• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Philosophers of Today

I would consider myself one haha but I'm not notable. Off the top of my head there are a few in the 20th/21st centuries that come to mind: Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sarte, and Carl Jung. As far as their contributions, I wouldn't say there have been any major/radical new ideas brought to the table in the last fifty or so years at least comparable to works by the likes of Kant or Aristotle ect. Not to say they haven't done anything though, Philosophy is such a unique field of study with so much history, information, and diversity. I would say go out and do some research, there's plenty of free texts/lectures ect. online, Wikipedia is a great place to start. If you find a certain subject/text/person interesting bring your opinions back here and discuss them. For me I consider Nietzsche the last great philosopher but that's just my opinion
 
I don't consider ayn rand as a philosopher anymore than reverend jim or anyone else who has started cults and demanded absolute worship. She was a wanna be at best.
 
Peter singer is not only notoriously notable he is also mostly fairly a good philosopher.
 
Pop-philosophers like Daniel Dennett, Anthony Grayling, David Chalmers, and Stephen Law come readily to mind, though there are plenty of more obscure (and more highly regarded) philosophers in this world who yet draw breath: John Searle, Hilary Putnam, Umberto Eco, and probably many others whom I cannot seem to recall at present.

Also Noam Chomsky, if he counts.
 
^ Analytic philosopher. He's had quite a few lectures on philosophy alone. He refers to Hume and Rousseau a ton.
 
Portillo said:
Especially when he says that pigs are worth more than human babies. I would love to see his reaction if someone slaughtered his kids.
Click to expand...

So animals aren't worth more than human babies?

When did you annex yourself from the laws of life? *wow i was being a drunk asshole sorry* We all die in the end. *wow i was being a drunk asshole sorry*
 
Last edited:
Thou said:
When did you annex yourself from the laws of life? Dumb fucking asshole. We all die in the end. Cunt.
Click to expand...

Very mature. The fact is Singer would probably be morally outraged and demand justice if his kids were killed.
 
Portillo said:
Very mature. The fact is Singer would probably be morally outraged and demand justice if his kids were killed.
Click to expand...

Singer advocates infanticide be morally acceptable in some cases as an extention on abortion. I would agree.

Kids sounds like toddler or above not an infant. So Singer does not advocate killing kids.

As for pigs being worth more than infants well that is explained by the fact you can get good crackling from pigs.

I disagree with Singer on his stuff about animals which was why I rated him 'fairly mostly'.
 
Last edited:
Spaced. said:
I would consider Joe Rogan to be one, but that is just me.
Click to expand...

Haha no f-ing way xD

I don't think there any real decent philosophers of our time. Most philosophy today is just intellectual wank and no one is actually really interested in answering the big questions through action. They just want to sit around smoking their pipe and memorizing texts.
 
"Notable" is a pretty subjective term. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Everyone has different criteria for what credentials make someone a "real" or "important" thinker, and that's going to be a function of what values you were raised with, what reality tunnels you've spent your life down, and what intellectual cultures you were steeped in.

Does holding your own in an ongoing debate with established scions of the Analytical School of Western philosophy make one a notable philosopher?
Does publishing a bestselling book that's favorably reviewed by a highly respected intellectual book reviewer at the New York Times make one a notable philosopher?
Does promulgating an idea that motivates millions to revolution and social upheaval make one a notable philosopher?
Does promulgating an idea that motivates millions to drastically change the way they live make one a notable philosopher?
Does having an encyclopedic knowledge of dead European guys and their ideas, and referencing them at every possibly opportunity when laying our one's own ideas, make one a notable philosopher?
Does having a completely original idea, regardless of how controversial or influential it is, make one a notable philosopher?
Does having a fresh, engaging, and entertaining way of phrasing timeless and wholly unoriginal bits of wisdom make one a notable philosopher?

There are people who would answer a cautious 'yes' to each of these. There are also people who are inspired and impressed by thinkers who have none of these credentials.

If anyone wants to give you a very definitive answer to your question, and wants to steer you decisively toward certain writers and away from others, you'd be wise to ask yourself: What does this person value in life, and how does elevating (or denigrating) the thinkers they do help them get what they seek in life?

Remember, philosophy is more about the questions than the answers. Collectively we know very little for sure, and it's really entirely up to you the experiencer to decide what tentative answers you find most convincing.
 
Define "our time" :P
Do you consider Wittgenstein still in our time?
Anyway, other names: Derrida, Quine, Gadamer (sigh, unreadable), Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, Ricoeur (even worse than Gadamer), Thomas Nagel... Rorty as well. I don't know, I usually rate Continental philosophy 0/100, but some existentialists are worth reading. Bioethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of language are areas which nowadays draw lot of attention, and most 'important' philosophers of today worked on one or more of these topics.
Since Umberto Eco was mentioned, I will cite Norberto Bobbio, which was one of the few contemporary Italian philosopher whose reputation extended abroad, worked on a different field (philosophy of law) than the others I've mentionedand most importantly came from my hometown :P Oh, and John Rawls!!

update:
in general, I would say that philosophers of science (Popper more than the others) had an impact on society, as nowadays most scientists adhere to a falsificationist point of view and (in theory) being falsificable (no, I'm not sure this is the English word) is what separates a scientific statement from a non-scientific one. Kuhn and Lakatos also contributed to our understanding of the scientific process, but Feyerabend is the one that better describes what goes on in my lab when I do research (everything goes) :P. Anyway, they've been definitively notable.
 
Last edited:
P A said:
From one mod to another: Watch it, Thou.
Click to expand...

I'm so sorry I don't know how drunk I was or when I said that but it was totally out of line...

I edited the original post if you'd be so kind as to edit the quote where I'm spouting that childish hate I'd appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top