Sociology great, philosophy shit?

[Dillinger4]

.

 

[Knotted]

I think that Geoff Pilling is a very good cure for the transcendental-structuralist type of thinking in OP.

"In short, the Althusser position is one totally incompatible with that of Marx. The way man perceives reality is not purely ideological, not something entirely separated from reality, but always the starting point for knowledge, for the elaboration of concepts. Althusser’s position far from being ‘rigorous’ in fact leads to a position where the individual can believe or do anything in practice, because for him theory constitutes an autonomous sphere. Althusser and his followers have in effect merely been engaged in the very old and entirely petty dispute as to whether truth is located in the immediately sensed or in the essence of things. Hegel (followed by Marx) put an end to this squabble by insisting that it was not a question of ‘or’ but of ‘and’."

I suspect that this critique of Althusser translates can also be applied to a critique of Bhaskar, although it might need a bit of adapting.

 

[fela fan]

I think that Geoff Pilling is a very good cure for the transcendental-structuralist type of thinking in OP.

My thinking does not need a cure! Also, i have no idea what label could be attached to describe my thinking, nor that any should be applied. Labels shut down thinking, reduce the parameters of thinking.

As for truth, go beyond language and ye shall find...

 

[Jonti]

... Labels shut down thinking, reduce the parameters of thinking.

Can do, hence the perennial social struggle to define or be defined. But without words and symbols thought is enormously impoverished. Think of the isolation of the deaf-and-dumb "idiots" of earlier times.

Agreed, language can point beyond itself, as you seem to be trying to do here. But that does not return one to any pre-linguistic state. It's more a way of understanding how language, and the symbolic realm generally, can constrain as well as augment and enhance the power of thought.

 

[fela fan]

Can do, hence the perennial social struggle to define or be defined. But without words and symbols thought is enormously impoverished. Think of the isolation of the deaf-and-dumb "idiots" of earlier times.

Well, language is both our freedom and our enslavement.

Do we need language to think? Is our thinking limited to our knowledge of language?

I have argued that we need to embrace philosophy before finally killing it off in order to find the answers it seeks. I'd say that with language we can get to a certain proficiency with it, and of course thinking goes with that, but if we wish to go higher, we need to go beyond language. But we can't go beyond it until we have mastered it; or, until we have recognised its limitations.

Labelling people is an attempt to pigeon-hole them and reduces them to the label. Accordingly the mind tends to close rather than open. And surely the result is impoverished thinking!

 

[fela fan]

It's more a way of understanding how language, and the symbolic realm generally, can constrain as well as augment and enhance the power of thought.

Yes. But from what you say here i'd imagine you would agree that there are powers higher than thought that humans can tap into in making sense of themselves and their lives on this world?

 

[Jonti]

I'd agree there's a lot to be said for wu wei ...

Yield and overcome
Bend and be straight
Empty and be full
Wear out and be new
Have little and gain
Have much and be confused

 

[fela fan]

I'd agree there's a lot to be said for wu wei ...

That's very nice! Very zen like. Something i find a context for in my teaching is to have a discussion on vulnerability leading to strength... seems to belong to that wee poem.

Another one i like is that accepting insecurity in life is the only method of gaining security. On the flip side, looking and/or fighting for security leads to insecurity.