What are the features of modern philosophy?
What does it do and what issues does it solve?
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The main feature is the blurring of schools. Even between continental and Anglo-Saxon philosophy, there is no longer the same difference as in the 20th century. The main topic is philosophy of consciousness, cat. it was formed in the 20th century, and in the 21st century it directly dominates, actively interacting with cognitive sciences. You can start with Vadim Vasiliev's books “The Difficult problem of Consciousness” and “Consciousness and Things”. Among the topics of the 20th century, the possibilities of language, gender and feminism, applied ethics (including cloning and other new opportunities), collective action, cultural comparison, etc. continue. Well, all the eternal questions have not gone away (the problem of evil, justice, the foundations of morality, the methodology of science, etc.). Phenomenology as an approach has practically replaced “naive realism”, analytical methods have penetrated theology and the history of philosophy.
Personally, I think so. that the main task of philosophy at the present time and in the near future is the search for new ultimate goals of human life. The old ones still work, of course, but living conditions are changing too quickly and unpredictably, and a dangerous melancholy is already spreading.
Modern philosophy: it is concrete, syncretic and performs the procedure of individuation. What it is, as well as in simple language about modern philosophizing, you can learn (more precisely, practice. After all, philosophy does not deal with knowledge) on my channel “Socratic conversations”.
The main feature of modern” philosophy ” is that today it is an imitation of philosophy.
Philosophy emerged and existed only in the time of the ancient Greeks as a previously unprecedented phenomenon for analyzing and synthesizing the accumulated experience of mankind. It lasted for approximately 120-150 years and ended because there were no topics for generalization. After that, it was time to imitate “philosophy” by those who like reasoning as such..
Today, “philosophy” is an ignorant but harmless imitation of intellectual activity. Sapiens specific to the brain structure are engaged in it for self-satisfaction, for formal imitation of Aristotle in order to increase dominance by their formal similarity with them…
And how important it is that “philosophers “talk about elementary and completely clear topics such as” consciousness”,” gender and their relationships”,” comparison of cultures”, etc., and write books that they themselves read … they link to each other, thereby simulating the visibility of the activity…Nda..
“Why are there 5 fingers on the hand, and not 4, and how does this relate to the progress of civilization?” – here is a great topic for modern “philosophy”…
The peculiarity of modern philosophy is that it does not exist. Currently, science is trying to learn what was known to the sages thousands of years ago. Our world is now a world of pragmatists, the Sages are gone, they are resting, and the time has come for confusion, doubt, deception and lies. “Lies are the greatest killer, because they kill the truth.” Very difficult time!!! With respect.
In general , he tries to distinguish living things from simulacra and find meaning in them, studies metamodernism, and also looks for meanings in the consumer society.
The questions are still the same, the place and significance of man in the world. The peculiarity is that philosophy is increasingly linked to the exact sciences, cybernetics, theoretical physics, and is increasingly immersed in psychologism and social problems. Try to read Heidegger, I was desperate to wade through his semantic chains, where the main meaning is lost, and attention is divided into some subordinate clauses. The impression is that he wants to say something important, but everything is somehow not up to it, everything is interfering with the dancer…. A good example, in my opinion, is Gilles Deleuze's Logic of Meaning (in two books). Of course, his postulate about the primacy of events makes you want to object, but he did a good job, he spoke convincingly.