Laeth MacLaurie said:
And Newton thought you could turn lead into gold, does that invalidate the Engligtenment tradition.
Which I suppose makes political pollsters brilliant philosophers, right?
After all, it is entirely possible to disprove a metaphysical supposition... This is the problem with the Anglo-American liberal tradition and its doctrinaire adherence to formal logic. It isn't philosophy. It isn't an exploration of ideas. It's a semantic pissing contest in which the structure of an argument is made to be more important than its content.
Congratulations, he piled error on top of error. His greatness is surely proven now!
Who are these "most people"? The handful of old-school liberals left on philosophy faculties? The Allan Bloom school of curmudgeonly culture warriors who detest the very thought that absolute answers may not be possible?
And when did it become a popularity contest anyway?
Irrelevant. The real problem with Kant was the dependence of his work on Judeo-Christian moral precepts.
Nevermind that almost every subsequent philosopher outside the Anglo-American liberal tradition drew on the work of Nietzsche...
Why, because he gets a thanks in the introduction? Husserl certainly influenced Heidegger's thought, but Heidegger's own contributions are much more sweeping, far more creative and vastly more influential.
No, that argument is the preposterous one. Heidegger's work is primarily concerned with ontology and the question of being, and goes far, far beyond Husserl's concern with consciousness.
Because the Anglo-American liberal tradition is a big pile of self-congratulatory crap? Secularizing Jesus doesn't make you great, it just makes you a major contributor to the world going down the shitter.
Did I say they were great philosophers because they were anti-semitic? I didn't think so.
Do try not to lurch from one fallacy to the next, ok?
Newton got owned by Einsteins relativity, thats why we don't listen to him anymore so yes it's reason to disregard Newton too. Do we still listen to Descartes Cogito?
What kind of response is that? The man predicted exactly how our history would go down for the next 15 years after WWII. That qualifies as something.
You like Nietzche and you criticize Moore for refuting metaphysics?
"The Refutation of Idealism" by G.E. Moore. See the Naturalistic Fallacy. This is why Western though has so spurned idealism the last 100 years. The English school singlehandedly refuted the cheif principles of Idealism with one little page essay.
Logic was the foundiing point of philosophy for 1.5 millenia. It's what kept it solid for so long. It's was why we called Aristotle, Descartes, and Bertrand Russel philosophers, and not Lucian, Calvin, and Deepak Chopra. It was the embodying language of it. Since the 19'th century (when the two were truncated), it has collapsed into a field of layman meaphysics and retarded ass psuedo nihilist Eastern Philosophy. I attribute this solely to this dissolution of mathematics and logic from philosophy. In fact, the only progress nowadays appears to only come from the English school, and only for linguistics. Progress has been so minimal without this.
People who have positions, people who know philosophy, and people who appreciate much better schools of philosophical thought than rambling German Idealism. In short not the likes of you who tie their own little agenda's into philosophy.
Well fuck Christianity was everyone's problem before 1820, whats new?
Why do you make this assumption that liberalism is counter-opposed to Nietzche? Isn't it most liberals who invoke Idealism and believe in the dissolution of relgion? If anything, I say that Idealism is one of it's cornerstones.
More like the story behind it. Heidegger wanted it in his publisher didn't (because of fascist influence). When Heidegger got discharged he put back in. It was clear he respected the man.
No but it would appear you only have a respect for German philosophers you PERCIEVE as anti-semetic.
Back to the point, first it's philosophy has no relationship with Judaism. I and others give you names... HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL NAMES. Now it's not that Jews have nothing to do with philosophy, but their achievements are minimal. Furthermore, you advocate that an arrogant little prick like Nietzche (who for the most part only has influence in literature and cjulture, and not the philosophical school itself) is in a higher echelon than all of them. It's propostrous.
Given Spinoza, given Wittgenstein, given Husserl. And given that certainly not MOST philosophers are anti-semetic... do you still stick to your original statement?
