Is philosophy the only subject?

[gorski]

Anti-intellectual, "utilitarian", positivist, pragmatist shite...

But then again, those that were taught precisely such "Philosophy" might be right. That is rubbish, so no wonder they're writing such stuff... ["False consciousness" as in "true consciousness of false reality".]

Or if taught the good stuff - but still anti-intellectual etc. - yuck again!!! ["False consciousness" as in "false consciousness of true reality".]

 

[Santino]

No, not getting that at all.

 

[Structaural]

Science for those who can't do maths and can't mix a cocktail.

 

[Belushi]

Science for those who can't do maths and can't mix a cocktail.

 

[phildwyer]

precisely - the starting point of the philosophy on my PPE course was that you need to study what can be concretely held to be 'true' before you can go on to make economic or political statements about the world.

And that is precisely the problem with Anglo-American philosophy. It is all pragmatist garbage. The rest of the world doesn't even consider it to *be* philosophy.

 

[phildwyer]

Such rubbish.... Unbelievable...

But then again, this is England...

Indeed. It is of course far from coincidental that the same nation that invented capitalism abolished philosophy.

 

[Santino]

It can be hard dealing with the fact that you can't intuit the essence and meaning of the universe just by sitting around and having a good think.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ahh, the yawn inducingly dull comments from those sophisticated types who see themselves as 'continental' philosophers - wilful obscuritans for whom philosophy should remain something that only élites can discuss, and keep the plebs out by burying a tiny nugget of truth under a mountain of bullshit.

 

[Dubversion]

i don't think i was claiming that the philosophy i was referring to was the only valid kind, it was more a response to the idiotic assertion it was the ONLY subject and agreeing that it should also be an underpinning of any investigation of knowledge. That kind doesn't necessarily invalidate the others, but simply serves a different purpose.

 

[kyser_soze]

Replying to dwyer and Gorski, the only people on here who have a true understanding of what philosophy is, unlike us anglos.

 

[gorski]

Ahh, the yawn inducingly dull comments from those sophisticated types who see themselves as 'continental' philosophers - wilful obscuritans for whom philosophy should remain something that only élites can discuss, and keep the plebs out by burying a tiny nugget of truth under a mountain of bullshit.

You must have confused me with a Heideggerian...

You might need to study it a bit more before...

Achhh, never mind... Fair play and all that...

Some judgement that is...

 

[kyser_soze]

I should have added 'someone who never finishes a sentence properly, just with an ellipsis and a smiley

 

[gorski]

Replying to dwyer and Gorski, the only people on here who have a true understanding of what philosophy is, unlike us anglos.

Depends - if the only thing by which to go on is what you have written lately, then it seems you are the only person here who knows everything about anything... Anything at all...

And that tells it all... innit?!?

 

[Santino]

Profound.

 

[gorski]

Sometimes...

 

[Demosthenes]

Ahh, the yawn inducingly dull comments from those sophisticated types who see themselves as 'continental' philosophers - wilful obscuritans for whom philosophy should remain something that only élites can discuss, and keep the plebs out by burying a tiny nugget of truth under a mountain of bullshit.

Not true at all, - continental philosophy does at least have the merit of being interesting, - well comparatively interesting, when compared to anglo-american philosophy, - and both schools are equally elitist, jargon-ridden, and pedantic, - though it does seem to me that continental philosophy is more concerned with big issues and with the human point of view.

 

[Santino]

Continental philosophy is too concerned with establishing its own vocabulary for things, inventing concepts that no one uses and then investigating the content of these concepts.

 

[gorski]

You mean, like science? Or pragmatist or some such rubbish "philosophy"?

The trouble is: what sort of "jargon". Every "technical vocabulary" is not necessarily "impenetrable"...

 

[Demosthenes]

Continental philosophy is too concerned with establishing its own vocabulary for things, inventing concepts that no one uses and then investigating the content of these concepts.

I'm not sure that's true, -- that could just be the way it looks from an english-speaking perspective, - in that having difficulty in translating heidegger's german, it looks as if he's invented loads of concepts that "no-one uses" or understands.

But it's perfectly possible that they have the same experience reading the technical vocabulary of analytic philosophers. Have a look at some John Mcdowell, if you want to see just how impenetrable analytic philosophy can become.

I read recently that consciousness, which seems like a reasonably clear concept in english simply doesn't translate clearly into ancient Greek, Croatian or Chinese.

 

[Santino]

Here's an example:

A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.

This has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of 'truth' that most people use. What has being 'unforeseen by the order of creation' got to do with a proposition being true?

Basically, Badiou has posited the existence of some mysterious thing that is 'new and universal', and then made up his own meanings for 'new' and 'universal', and none of it casts a single bit of light on anything.

 

[Demosthenes]

Here's an example:
"A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity."


This has nothing to do with the ordinary meaning of 'truth' that most people use. What has being 'unforeseen by the order of creation' got to do with a proposition being true?

Basically, Badiou has posited the existence of some mysterious thing that is 'new and universal', and then made up his own meanings for 'new' and 'universal', and none of it casts a single bit of light on anything.

To me the above does make a certain amount of sense, though I can understand your frustration with it. But the meaning of anything depends on its context.;

 

[8ball]

Without this kind of waffle philosophy books would be a lot shorter.

 

[rhys gethin]

I've always thought Socrates had it coming, no one likes being made to look a twat by some ugly little smart alec.

He did worse than that. Ever read Stone's 'The Trial of Socrates'? Having taught the traitor Alcibiades and the boss of the thirty tyrants, he was contemptuous of democracy at his trial too. Come to think of it, I get up people's noses as well. 'You are entirely convincing, Socrates, as usual - and goodbye!'

 

[Santino]

To me the above does make a certain amount of sense, though I can understand your frustration with it. But the meaning of anything depends on its context.;

Then please enlighten me as to how this statement says something useful or true.

 

[jonH]

There's the study of philosophy

 

[Demosthenes]

Then please enlighten me as to how this statement says something useful or true.

This is probably really going to irritate you,

Read the Gospel according to John.

eta. But to be fair, my first impression of your quote was that it was meaningless waffle;.

 

[Aldebaran]

I really don't see why so many people in this thread have that much problems with philosophy.
Seems to me you have problems with certain philosophers or the way philosophy is thaught where you live or elswhere?

That is not philosophy, let alone philosophy in practice.

salaam.

 

[nosos]

This is a really fucking stupid thread.

 

[Santino]

This is a really fucking stupid thread.

Only in parts.

 

[nosos]

Ok well the OP is stupid.

I think, as is usually the case, people defending analytic philosophy and people critcising continental philosophy are kind of talking past each other.