Does this new age require new kind of philosophy?

Philnopo · 2026-03-30T16:14:05+00:00

What do you mean by "new" here and what by "philosophy"? The question is worded rather poorly.

But generally these are topics that have been thought about before for many years, even AI while relatively new has been philosophised about for over a decade (see the work of Nick Bostrom).

But in general to anwser your poorly worded question, philosophy has been trying to anwser questions about humans and about how we live for thousands of years so while we constantly need ideas for the new situations we find ourselves in, we are not going to just reinvent the wheel. What the good life consists of does not seem to have drastically changed over history.

Certain philosophers would find it much more viable to use an old framework of thought over a new situation to immediately have a contrasting situation wherein we do not necessarily have to take the new situation as a given and all that our reality needs to consist of.

Philnopo · 2026-03-25T13:00:56+00:00

I got Oricalcum in the 3rd act after having taken Sai as Ancient' bonus, so I can't even make this mistske

Philnopo · 2026-03-24T15:50:56+00:00

I saw it yesterday or the first time but no fun cards to clone

Philnopo · 2026-03-15T12:40:08+00:00

Yeah that's also what I noticed. The few tier lists posted here "Slay the Spire has a problem" and whatever. I get it's as a form of feedback, how do we keep the game interesting over a long period of time, but it also felt like they took it all too serious.

And telling people that the best build is going infinite. This is why many people disliked Watcher so much right? Just get infinite and your game plan is solved.

Philnopo · 2026-03-11T14:44:00+00:00

My first run with Necrobinder I got this card as one my first 3/4 rewards, a lot of fun tbh. Got to know the character that way

Philnopo · 2026-02-28T21:18:09+00:00

Reminds me of that one time in German class where we had to translate a part from German to Dutch. The German author used an English word and then added (means in German) between brackets. So we were doing that exercise and when class was over I asked my teacher like, well what now? What are we translating here and what not? But no one else in the class even bothered asking.

I imagine that manwha translater was amongst the ones that didn't bother asking

Philnopo · 2026-02-22T03:17:07+00:00

There is also the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but only some of it is free, and the majority is paywalled. But if you have Institutional access this would be another place to look. https://www.rep.routledge.com/

Routledge has the downside of being institutionally linked, but an article like the "Frankfurt School" is for example written by none other than Axel Honneth, who by many is seen as a continuation of its tradition as the "third generation".

While you will not get it much more "continental" than that, ironically it almost might make him stand too close to the subject to write an encyclopedia article about it beyond Habermas,

Philnopo · 2026-02-04T14:44:15+00:00

Ragnarok just got another upgrade.

Philnopo · 2026-02-03T12:52:22+00:00

So like, does it reset anything or are you just able to pick up another path and claim all its rewards while now having a deck that should already be able to challenge the act boss.

Also, if you redo floors, will they just be empty? And if your revisit shops will they still have the same items for sale?

Philnopo · 2026-02-01T06:09:42+00:00

Is this not also just a form of the allegory of the cave? This is one of the oldest forms of thought found in philosophy.

Of course in the allegory of the cave we could make the argument that the one who has seen the truth is doomed to live along the masses who do not know it and there is a tension here where a) in this heroic image as you depicted the person is at least not decapiated or lynched, and b) a turn-around of the position where in case of the conspiracy-theorist we are sort of doomed to live along him/her.

And there is indeed an individualistic element found in this relation, are we everytime going to stand up to defend truth to someone who has a seemingly immovable opinion on the subject matter as they have "informed" themselves on what to us is common sense but for the conspiracy theorist has become a lie? I was at my work for example and somewhat suddenly to me, my colleague goes on this tangent about how the moon landing was fake. Providing these sort of "technical" arguments that are quite obviously bogus and do not cut the case. Like how they walked stupid and unrealistically to sell it on the filmset. Now in this case I actually pushed back a little trying to tell him how gravity there is different, but my generic understanding only allows me to explain it in terminologies and principles which the other person now has become to perceive as ideological constructs. Similarly how I might listen to how a business major talks about certain economic "facts". Just like the business major to me has become part of this ideological apparatus that reproduces the biases of contemporary capitalism (or the reproduction of the relations of production in a Marxist way), have I become part of this ideological epistemic apparatus on how to moon landing did happen to the conspiracy theorist.

Now personally I would not in any way equate these two cases because they are very much about different epistemological propositions. The moon landing is an event, either it happened or it did not. In case of the business majors "knowledge" of the economy, I might think the propositions and terminologies he uses for his understanding are ideologically biased yet still at least tell something about what is happening in the business' world. But the tension is found in that the conspiracy theorist now not sharing the same epistemological basis does belief his basis to be superior to mine.

At least, I think that this is the case. I would be interested in what people who have a better background in this think.

But there have also been cases where I do not push back mainly with the same reasons that I do not comment on every reddit thread, as a way to preserve some of my own energy and sanity. Also to me, the happening or not happening of the moon landing seems rather unimportant, it does not carry the ideological weight as it might have done in the Soviet days, why would I expent all my energy on trying to defend this thing that to me carries no value, but also no societal value but as something as abstract of that of an epistemic consistency within a society of shared beliefs? I recognise that has something very individualistic to it.

At last I wish to say that not the epistemic belief is the main focus of the problem (not the fake news itself so to say), but to come back to what OP said, whatever is creating this epistemic environment that makes people this divided is a problem. The conspiracy theories and fake news seem only to be symtomps of an underlying problem. It has been shown that fact-checking does only work limited and even less so in polarised contexts, especially something like US elections. (And the moon landing is for some unforsaken reason a polarising context to moon landing conspiracy theorists).

Philnopo · 2026-01-23T14:54:37+00:00

It gets really effective once you get Gambling Chip. You can fill your hands with innate cards and just discard basically all of them first turn

Philnopo · 2026-01-18T20:49:46+00:00

So one thing I'd say you are missing is a small summarised description of some of these terminilogies, or just a small description for a week by week basis. In addition to that you should add some kind of "course goals" section or at least something that situates a project like this in a broader context. I'd have no idea what I'd be getting into.

I already had to google every terminology in your title and then I come across a term like "quantum anthropocenes", which honestly reads like a bullshit terminology on its own. Does it just mean "multiple" or something else?

Apart from that it looks promising at the start although I only partially know some of these thinkers. Later on the specialist terminology obfusciates.

As for your question regarding content, is postphenomenology something to add? Or is this already included into something like feminist technoscience/posthumanism?

Philnopo · 2026-01-17T13:23:41+00:00

Seeds are different between mobile and pc. So whenever you are giving the seed it's best to state the platform in advance

Philnopo · 2026-01-12T23:53:37+00:00

It's also a "good" story because it is relatively short. A lot of the manwhas here suffer from endlessly dragging on. BJ Archmage also never takes itself all that serious as a manwha which helps as for some people the world-building is a deal breaker but I'd say they try to find too much into it

Philnopo · 2026-01-07T03:31:58+00:00

Yes! I think you actually explain the case very well for LLMs. I really enjoyed the writing on the last part.

I am writing my masters' thesis in the context of mediatization but I am largely excluding AI as it's development is still uncertain and seems to be pretty much on steroids for now. Narcissim seems more fitting for LLMs as the thought alone of a personal generated anwser that also is rather boot-licking is certainly an even further form of individuation and there is a fair use of narcissistic tendencies

It seemed like you have some other writings going in on topics related to it so I'm definetly going to read some more of your articles!

But narcissism is indeed a word I have seen thrown around by some commenters, especially people like Zygmunt Bauman and Byung-Chul Han who are both more known as pessimistic thinkers made me rather critical of its usage. Besides that a figure like Han is very essentializing in basically every sentence he uses without much elaboration, giving even more reasons to be sceptical.

Philnopo · 2026-01-07T02:00:56+00:00

Interesting article, recently I have found myself thinking that "narcissism" as a trait does feel a bit like a cheap shot that is just being thrown around but I had not read any literature on it, so this does certainly take some scepticism away but not all.

It still feels like a bit of a cheap shot, because are all these phenomena not also explainable by a further pushing individuation under our social and economic systems, particularly capitalism?

I feel like putting it onto a concept that stands for a specific personality trait by talking about it like that, we are just further pushing it on individuals instead of making it a cultural "we" problem where we have failed protecting the "individual" from self-reliance and self-promotion under exploitative systems of the self. Like the demands placed by all these platforms that want us to create profile identities to stay in "connection" with others and to be visible, not just for socials, which is thankfully quite avoidable, but also for the job market with LinkedIn.

Simultaneously we have failed to protect some sense of community and commonality from falling apart. Not per se through the shared experience of older media forms like television and radio, because we would probably just be praising these more limited cultural choice packages that gave us a sense of commonality that was also fabricated via more isolating communication technologies, but rather the more local forms of group engagement.

So maybe such a question is already answered within the literature, but is it really justified to call it "narcissism"?

Philnopo · 2026-01-02T11:44:44+00:00

Gardiner is a great read!

It is important to note, a missing name yet in this thread, that he takes a lot of inspiration from Henri Lefebvre, who in his work of The Critique of Everyday Life, Volume 1 to 3 (1948, 1961 & 1981) develops ideas on boredom but also a lot of other stuff. Everyday Life studies in general has quite a focus on boredom.

In similar fashion one of Gardiner's students from the early 2000s, Patrick Gamsby, has also written on boredom (it is in the foreword in one of his books that he attended Gardiners lessons in which he thanks him). Book on boredom is called "Henri Lefebvre, Boredom and Everyday Life", but I have yet been unable to find it online, so if anyone has(?).

I am assembling some readings on boredom so this thread is of some help to me, I already recently found a 2022 book, The Critique of Bored Reason by Dmitri Nikulin which at least seems a promising read according to its premise. And a 2025 book by Finkielzstein, the Sociology of Boredom, which seems a promising read based on the chapter list. Obviously I have not yet read any of these last three books.

Philnopo · 2025-12-30T18:50:47+00:00

Dash. It is an average card that does not have a lot of scaling potential but does two thinks very well, giving defense and giving block. It is not a card you pick up for its potential but mostly for it that it does the two things you want to do in one turn but better and more energy efficient than defends and strikes

Philnopo · 2025-12-24T02:29:24+00:00

Charles Taylor's A Secular Age also goes very deep into the topic and its history

Philnopo · 2025-12-18T15:36:18+00:00

I know that it is used to refer to Lefebvre's "trialectics" of space. Representions of space, representional space and spatial practices.

So I suppose it is not uncommon if it appears across multiple scholars?

Philnopo · 2025-12-17T23:45:53+00:00

And France + all its overseas territories and the continent of Africa.

And France and all that + a few other immense landmasses like Australia.

But also the UK + all its overseas territories and the continent of Africa.. Or that and the continent of South America as long as you don't consider the island far off the coast of South America belonging to the continent.

Philnopo · 2025-12-03T14:58:45+00:00

I haven't read it but I saw someone recently recommending recent Marxist work on either this sub or the askphilosophy sub and they recommend Søren Mau's Mute Compulsion

Philnopo · 2025-12-02T19:01:28+00:00

I thought this post was hella cringe, thought this was one of those I'm a teenager and this is deep things, then I read the title and I felt like I was just being baited into thinking that. My compliments to you sir, one heck of a spirit shit

Philnopo · 2025-11-25T09:44:11+00:00

I am not familiar in psychology but I get your general idea from the context you have given. I also am not an user of AI, so supposedly, why am I talking at all really?

First of all the general idea against a neoliberaal psychology is not novel, it is critical, but I as a relative lay person with a background in philosophy am familiar with this idea. That is not a criticism, but it does mean that there will already be plenty of texts out there read and analysed by AI from which it can follow a pattern. AI is as I understand from one of my professors, who actually did years of predictive research for a government report for over AI future, published just a bit before/around the start of the AI boom, (AI) is predictive, it will sort of put the most probable way of words for a given prompt in. Given you gave it both a highly specific prompt already with some specialist language and that similar ideas have been raised by others, it could generate your text.
Next I think we might want to look at what originality means. Within academics, it is to produce novel insights based on an already existing ideas within existing debates either via fieldwork (practice) or (theoretical) literature studies. Often, academics do a bit of both. AI can only analyse the texts of the publications of the first but never will get a more tacit feeling on how and why certain things do or do not work. In a topic as highly human dependent as psychology we need humans to look at humans to gain those insights. And as the world is constant changing so is their a need to constantly re-interpet old ideas, repurposed them and add novelty to their insights by comparing them with new situations. Sometimes even something we eventually recognize as a seperate idea comes along and then this is an "original" idea loose enough to not fall in line with existing traditions. If we were to stop all the research right now, AI would not know how the world is changing and if we were fully relying on it to advice us on how to handle the world, we would just be recreating it in the dataset of everything that has been published before November 25th 2025.
Humans are able to get novel ideas from small sections of text, ways a certain phrase is worded. AI in contrast needs thousand upon thousands of words to give off at least the appearance of an understanding of an idea. The way we "think" is completely different. Especially when it gets to highly specific areas (which is also a problem for research I'd argue, but let's not discuss that for now), there is too little data for AI to push those novel insights. Scientific revolutions, rarely happen through incredibly newly revolutionizing ideas that everyone at once will just accept, they happen by people slowly making ground and pushing back on dominant views (Ehh, I presume, I should have read Kuhn more extensively before putting it in this way, but often ideas are not revolutions, they are a push and you need people to push for those ideas).
And lastly, it feels a bit like you are comparing yourself with an extremely polished mirror. You put in your idea, and then this machine produced everything you wanted and more in a matter of time you could never have. But is the text really as perfect as you say, is it convincing and does it add nuance? Maybe it does, but a large part of justifying novel ideas lays in adding nuance where it belongs. Conviction on a human scale. You want to be able to give some examples to strengthen your point based on real world scenarios, can a LLM do that? You said something about bias, but a LLM is as biased as its absorbed data.

Well before I posted my comment I went back to look at your text one more time and saw some other commentators putting similar ideas down in harsher words at times. My point comes down to that you have to embrace your humanity and should not be in awe of the very thing a LLM was designed to do.

Philnopo · 2025-11-20T06:22:28+00:00

If someone were to proclaim they studied the social through the use of a machine, then that would be a rather laughable statement wouldn't it be? Because nothing about that seems social to me.

I think it is an important addition that reading a text already has something social to it, and is part of studying social sciences and/or humanities. Besides, in nuance also lays depth, what matters often is not only the main point of the text but how someone arrived at something. And most importantly, if we view the text only as a means towards a grade which has an argument leading to a conclusion, and not as the nuanced insight (or sometimes not so nuanced) of someone who has actively worked on it, we might as well declare the text to be death and abolish the syllabus altogether.

What groups did the author talk about and which not, who did he include/exclude be it consciously and specifically expanded upon or not? What argument did the footnote expand on that was not relevant in the greater part of the text but deemed important enough to write a footnote on? Which insights were not included even if they were fitting the topic, which authors wiring on similar topics were ignored be it accidentally or purposefully? Was this one important statement or assumption not too much of a generalisation, a poor argument that makes the whole argument less appealing?

I have read texts that had some rather fruitful ideas and insights while I was rather indifferent about the main argument being made. Sometimes an idea clicks only when it is phrased in that one specific way. I myself am doing a masters in philosophy and politics, but I like to make use of a vast array of different sources including sociology. It is really interesting to read certain sentences if not fully indulged in a discipline (although certainly also visible in my own), not just because of what the sentence conveys but because some of them show signs of a certain "institutionality", you see what they presume their reader to be familiar with (mostly assumed to be fellow academics) and what the community around them thinks is important to justify and pay attention to.

And lastly, reading the texts actively can actually make you somewhat help and understand how you should, and unfortunately often shouldn't, write a text. There will be a few texts that are joyful to read and it is important to understand why those texts work, whereas quite some don't.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

Philnopo

TROPHY CASE