I have been reading what I found interesting: a little bit of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Nietzche (well, at least I tried), Marx (just the communist manifest), Zizek, and some other minor things. My last read has been Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher. It's an amazing and brutal book.
Just the day after finishing it I found this post where someone asks where to continue in critical theory after reading Fisher. Someone answered with a full list of possibilities going back to Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, you know, the big names.
At this precise moment, I thought that contemporary philosophy sucks. Too many referents. Reading Plato is easy, there was almost no one before him, yeah, maybe some presocratics, but, who cares. You can read The Republic without almost any context. But XX and XXI century philosophy is different. Every time I try to read something I found abstracts concepts defined by other philosophers. To understand well Fisher, you must know a little Zizek, if you want to understand Zizek you must know Lacan. I don't know what Lacan said, but his name is everywhere! C'mon! I just want to understand something without needing to read 30 books!
One of my problems is that I found that I have a lack of background knowledge. I have a moderate knowledge of philosophy history and the links between the different movements. But I still find in every book a ton of new authors and books and amazing concepts.
Ok, going back to the post of the person asking for further reads. With my frustration and what I read in the post, I tried to make a reading plan to, at least, understand contemporary philosophy, particularly critical theory. Objectives: read and understand Kant, Marx, and Nietzche.
First problem, I search a little what to read first of Kant. Some people say it's horrible to read, others that he is dry but clear. I don't know if try to read some analysis books from other authors or trying directly wit
... keep reading on reddit β‘What are the major topics within the field nowadays, beyond all of the ones mentioned the SEP article?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
I am hoping for a list of cutting edge pro-theism arguments that professional atheistic philosophers deem as good.
Thanks in advance.
It must first be stated that no military system, culture or tradition emerges without the influence of external factors such as society, environment, geography and experience. And while each system is quite unique in it's own way, there were certain characteristics shared by the military cultures of West Asia, the Middle East and South Asia since the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate. One such practice was that of keeping military slaves. However, among the many things that made the Mughal military culture unique for it's time was it's aversion to this practice. Let us first look at the nature of military slaves and the problems they pose upon the state and sovereign that raises them. Next, we shall discuss the Mughal military culture, it's unique characteristics, similarities to contemporary military cultures in the near East and the problems it created for the Mughal state and how it developed as a necessity and practical measure given the nature of South Asian society in the time period.
THE NATURE OF MILITARY SLAVES
As stated above, the practice of maintaining military slaves was not unique. And the many "elite" formations in the armies of states in West Asia and Iran and South Asia that came into being under Islamic rule, were examples of a continued culture being imitated and improved upon by successive states and dynasties. One such example is the Janissaries who are often regarded as a unique feature of Ottoman military culture and/or system and seen in isolation from the contemporary "elite" formations of their period such as the ghulam corps of the Safavids. However, the truth is far from it. The Janissaries were not a unique military formation. Infact, the practice of taking young boys or men, from defeated and subjugated or minority populations and having them undergo years or lifetimes of rigorous training to produce a fighting force singularly loyal to the ruler was well established since the days of the Abbasid Caliphate, which enslaved young Turk boys and trained them into their famed Mamluk cavalry and guard formations. This practice was only tweaked, improved upon and adapted to changing military requirements by the Ottomans, the Delhi Sultans, the Safavids or the Afsharids. It must be understood that neither this system nor the system of the Praetorian Guards was without heavy liabilities :
Basically the title. I'm a highschool student learning about philosophy and all we've seen are male authors and I'm just curious about the female perspective on philosophy I'm missing. Thanks in advance.
*For a student in philosophy rather than a student in history of philosophy or particular great philosophers.
This question is asked earnestly. Because I am torn between a division between two types of philosophers: those who think philosophy is nothing more than history of philosophy and those who think nothing could be further from the truth (e.g. Kant himself is of this view). Since many people here seem to emphasise history of philosophy, I understand this question might offend some people.
On the one hand, many people seem to think it is required to read, struggle with, and interpret the primary texts of the "great philosophers"
On the other hand, I (and probably many others) am primarily interested in philosophy per se, that is, the logical, conceptual space of ideas and positions and arguments and how they hang together rather than who had what idea and what motivated them in doing so. And the contemporary conceptual space in any branch of philosophy is probably far more different from and refined from those of the great philosophers and laid out by contemporary philosophers, in say, new articles and textbooks.
Furthermore, it seems like contemporary texts are far easier (and more relevant) to read than great classical texts since they are written in contemporary language and often with far clearer logical structure. One has to spend more time in interpretation in the latter (which I don't consider to be a primarily philosophical activity, but rather a literary or historical or hermeneutic activity), with opportunity cost to primarily philosophical activities like evaluating arguments and weighing plausibilities, etc.
Recently reread Becker's Denial of Death and want to follow up with some more recent writing on the subject (post-Freudian psychoanalysis, existentialism, Terror Management Theory) but not sure where to start! Looking for suggestions--titles, authors, related schools, etc.
Hi,
I'd like to know some ideas in contemporary (the more recent the better, let's make 10 years old the cut-off point) analytic philosophy. By being (roughly) self-contained, I mean problems that I can dive right into without reading a lot of previous literature. I say roughly because I'm well aware that there is always some context, inspirations, cited authors of the past and so on and that's absolutely fine. Analytic school seems to be more suited for my request, that's why I narrowed it down to it. It doesn't have to be specific domain like philosophy of mind or ethics or political - anything goes. I'd prefer if the examples were contained in books but journal articles are fine too.
Lately, I have thought about how poor I am at networking with other contemporary philosophers as an undergraduate, while a colleague of mine is making better connections through conferences that we have attended. The thing is, I can't recognize these academics as being talented. Obviously, they know more than me and are trained professionally in the field of Philosophy, being doctorates and everything. But their research comes across to me as pointless and superfluous to the field. Am I disillusioned with the field as a whole? Everything just seems like a pointless commentary on the philosophical canon (maybe this is just the case in History of Philosophy, which is the area in which I am involved in and plan to pursue as a graduate student) I don't deny that these academics are likely amazing professors who are competent at teaching philosophical ideas or concepts to students, but their work is just way too insular for my taste. While I realize that the scholarship done by these academics still required lots of hard work and research, it does not feel like Philosophy. I feel as if I am thinking of Philosophy far too conservatively. From my point of view, it seems that Philosophy was always about tackling the big questions through a system or some kind of synthesis of the overall viewpoints and problems that have persisted throughout the history of ideas. Granted, this was back when specialization was probably not as common within academic philosophy outside of the analytic tradition. My point is, that I don't feel inspired to work with a lot of academics and I feel a lot of pressure to network and to be on good terms with these academics instead of focusing on the literature and concepts themselves which I feel require a lot of studying and rumination. As a graduate student, I do not look forward to conducting this type of research i.e. some insular interpretation of one of philosopher X's text. I would rather do philosophy in a more all-encompassing passion. Obviously, one can't inquire into every topic and idea in philosophy, and we see that each school of philosophy is distinct from one another, but it just seems to me, that so far, philosophy has been declared as being a finished book. And that the only thing to do now is to teach the canon and specialize in one tiny area than to continue and start from scratch. Would love to hear insights or thoughts from other philosophy students and academics.
Does anyone happen to have a copy of
Chalmers, David. Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. ISBN: 978-0-19-064085-9?
Thank you
I've studied Philosophy of Science, but we only focused on the debate on scientific methods (Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend) so I would like to do some reading to keep up to date with the current popular research interests
Could anybody find a pdf for me? I'm a broke college student, can't pay much for this and would ideally like it for free.
I've spent the last two months reading through introductory books and classic articles within analytic philosophy of language, mostly relying on Martinich and Sosa's collection, The Philosophy of Language. This has left me with some knowledge of the field up to the mid 90s, but with little to no exposure to 21st century work.
Are there any issues that have been hot topics in recent years? Are there any which were popular at the turn of the century, but are now waning in popularity?
My reason for asking is that I'm planning to apply to MA programs for the Fall 2022 semester, and I'm looking to prepare writing samples. I'd like to make some attempt at being relevant and in conversation with recent work, but I'd also like to avoid topics that are seen as settled or that are only seen as significant by smaller factions within the discipline.
Are the debates on theories of reference (e.g., debates between descriptive/causal theories) still going strong? Is significant work still being done on speech act theory?
Any insight is appreciated!
It must first be stated that no military system, culture or tradition emerges without the influence of external factors such as society, environment, geography and experience. And while each system is quite unique in it's own way, there were certain characteristics shared by the military cultures of West Asia, the Middle East and South Asia since the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate. One such practice was that of keeping military slaves. However, among the many things that made the Mughal military culture unique for it's time was it's aversion to this practice. Let us first look at the nature of military slaves and the problems they pose upon the state and sovereign that raises them. Next, we shall discuss the Mughal military culture, it's unique characteristics, similarities to contemporary military cultures in the near East and the problems it created for the Mughal state and how it developed as a necessity and practical measure given the nature of South Asian society in the time period.
THE NATURE OF MILITARY SLAVES
As stated above, the practice of maintaining military slaves was not unique. And the many "elite" formations in the armies of states in West Asia and Iran and South Asia that came into being under Islamic rule, were examples of a continued culture being imitated and improved upon by successive states and dynasties. One such example is the Janissaries who are often regarded as a unique feature of Ottoman military culture and/or system and seen in isolation from the contemporary "elite" formations of their period such as the ghulam corps of the Safavids. However, the truth is far from it. The Janissaries were not a unique military formation. Infact, the practice of taking young boys or men, from defeated and subjugated or minority populations and having them undergo years or lifetimes of rigorous training to produce a fighting force singularly loyal to the ruler was well established since the days of the Abbasid Caliphate, which enslaved young Turk boys and trained them into their famed Mamluk cavalry and guard formations. This practice was only tweaked, improved upon and adapted to changing military requirements by the Ottomans, the Delhi Sultans, the Safavids or the Afsharids. It must be understood that neither this system nor the system of the Praetorian Guards was without heavy liabilities :
Please note that this site uses cookies to personalise content and adverts, to provide social media features, and to analyse web traffic. Click here for more information.