Philosophy, Life and Scholasticism

[Nile577]

Interesting discussion...

I think all thought is 'philosophy.' I don't believe it should exist as a separate subject. Thought is extremely applicable to our lives; philosophy is therefore 'applicable' too.

I will have to side with Justin here - he has already covered with great aplomb nearly all of the points I would raise. I think it's quite baseless to dismiss non-analytical (esp. postmodern) philosophy as worthless. I am supremely unconvinced that analytic philosophy rests upon foundations sufficient to support its ethos. Indeed, it would almost seem it arrogantly presupposes the applicability of its tradition and in so doing cements over the most interesting realm of philosophy with a fixed paradigm. I am also not persuaded that the 'usefulness' of a discipline in regards to 'solving problems' is a helpful means of general assessment; particularly when such problems are crafted - and 'solved' - within a created system.

Analytic philosophy 'disposes' rather than 'discloses.' It is non-poetic thought and through the severity of its authoritarian tenet holds language, thought and Being hostage under a rigid, false-scaffold dressed as inherent certainty.*

It seems to me that Wittgenstein himself - almost a rogue analytic philosopher - rendered the analytic tradition obsolete. Perhaps I am coloured by my reading. I am extremely interested in continental philosophy, whereas, outside of Wittgenstein I have read analytic philosophy in less depth. I am interested in studying it. Indeed, it appears I shall have to be if I am right in supposing a bias towards it in most philosophy departments. However, I find the creation of analytic paradoxes and arguments over logic - because founded on false 'scaffolds' - far more akin to entertaining intellectual puzzles than the vital and integral thought of the continental tradition.

* - As Justin notes, not all analytic philosophers are quite this hostile to non-analytic thought.

 

[Nile577]

What passes for philosophy in postmodernist circles is essentially all gibberish that noone really understands. It is fairly easy to get into the swing of how to speak and write like a postmodernist and get fooled into thinking that one is actually on the way to understanding something (and/or fool others too, as in the Sokal hoax).

It's also true that computers are able to ape the organ work of J. S. Bach to the point where experts are unable to tell the diference between electronic compositions and an original. Just as this does not mean that Bach's compositions are bunk, the Sokal article does not mean post-modern philosophy is garbage. The ape in question is only accurate at a cursory glance anyhow - it suggests that Lacan's psychoanalytic theories have been validated by research in quantum field theory!

Aside from that analogy, it is more correct to say that an obviously ludicrous article wasn't read properly and was admitted for publication. For the purpose of argument, all that can be deduced from this is that certain members of staff were poor readers and/or the 'Social Text' journal was at fault for publishing an article on a field (physics) in which it had no familiarty. No wider comment as to the worth of postmodern philosophy - which this article was NOT - can be assigned or deduced.

 

[Blowtus]

Could someone point an unread layman such as myself to any works / ideas that try to show why consistency with our perceptions of the world (logic) is unnecessary for useful ideas? Or does that present too great a contradiction in itself?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Interesting discussion...

I think all thought is 'philosophy.'

All science used to be called "natural philosophy". Why did this stop?
natural philosophy introduction

[edited out a couple of sentences that were not sensible - written in hurry as I had to go out]

Is it really necessary for the layman to properly understand the work of a philosopher, any more than it is necessary for one to know everything about genetics and evolution to have a reasonable grasp of the essence of it? It is an example of a subject people should know about but many have neither the time, intelligence or motivation to discover every detail of . A bastardised version is okay as long as it isn't wholly mistaken.

 

[speed]

Interesting discussion...

I think all thought is 'philosophy.' I don't believe it should exist as a separate subject. Thought is extremely applicable to our lives; philosophy is therefore 'applicable' too.

Excellent point. Just 100-150 years ago, philosophy had a wide range of topics under its umbrella; 200-250 years ago, almost every subject and discipline was under philosophy. Thus, Hume could write about Science and philosophy, Smith about Morals as much as economics; etc. etc.

Obviously, the specialization in all academic and work-related disciplines the world has undergone since the turn of the century, is most likely the reason why philosophy is now the battleground of analytical vs. continential or similar academic debates anyone outside of college could care less about. Instead of philosophers having knowledge in all fields, and using this knowledge in their writings or writing about a variety of subjects, we have philosophers totally focused on certain academic branches of philosophy, leaving economics, morality, science, etc. to specialists in these branches.

I personally find this trend troubling and contrary to the very idea of a classical liberal arts education thats served humanity for so long. One of the reasons why the Germans and Austrians were so innovative from 1900-1950 and on, was their universities (especially Vienna) allowed their students to take any classes they wished, and only take at graduation, comprehensive exams for the subject they wished to earn a degree in. This served Freud, Einstein, Tesla, Hayek, Popper, and many other influential persons.

 

[speed]

The big question: How does someone interested in philosophy, but who is neither a student or a professor not become a dilletante? (and I state dilletante in the most negative, uncommitted and prey to others opinion's, sense)

 

[Norsemaiden]

The big question: How does someone interested in philosophy, but who is neither a student or a professor not become a dilletante? (and I state dilletante in the most negative, uncommitted and prey to others opinion's, sense)

They will be a dilettante if they have not read it properly. Even the most well read professors of philosophy, which is surely aimed at helping one understand existence, are generally dilettati when it comes to the actual practice of life itself. And yet someone who has an instinctive understanding of life, but who reads selectively from philosophy to improve that understanding can be considered much less of a dilettante at life. Quite ironic really.