Contemporary philosophical avant-garde movements

Hey lainons, I'm very passionate about philosophy, and there's a question that's always bothered me and maybe some of you can bring interesting perspectives to it. It seems that history saw some groups/organizations at the avant-garde of thought. I'm thinking for instance of the existentialists, the situationist international, or more recently the CCRU... Yet I don't think there's anything of the sort happening today. Am I missing something? Where did the smart people go? Are they all within the confines of atomized academic research? Are we condemned to be limited to the clowns who market themselves as intellectuals on social networks? What do you think? Thanks!

Firstly, OP, if you are considering Existentialism as "Avant-Garde" then you are clearly playing with a very loose definiton of what Avant-Garde is. Hell, I wouldn't consider the CCRU Avant-Garde either given some of its only original ideas were the nonsense coughed up by Nick Land. It as a whole piggy-backed on socialism very heavily and if you look at the people who are still interested in stuff like Capitalist Realism it's either commies or neo-nazis. Furthermore, your assertion that Avant-Garde is smart is laughably bad for someone who is interested in philosophy. Most Avant-Garde philosophy is probably just as laughably bad as that and reasonably lives and dies in intellectual obscurity. You also operate under the assumption that Avant-Garde movements have always existed since a time long ago. Amyways, I'll now answer your little question of where the modern Avant-Garde is. I think some examples would be antipsychiatry, prison abolitionism, and queer theory. Perhaps you would disagree.

With widespread access to information and simplified summaries, there is little motivation to actually pioneer these ideas. Even societies dedicated to the study of existentionalism focus on reiterating source documents instead of coming up with unique perspectives. As with most liberal arts fields, they have also been inundated with political discourse rather than existential discourse (predominantly LGBT and minority advocacy). It is my opinion that these would be covered by any pursuit to delve into the depths of meaningful existence, rather than a focus on them as unique issues on par with classcal existentialism, and even moreso already discussed ad nauseum in the context of wrtings by Lacan in his discourse of desire and Kierkegaard when discussing determinism and fatalism. If you would like a refreshing field of study, look up surrealism. It captures the essential elements of being avant-garde by being so undefined yet centalized around core beliefs in the absurd which defines the mundane.

>>9395 There is something wrong with people who like this art style.

>>9395 >With widespread access to information and simplified summaries, there is little motivation to actually pioneer these ideas. According to who? >As with most liberal arts fields, they have also been inundated with political discourse rather than existential discourse (predominantly LGBT and minority advocacy). <implying political discourse and existential discourse are mutually exclusive C'mon m8

>>9393 Why would you ever want to be an intellectual? Philosophizing is not something that "we" do, it is something that is done with us. Go hike, or swim, or work on a car, or learn a trade. These intellectuals don't understand anything and are clearly neglectful of their own experience.

>>9399 Tell me you've never read any kind of philosophy without saying it

>>9400 That's awfully presumptive. You don't know anything for certain, and yet insist on pursuing certainties at any expense. The pain of such an undertaking is something you idealize and create a narrative out of which has as its aim tremendous self pity. Understanding most reliably emerges from physical constitution and from immersion in physical activity. You want to be part of a cartel of snake oil salesman retreading the same problems over and over again, for no other reason than that you want to be crucified. Its totally asinine. If you want to be crucified and to toil, then go be a manual laborer. But you won't even be like Christ and do that much, because he was significantly more courageous than you and actually worthy of martyrdom.

>>9401 >That's awfully presumptive Yes, but that line is incredibly rich considering the rest of your nonsense paragraph. >You don't know anything for certain Yeah, they call that skepticism. You should look into what it is. I heard from a little birdie it's something called philosophy.

>>9399 I see what you're getting at but to tell you the truth I just enjoy philosophy and find it fun, there doesn't need to be anything more to it xD But it is a pretty lonely thing so I understand the desire fir a group/community. Admittedly avant-garde is a super loaded term xD

>>9403 Fun? In my ethnostate? No no. No fun here. You will do construction and like it. No thinking aloud.

>>9401 >you dont know >you insist on >you idealize >you want to be >you want to be [2: electric boogaloo] >you want to be [part 3] >you won't even >more courageous than you It must be on account of your "physical constitution" and "immersion in physical activity" that you pulled all of that out of your ass from 1 sentence.

>>9402 I didn't say I opposed philosophy. I said I opposed intellectuals and intellectualism. To me philosophy is something that is not done by the individual but is a process which is dividual in nature (I.e, it is not something "we" do). I hold that all philosophical insights derive from processes that penetrate and subsume the individual and the intellect, and that includes physical constitution and activity first and foremost. But I suppose it all depends on what you mean by philosophy. You want to put labels on my position, but they are largely abstractions. So what if something is "skepticism"? This is what I mean. You just want to move around abstract symbols. Might as well go do math. >>9403 Sure. But a lot of people don't treat philosophy playfully. They are embittered and defensive, as you can see on display in this thread.

>>9393 >Where did the smart people go? Modern society tends to label you as a nazi, if you strive to have your own mind. Therefore barely anyone tends to be interested in researching anything, as this could question the established norm. Most intellectuals are also too depressed themselves about current things, or their work is being shunt.

>>9406 I'm surprised you didn't assume every facet of my beliefs again! Progress indeed. >I said I opposed intellectuals and intellectualism. Right, right, and you oppose "intellectuals" because "they" think in a way that you find ghastly. The typical "their head is in the clouds but mine is here on earth" argument. It's not a sound argument. >all philosophical insights derive from processes that penetrate and subsume the individual and the intellect For someone who hates "intellectuals" though, you certainly write like a lot of academics. That is to say so thesaurisized and disconnected as to border on meaninglessness. Most certainly, the subsumption of the ego by The Natural™ is the root of all knowledge! >You want to put labels on my position, but they are largely abstractions. For once, I actually agree on the surface level. But it seems like you're so infatuated with social constructions being bad for the sake of it that you haven't critically examined the idea that their being bad is really true. So much for not being certain of any knowledge. If you really hate abstractions so much, my friend, perhaps you should give up language as a whole. >You just want to move around abstract symbols. Might as well go do math. Math, philosophy, science, etc., etc. Same soy different shovel. >They are embittered and defensive, as you can see on display in this thread. Perhaps you should have said "we" given your brief chimp out over 1 sentence that rubbed you the wrong way.

>>9405 But its not just one sentence, is it? I've interacted with enough wannabe (and actual) intellectuals on this site and others online, but mostly in real life, who are pathological in exactly the way I've described. Do I have to establish some formal logical process before I can say anything contrary to your cargo cult? Its not like I'm trying to split the atom here. You are not that hard to suss out, and I don't need to be certain, only confident. You are welcome to disagree, but you aren't doing a very good job doing so. If you are going to insult me and tell me I'm ignorant, I really have no reason to be kind to you.

>>9409 Quite wise. You are so misunderstood but you have read everyone else so perfectly, and eloquently might I add. Surely you have the physical constitution of a true ubermensch.

>>9408 My point is more nuanced here. Its not that I oppose the use of abstractions. This is a straw man on your part. Abstractions exist as a way to make sense of reality. But at the same time, they are reductive and do not fully capture that reality concretely. They are less intensive then physical experience and sensation. I didn't even say social constructions are bad. If you follow my line of reasoning society itself is bound up in the same processes. But the presumption of the ego as a discrete unit is incoherent according to empirical reason and experience, and my point is that philosophizing is not so much a consciously determined activity. It is an action that does not necessarily require a doer, or conscious recognition of itself. Toiling in the field is a kind of philosophizing. And the belief that intellectuals have their head in the clouds is absolutely justifiable because I am not making some declaration of absolute truth. I am explicitly saying that knowledge and thought is bound up within physical processes, and that engaging in physical activity is a worthwile pathway towards philosophical insight. You can disagree with that, but I think you'd be wrong. I'm not in the clouds. And you wouldn't want me to communicate in clear and direct language anyway. When I did, you claimed I had never read philosophy. So I think I am damned if I do and damned if I don't when it comes to you.

>>9410 I never claimed to have read you perfectly. Like I said, I don't have to be certain, just confident. I feel like you are projecting a level of certainty onto me that I simply don't hold. I'm human. I'm flawed. I don't feel particularly shameful, though. I actually stooped for a moment and considered whether I misjudged you, but from your responses those doubts were quickly dispelled. Frankly I think you are extremely dislikeable.

>>9411 You're right. Perhaps that was a strawman. I do disagree with your point that philosophy is a physical experience because I think philosophy is a mental experience. You're also making a lot of assumptions about me for thinking that I even support, admire, or strive to be like "intellectuals". In fact, I believe that the only real use of philosophy is self-satisfaction and I think your beliefs are very, very self-satisying if you catch my drift. >and you wouldn't want to communicate with me in clear and direct language either Considering some of your dogma, you're probably right just in the fact that we have irreconcilable beliefs on a very foundational level, but it would've been nice to see something that actually meant something like you did in this post.

>>9413 >You're right. Perhaps that was a strawman. I do disagree with your point that philosophy is a physical experience because I think philosophy is a mental experience. You're also making a lot of assumptions about me for thinking that I even support, admire, or strive to be like "intellectuals". In fact, I believe that the only real use of philosophy is self-satisfaction and I think your beliefs are very, very self-satisying if you catch my drift. I thank god you aren't naive. But we depend on assumptions. If we start questioning those a little too hard we are left adrift. Its pretty obvious that part of what I am doing is providing a framework for not questioning certain assumptions as a way of achieving my own aims. >Considering some of your dogma, you're probably right just in the fact that we have irreconcilable beliefs on a very foundational level, but it would've been nice to see something that actually meant something like you did in this post. Obviously. Its not like I occupy some unitary or absolute perspective. I'm a bit of a nihilist, if you haven't realized.

"Avant-garde" is an art term, it doesn't really make sense in the context of philosophy. Do you mean that it should be absurd? Existentialism focuses on the absurd and is wildly popular. That it should challenge the notion of what philosophy is? There are plenty of people today trying to turn philosophy into a branch of social science. That is should be "underground"? Well I'm not in the know with hip cool-cat philosophers but maybe if you hang around Princeton long enough you'll find their secret cabal meetings. >>9399 Well don't you have it all figured out?

>>9414 >We depend on assumptions. If we start questioning those a little too hard we are left adrift. I disagree. I doubt about everything. I even doubt the idea that I really have experienced anything. In doing this, I've actually found direction and stability in my life. That's not to say I'm not adrift whatsoever, I definitely am, but I'm not the mentally unwell belief jumping knuckle head I used to be. >I'm a bit of a nihilist, if you haven't realized. I wouldn't call you a nihilist. Most all nihilists cling to one belief: nothing exists. You clearly cling to other beliefs even if you acknowledge that knowing them isn't a certainty. That's more in line with skepticism than nihilism. But those are just abstractions, eh.

Philosophy is a sickness of the mind, going in circles playing word games. Go practice the buddhadharma.

>>9417 Agreed. Eastern philosophy is generally better than Western philosophy overall.

>>9416 >Most all nihilists cling to one belief: nothing exists Not quite. It's rather that "nothing really matters", but it comes in variations: epistemic nihilism: "we can't really know anything[, so knowing stuff doesn't really matter]" ontological nihilism: "reality doesn't exists (or: "truth" doesn't exists)[, so life/existence doesn't really matter]" moral nihilism: "morality/"good" and "evil" doesn't exist[, so choices or the way I live my life doesn't really matter]". >>9418 >>9417 Unless you're referring to the strains of Hinduism which emphasize logic and thinking above all else, you're dead wrong - the kind of which hates life in the manner of the Jesus cultists, also worships death, is actually just nihilism, obscurantist and basically just a heretical interpretation of a far superior philosophical system, twisted by a fat man who most probably just had a manic-depressive-disorder-induced episode that produced a false awakening, and - ironically enough - turned several hundreds of millions of people onto a path of endarkenment by perpetuating the endless cycles of pointless reincarnations to this day and beyond. >>9393 Internet, consumerism, and porn killed them all off: what's the point of engaging in years of arduous mental masturbations about "these Spectacles, you see", "muh recognitionz!" and the endless fanfics about how "my weaponized l33t h4x0r schizophrenical scribblings are totally going to destroy capitalism's logic, and then everyone will suddenly clap" that have a grand likelihood of ending up in either a political or philosophical dead end, when I could just click the monitor on, drop my pants down and start jammin' and hammerin' away with my meat scepter that has a guaranteed self-satisfaction in the end instead?

>>9421 Too many words, and a very, very poor understanding of eastern traditions. See folks, this is what philosophy does to you. Please make your mind shut the fuarrrk up, go touch the grass.

>>9425 >Please make your mind shut the fuarrrk up, go touch the grass. See folks, this is what Eastern mysticism (in particular Buddhism) does to you: it's about killing your mind and suffocating your cognitive faculties until you reach the level of a drooling idiot who either refuses or is unable to tell the difference between true and false, "cuz, everythin' is just, like, emptiness, man! Just don't think about it too hard and you'll fling yourself to nothingness lmao!"

>>9393 alice, unfortunately there is no longer any intellectual class, or culture around being part of the intelligencia -- its shadows linger in the corners of a cafe sometimes, but the tune, its rhythm is lost. at least in the us. a few trust fund kids in SV get to live that dream for all the rest of us, and they're asleep behind the wheel anyway. waking up to this is difficult but college as an institution, where you think it'd be happenin in, right? is merely an adult daycare, where the vampire administrator class is like kicking dead whales down the beach people dry until they figure out how to 'be useful in society' (ie earn wages). the would-be radical-intellectual, debt shackled, stranger to any affect, that is the intellectual 'class', and 'public intellectuals' like chomsky, peterson, zizek are spectacle spectacle spectacle also in the US there is massive brain drain, you see whenever scary bad man republican is in office, anyone with half a braincell books it because there's a longstanding tradition of culling anyone who figures out the game so then apply surveillance + psyops on whoever's left = arrested intellectual development the closest thing we have right now to the avant garde these days is like, the church of the subgenius, wholesome memes, and when someone 'random' person who is not named jeff, bill, warren, elon, etc. gets access to wealth and pops off for a minute, we're all geniuses with something to share, we're just not allowed to tap in to it because we're scrambling needlessly to make line go up for a few assholes who are already at the top. talk about absurd. >>9428 the cognitive mind is simply witnessed, and if it goes out of control you sublimate it with ritual, tf? you don't need philosophy when you have Information if you are Awake you gKnow

>>9470 >also in the US there is massive brain drain Not from what I've seen. It's probably state-dependent though, since many states like California have huge and internationally renowned public university systems while others don't. I guess some people go off to like Germany or France but the US is still an international destination for higher learning. It's sad but true that almost everywhere else is even worse. That could change soon though... The US relies heavily on importing foreign brains and always has, if some dumb enough chucklefuck messes that up the entire university system would fall apart fast.

i've been to more than 30 countries >>9471 is correct based around sv (and the quantum physics ai type), its mostly savior complex w a few dedicated people the closest ive gotten was co-creating a big online leftist communtiy that got recked after quarantine and contained ppl from places like stanford, berkeley, state schools, people who are semi-homeless and like theory, performers, travelers, quantum physicists (@k1llercatred tg) we might get it up, but it requires a collective effort and i wont take the liberty to say like this is your saving ship but its similar to what ive witnessed in the underground intellectual clubs of amsterdam its the cmnty where all the marxist memes on instagram originated, hopefully this helped

there's tons of little art collectives, independent creators, and groups out there. a lot of them aren't very on-the-internet, the ones that are might not be visible to you in your social media sphere which is probably quite insular and self-obsessed. maybe you should disconnect. consider that your dismissiveness actually prevents you from listening and finding things that are interesting. >>9394 >some of its only original ideas were the nonsense coughed up by Nick Land none of Land's ideas are original. he's credited for what the rest of the CCRU was doing but all he really did was follow the lead of others who went further, but didn't have his proximity to power - something he only had by diluting the ideas with academic prejudice, and not really being serious about the ones he did say. but I don't mean to be too harsh. what are his original takes? >>9416 >>9421 >nihilism is... If I may interject on this subject. Nihilism was a word initially leveraged by Jacobi against philosophers he considered not christian enough, at the time those being Spinoza (who believed in god,), Fichte, and ultimately all critical philosophy/theory. "nihilism" as a label for the rest of philosophy would primarily be used with negative connotation and in modern philosophy, even academically speaking, refers far more often to a kind of abstract sentiment, or codification thereof based on the label as it was leveraged by philosophers against each other, or what caused them to despair. Even Nietzsche, who is often described as a nihilist in his own words was opposed to nihilism (and it is for this reason a special kind, or "active nihilism" is ascribed to him when elaboration is asked of some misunderstanders), describing it as a conditional affliction of Western culture, and using the term in a variety of ways. Deleuze, a scholar of Nietszche, interprets this sense of nihilism as a denial of life itself that he ascribes to Christianity, as well as Platonism. So, we can start to see a historical division between christian-leaning academics accusing others (who were sometimes atheistic, but also not and accused of being this, as well) of being nihilists, and other philosophers they might scrutinize seemingly attaking rationalists and christ users alike as nihilistic themselves - this is of course complicated in the tradition of existentialism, which differentiated itself from nihilism in a way seemingly aligned with much Nietzsche had to say, and consisted of both atheists and Christians. But the term "nihilist" in my eyes is more interestingly used to self-describe by 1800s Russian anarchists for reasons making them fairly aligned to western Anarchism at the time, but with crucial differences in their (seemingly anti-colonial) criticisms of European philosophy. Although this subject in particular I'd be careful in research as there is scholarly disagreement to their characterization in terms of views on art and Beauty. The anarchist tradition of nihilism was however not simply localized to Russia and incorporated + emerged interesting and novel identified nihilist thought among anarchists elsewhere, such as in the philosophy of Kaneko Fumiko who was taught by Hatsuyo Niiyama after returning to her a home country after a particularly abusive childhood spent in Korea. In night classes meant to continue her education cut short by the whims of patriarchal family, Hatsuyo also taught about the tradition of philosophy especially as it was carried by the likes of Max Stirner, Mikhail Artsybashev, and Friedrich Nietzsche. For this she became Kaneko's dearest friend. You will probably call all these words unnecessary, but I think it makes a cute story. Nihilism was also undertaken academically, firstly in the Japanese Kyoto School which combined Buddhist and Nihilist philosophy into various new forms, such as Absolute Nothingness. I bring all this history up to you because in the late 20th / early 21st century, nihilism was also adopted by western academics as a project to push forward and explore with more understanding, seemingly with some semblance in mind of the typology you appear to be using. Most remarkably that of one philosopher I forget the name of - who believed no prior philosopher went far enough nihilistically and believed in pushing nihilism even farther, in ways that they had written off in fear and despondence. >>9418 >eastern vs western philosophy you mean, like, the philosophy of a few noteworthy schools in Europe vs. all of Buddhism + potentially everything tangentially Vedic, as well? you're not wrong, i guess,.. >>9470 >the church of the subgenius imo did not age well but tell me what you see in it >>9772 >its a telegram group chat to be real with u if there's a reason why its so much harder to find things that are original or interesting these days its because its all tucked away in discord servers and group chats. why siphon even more people into that?

>>9393 the eurasianist movement is happening in Russia and it's gaining traction in the Sahel region of Africa now.

>>9471 A large part of the US brain drain is out of i.e. the midwest and to the coasts/big cities. Used to be that the midwest had a bigger industrial/technological base but with the decline of the use of inland waterways for freight transport, and the general decline of US manufacturing, that's rather gone away.

>>10085 it doesnt seem like russias been doing so hot recently though.

>>9772 semi-homeless? i'm in public housing in a major city and have been obsessively reading philosophy and social theory from avant garde movements, revolutionaries, and the academy (when it was good, as in Hegel's era). as i really start to get the system in it's complete grotesque horror i've been experiencing the most Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios. these bureaucrats and npcs are sniffing me out and it's driving me mental. the few people i've met that get it have serious mental issues, as in grooming women and waning sanity. there are more people out there like me, and enough to quantify being a target demographic?? please tell me more, i think we've actually chatted briefly on discord once. this is probably the one decent thread on this site to exist in a while

>>9393 >Yet I don't think there's anything of the sort happening today. Am I missing something? You are. These movements these days are hidden so that they don't get normified and destroyed like what happened with existentialism and more recently the CCRU. BEN is a good example of such a community and it's designed purposely so that one cannot gain access or more information without being smart themselves or having the desire. This prevents it from being distorted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WsuGDoRS8c

All the real ones realized that the 20th century existentialism was mostly masturbation. Also, they realized that action speaks louder, way louder than any words. I'm not saying these were unworthy experiments, but when you compare them to ancient stoicism even for example, it will find that those guys went way deeper, despite on the surface appearing more basic. Most of that philosophy in the 20th century were thought experiments. Look at David Goggins - that's a true modern philosopher. His philosophy guides his action. He may be dumb, but look at what he achieved as a philosopher. To me that's at the very least on par with Nietzsche.

>>11190 This is the dumbest thing I've read this week.

>>11188 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WsuGDoRS8c This must go hard as fuarrrk if you no longer have the attention span for reading or longform media. Sorry to be mean but honestly this is just gesturing vaguely at a bunch of well established concepts and hinting at new connections without actually daring to say what it thinks those connections are, it's fine as a piece of student art but hardly expanding the space at all.

>>9407 This right here, every intellectual worth his salt realized this a long time ago. Intellect is lost on the normgroid cattle, it is pointless appealing to logic and reason, only cheap bullshit and lies work. The real intellectuals left the sinking ship a long time ago and formed secret societies and/or joined the cause of the elites. Since rona i have seen an increasing trend of smart people to just stop and do nothing while watching people run headfirst in the wall over and over again. At this point it should become clear that the only real philosophy is pragmatism and dogmatism is containment for the ones who cant think for themselfs. People dont want to think for themselfs and be independent, the want leaders who give them false promises and rethoric that makes them feel safe. Most philosophies of the past are based on idealism which is as good as dead by now, the old belief that by trying to make the world better by educating people has been proven false, egoism and self centrist thinking is the winning strategy employed by those in power.

>>12158 Unfortunately, modern philosophers are equally immune to reason and logic. Avant guard philosophers are a good example of this. The one on OP's picture deny even the existence of causality. They spent more time fuarrrking each others that thinking but because they were from the baby boom generation, they have been glorified like crazy. You will find their life to be entertaining (just ask about the couples created by OP's picture this is more degenerate than mlp) but there is nothing worth studying in them.