What does /lit/ think of Isabelle Stengers, Bruno Latour, and Ilya Prigogine?
>>12940313there are not enough anons familiar with academic philosophy to give you a good answer. Latour is the real deal though
ive heard of latour never heard of the other two
Here on lit we think continental philosophy is le wacky postmodern anti-science, so these three can only be non-entities
>>12940604they are not anti-science they are anti-scientific imperialism
>>12940619exactly, hence that lit is not in the know
>>12940681they should be since lit hates stemfag bugmen
>>12940340This is the real answer, there's a reason the philosophers discussed most on this site are all memes you can learn about from a scroll through Wikipedia.
>>12940848>the philosophers discussed most on this site are all memeslike who
To be frank, I didn't know who they are.This isn't to say that I disapprove of them, or don't find them significant, only that they were unknown to me until now.
stengers is awesome and order out of chaos is also awesomenever read latour
>>12940896These are the types of philosophers you read in a philosophy classroom, the non meme philosophers:KorsgaardNagelRortyDennettNussbaumSingerSearleTaylorButlerChalmersIf you are reading Nietzsche or Kierkegaard you are unironically reading some legit meme level philosophy, at least academically speaking.
>>12941641ive read kierk and nietzsche in my philosophy classes i don't know what you are talking about. the only one ive read off that list is butler and that was for an english class.
>>12940313I’m interested in reading Latour
>>12941690That list is definitely from an Anglo uni. When I mentioned meme philosophers I more meant like the types who get talked about on this board more as memes i.e. with a surface level understanding based on a skim of wikipedia than actual philosophers. For example, people posting passages about anuses and vaginas from Deleuze and making posts about becoming rhizomes rather than actually engaging with the philososphy in a more boring but interesting way in the manner you're forced to do with Latour et al. who aren't as amenable to derviving memes from a quick Wiki skim.>>12941730Try "Why Critique Has Run out of Steam" its pretty funny, highly relevant, easy to find, short, and gives you a basic introduction to the way he thinks.
>>12941690yeah, you usually read memes in introductory philosophy classes. go look at the citations being done in academic philosophy right now and tell me how many people are using Kierkegaard. Zizek was actually one of the few philosophers to try and revitalize him in a modern academic sense.
>>12941839>the types who get talked about on this board more as memes i.e. with a surface level understanding based on a skim of wikipedia than actual philosophers. For example, people posting passages about anuses and vaginas from Deleuze and making posts about becoming rhizomes rather than actually engaging with the philososphy in a more boring but interesting way in the manner you're forced to do with Latour et al. who aren't as amenable to derviving memes from a quick Wiki skimoh, in that case the big memes are Nietzsche and Kierkegaard
>>12941889>>12941884Kierkegaard is used more in contemporary theology from my understanding, so he's not irrelevant, but agreed on Nietzsche.Also contemporary academic philosophy is largely analytic which, to quote Augusto Del Noce, is the most barbaric form of thought ever invented. I wouldn't place too much stock in defining what is worthwhile or credible based on the standards of academic philosophy
Recommend reading for you Deleuzian/Whiteheadian anons
>>12941641half those r*tards are infuenced by nietzshce u freak
>>12942643dismissing nietzsche is the ultimate dunning-kruger.
>>12942711>academic philosophy is suffering from the dunning-kruger effectanon, the truth is most academic philosophers don't find use in statements like "I am dynamite". Yes, he's a fun read, and yes, he was very influential to movements like existentialism and post-structuralism, but academic philosophy doesn't do much of either of those things anymore.
>>12942768boring. you're too caught up with propriety and respectability. you realise that's nothing more than performance? i enjoy analytic philosophy, but it's not the be all end all.
>>12940313Deleuzed and Whiteheadpilled
>>12942894I think you're confusing me for the entirety of academia. I don't even enjoy analytic philosophy
>>12940313personally I agree with Galloway's position on Latour
>>12940313never read any of them, but I think they suck
>>12941641cringe analytic autists
Anyone here read Cosmopolitics?
>>12941641Haha what horseshit. Latour himself isn’t even studied in France outside of anthropology departments...
stengers is based but latour is a hack
>>12943488based illiterate anon; Latour isn't even on that list