I am not an exoert in philosophy but I have seen it more than once, the claim that philophy "ended" becaise of those two and the kind of contributions they made. It is tempting to credit philosophy's discredit with this, because it gives the situation meaning. Do you think it is just a baseless claim made by an idiot 4chan poster or is it somwthing reasonable
“Philosophy” never ended because it never began. It’s nothing more than christcuck-adjacent wordplay and pilpul.
it is a baseless claim made by unread idiots. wittgenstein lit-ra-ly talks about this in PI. he calls it "lack of problems." philosophy ends when the philosopher develops a lack of problems, i.e. the philosopher believes he has "solved" philosophy. but obviously he hasn't, he's just become complacent and has forgotten why he started thinking in the first place. wittgenstein is referring to russell here but nietzsche is talking about the same thing when he says "kant became an idiot." philosophy is an unsolvable riddle. that is its beauty, and its terror
>>25201624>jew seething about christianity for no reasonlove to see it
>>25201616maybe they mean "ended" in the sense that no one has since made philosophical contributions as interesting as heidegger and wittgenstein, that no one has yet developed their philosophies in elaborate or rigorous ways. but im being generous.
>>25201758Their thought is self-terminating. Where else do you go after becoming Wittgensteinian or Heideggerian?
>>25201616I think it’s a fair assessment. Philosophy reached its logical conclusion with those two.
>>25201624>le its a social construct so its not real XD!!!!
>>25201769Rorty and Nishitani.
>>25201777but isn't making a claim like that and discussing it philosophy itself?
>>25201624>autistic screeching
>>25201625It’s an ouroboros of fun, frustration and despair. Three things the thinking subject can’t seem to live without.
>>25202061no. there's no "philosophy". the uses of thought to have engaged whatever that word would have been useful to have designated or been used to have pointed at have ended with wittgenstein. everything ends and thought more precisely ended with wittgenstein. "phlosophy" has been a useless word and nothing else since>>25201616yes. it ended. like yesterday ended and like the year 3205209583bc ended and how seconds passed never o come back. go do something else
>>25201625kill yourself
>>25201769there is no after
It's absurd to think it ended, but what was previously considered the boundaries of the domain of philosophy were shown to be bullshit, as well as the methods of investigation especially reasoning. Philosophy has been expanded, not destroyed.
>>25201616If you compare philosophy, math and physics over the past hundred years, the contrast is striking. Math and physics have progressed in leaps and bounds, while philosophy appears largely stagnant. Many of the cutting edge ideas from early 20th century math and physics are now taught at the upper undergrad level. Modern physics PhDs can often run circles around Einstein, yet philosophers still seem preoccupied with the same figures of past like Plato and Kant. Most intellectually capable people drawn to abstraction tend to gravitate toward math or physics today. The golden age of philosophy is behind us.
>>25204734no. don't de escalate it. philosophy ended. there's nothing else to do with and everything done under pretenses at it is a waste of time. there were no expansions and no possibilities for expansion. philosophy ended and that's been it>>25204976physics also ended but given lacks of new pehnomena at currently accessible time, space and energy scales
>>25204976The method of teaching is different. Philosophers think it is important to teach the whole history. Nobody teaches einstein or newton in physics, they teach the part of their theories that is iseful
>>25204976>taught at the upper undergraduate level I've taken those courses and the physics are simply taught with as little derivation as possible. Philosophy courses actually expect you to engage with the thought directly rather than take it at face value (because there is none unlike physics which can be directly applied). Many physicists will go and read the original papers and monographs on the topics because the ephemeral and non-systematic thought that was required to start those projects (relativity, QM, etc) is insightful for physicists trying to go beyond just doing the math and calculations. You can only really get the metaphysical presumptions about these theories by reading between the lines or reading about how these physicists came up with the ideas in the first place. Like >>25205558 said, physics can also be considered "finished" around the same time as Heidegger and Wittgenstein in that very little so-called progress has been made since then on fundamental problems. Science and mathematics seems more developed because its fruits (technology and proofs) are concrete while the effect of thought and ideas is of course not so.
