This 'use' - in the instrumental sense, like a bureaucrat's - doesn't seem to me to respect the autonomy of philosophy's problems. — StreetlightX

Come on now, this is pretty strawman. If not against my quick post then at least against the notion of philosophy as therapy. I have read you say many times that what marks or characterizes a philosopher - one who engages meaningfully with philosophy - is a set of problems that need to be worked through, that gnaw away at one. There's nothing instrumental or bureaucratic about raising the further issue to one's self about why precisely these problems gnaw away, why one works at these problems and what one hopes to achieve by working through these problems. This is how we keep philosophy from spinning in a void, both publicly and privately -- by making sure that we remain committed to mapping out the physiography of our problems and the nature of what we're doing when engaging in our philosophical investigations.

Any philosopher knows that problems impose themselves upon you, that they worm their way into you so its not a simple matter of submitting philosophy to one's whim and fancy, even if that is a 'therapeurics of the soul'; to engage in philosophy is to be driven where the problem takes you: to submit to necessity, as one does to a landscape which one maps out. — StreetlightX

I don't see how this runs counter to therapeutics. It's not either be driven where the problem takes you or do some namby pamby chicken soup for the soul. Problems take you down lots of twists and turns and wrong paths so it's important to be vigilant about the nature of the problem you're engaging, how you're engaging that problem, why you're engaging it.. there's a reason you wouldn't feed this quote to Csalisbury in his/her thread, because Csalisbury clearly needs to change the way s/he's approaching problems. That's therapy. In a thread like that we engage in a discussion with someone in order to better understand the nature of the problems that have wormed their way in, why s/he's not getting what s/he wants from the activity of engaging these problems in the way s/he is, and what changes in her life, her meta-philosophy and her understanding of these problems might get her feeling right again. This all seems quite natural to me, so I'm having trouble seeing why you want to pit therapy over/against the autonomy of philosophical problems.

Deleuze once wrote that the only use of philosophy is to sadden and shame and these are affects I think far more appropriate to philosophy than the self-gratifying attempts to make it some bourgeois weekend retreat in the Caribbean. — StreetlightX

Not sure what to do with this. The stance that either we respect the full autonomy of philosophy and submit ourselves to it in the practice of philosophy or we're engaging in a bourgeois Caribbean retreat seems like a failure of imagination. Just as you have "serious qualms" about therapy I have pretty serious qualms about a statement that appeals to "the only use of philosophy...", even rhetorically. I'm pretty sure that you don't want to detach philosophy from life, immanence, joy, etc. so you seem to me to be following into a trap when you fetishize some ideal notion of philosophy's autonomy and set it against a meta-philosophy that stresses the importance of clarifying the physiognomy of our philosophical problems, why we seek out these problems, and what we seek to do in engaging with these problems. (Just as it doesn't invalidate another's autonomy by seeking therapy in order to better understand one's relationship with that person.)

Therapeutics makes use of philosophy as one makes use of another without regard or respect for their autonomy. It prostitutes philosophy. — StreetlightX

This sort of statement reads like you're getting carried away rhetorically with your personal distaste for a position you've got your heart set on opposing. How can we reason about this view of philosophy if we heedlessly set to work with a polemic that appeals to our moral sentiments? This view of autonomy would have that applied physicists make use of physics as one makes use of another without regard or respect for their autonomy, as though applied physics prostitutes physics.

Just as it seems reasonable to ask the physicist "Should we keep on doing physics?" when this work threatens to destroy the earth, so too it seems reasonable to ask the philosopher similar questions when this work threatens to destroy.

Eh, don't read too much into it. I just couldn't care less about the posts of the windbag I was responding to. — StreetlightX

Yeah, sorry, I'm a little loathe to get into the middle of an extended debate on this forum between two members, especially when it seemingly supports one side of that debate. It's just that I've seen you rail against this idea a few times (including supporting Russell's (in my opinion very bad) idea that Wittgenstein's interest in therapy was him copping out because he could no longer do real work) and I've been wondering why someone I respect is so dismissive of the idea.

I do think they have an incredibly flawed understanding of philosophy: they treat philosophical cartography as a matter of collecting pretty things; they have a dilettante's understanding of philosophy. — StreetlightX

Using the cartography metaphor, I think it's more akin to seeing a map as a tool for getting you where you want or need to go. The point of working on your own map or adopting somebody else's is that you might need to call on it many times in your life, that you might desire or feel compelled to go many places with philosophy. Or, as in any activity, you might become deeply fascinated by the nature of the activity--you might have fun making maps, learning about how maps are made, the history of their various uses, the blunders that led us to perfect our current techniques. But when map-making becomes a sort of compulsion for its own sake, or (since you seem to prefer Nietzsche) an ascetic ideal, then you've lost the point of what it means to be engaging in cartography.

Ah, sadly the academy isn't perfect. They'll let any old dolt through once in a while. Somtimes, rooted agape by a series of shiny letters, people even look up to them. — StreetlightX

Uh...are you actually suggesting that therapeutic philosophy is such a bad idea that its practitioners are dolts that don't deserve tenure? What do you say of Wittgensteinians who take up a concomitant interest in the idea of philosophy as therapy, folks like Conant and McDowell? Would you call them dolts? Or am I misreading you entirely?

What's unsatisfactory about it?

Echoing Wittgenstein here, I suspect you might best confront your issues in working through the question "What more do I want?" and understanding the nature of your felt need.

In any case, really glad to see you feel like you're making progress! :up:

I think the idea you're gesturing towards is pretty close to the view of God being explored in the most prominent and interesting work being done today in the philosophy of religion. You might want to check out, for example, the exchange between Zizek and John Milbank.

As to why very smart members like Streetlight are quick to dismiss or ignore the sort of discussion you want about religion, I think there's a mix of reasons. (a) This forum is rife with people aggressively justifying their religious convictions with shoddy arguments and it gets tiring; (b) Philosophy of Religion has historically been a hotbed of really bad philosophizing and so people tend to start thinking about it derisively; (c) The two most absurdly dry and pedantic areas of philosophy at the moment are ethics and religion. The arguments being produced in these areas often take the form of frustrating self-righteousness and imperatives about how everyone else in philosophy should think and behave, and this tends to breed some contempt and wilful ignorance about contemporary work in these areas. It can get painfully boring and obnoxious to put in the energy necessary to talk deeply about these things--you have yourself admitted you don't have a very good grasp of the theory addressed in the OP.

:razz:

I'm just alluding to the influence Rand has had on certain people who have run the Fed. Just look what happened when the last Rand-inspired Fed chair took over (worst financial collapse since the Great Depression) versus, say, Janet Yellen, who was inspired by a serious thinker like Keynes. I mean, we can debate the relative merits of Keynes in the context of a conversation about great economic thinkers, but even if you disagree with him you ought to recognize that someone can manage things competently and intelligently if they're engaging with his thought. Things get pretty scary pretty fast if someone is making decisions on economic policy based on a lifetime spent engaging with e.g. L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy.

I feel passionately about child welfare and children's rights and there is nothing legalistic in my approach to that.

It also disturbs me that I could have a child if I wanted to despite no one knowing me or my capacities or dysfunctions. — Andrew4Handel

I appreciate your passion. It's a great thing to be passionate about. I just hope you find a way to be passionate without dismissing what I take to be some real issues at play in your way of thinking about these matters.

That said, there's not much more to say for me. I don't see how you feel you can hold the first proposition along with the second proposition and I find it bizarre that you take my concerns to be weird, fantastical, transcendental, etc. though there's no help for that if you can't as yet see things from my very mainstream perspective.

I suspect your views might win the day on this. One thing that’s lost sight of in all this back-and-forth debate about “SJWs” is that people once working on obscure philosophical issues that seemed totally bizarre and outrageous to a lot of people have had a huge effect on the way we now discuss issues surrounding identity, power, struggle, harassment, etc. For better or worse, of course. But I definitely see the beginning of a movement surrounding the issues which you clearly care about. So best of luck with that, I just urge you to take the concerns I’m expressing seriously, though if you feel that you have good reason to dismiss them then I hope some day you’ll reconsider.

(Edited.)

I am discussing whether people are entitled to have children and not whether life has joy and value. — Andrew4Handel

Not exactly. You're saying things like -- "You would have to work hard to survive even if you did not have children you are just passing on a burden." -- where I simply disagree that the child I raise in a loving home is me "passing on a burden".

You appear to be claiming that these things justify everyone having children. — Andrew4Handel

No. I openly expressed a concern about the possibility that getting too excessive with rights-talk and the potentially resulting legal mandates will diminish the goods which parents and children can receive in a loving household. This concern in no way clashes with other concerns about the suffering and harm caused by miserable parents.

You can hold that life has joy in it with out claiming people are entitled to have children. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. My concern was that you are advancing the sort of conceptual framework that looks at having children from the perspective of entitlement. And you don't seem to be able to get out of that framework because you are assuming that my statements must commit me to some position about who is and is not entitled.

If you look back, I only asked why I should change my mind and look at things your way because at first sight this looks to me like a silly way of looking at it. That's not an altogether unreasonable request and if you have any interest in winning allies I suggest you take the time to figure out how best to be persuasive and engage in that sort of conversation with someone.

If you think joy and pleasure count for having children then it would be consistent to recognise that things like, suffering, drug addiction, overpopulation count against people having children.[/i] — Andrew4Handel

Yes. I also believe that rights can only get us so far in dealing with concerns about suffering and openly questioned how you would address my worries about what might be lost if we focused excessively at suffering.

You were saying people that try and monitor and manage the welfare of children are too analytic and contrasted this with a sentimental picture of motherhood which in no way helps children in need of an intervention. — Andrew4Handel

No. I was expressing my concern that the excessive practice of rights-talk and reasoning about rights might lead us to lose sight of what is good in loving and healthy relationships. I expressed my concern that looking at parents and children as merely full rights-bearing individuals having claims against one another mediated by a higher power - such as judges backed by police - might lead to the type of society we don't want with a deterioration of the simple goods and pleasured to be found in healthy relationships.

That of course doesn't preclude us from punishing awful parents who act despicably.

It is questionable sentimentality that seemed to be your only argument after you questionable depiction of those "analytically" concerned with child welfare. — Andrew4Handel

I mean, if you can't see more to my concern than questionable sentimentality then I suppose that would speak more to your myopia than anything else.

This really suggests having children can't be justified by reason only sentiment which is a suspicion I had already. — Andrew4Handel

Well I am suggesting that I would be worried about the potential to reduce all Parent-Child relationships to a relation governed by rationality and that this would be bad in subtle ways (it could reduce our potential for love and intimacy, reduce our capacity to be loving to one another without justifying this to some higher purpose or rationality) and overt ways (the potential for government overreach).

It is not a sacrifice to take care of child that you created that did not ask to be born. It is like a masochistic imposition on yourself that you are portraying in the most sentimental unreasonable light that doesn't tally with historical evidence.
[...]
The matter of supreme importance is child suffering and suffering and individual integrity not someones desire to enact yet another narcissistic fictional drama with the fruit of their loins where they feature as some kind of heroic self sacrificing benevolent life giver. — Andrew4Handel

Since we've hit the point where you (a) simply refuse to recognize the potential joy and value of life, and (b) reject my initial invitation to have you explain how I am thinking about this matter the wrong way and why I should care about it like you do -- instead offering increasingly frantic assertions about how I'm living in some fantasy land because I love and respect my parents and aim to pass this love on to my children -- then I suspect that, as suggests, there's little conversation to be had without engaging in a needlessly tiring debate.

You are too unwilling to explain and justify your views to an unconvinced observer -- one who literally asks you to help change his mind! -- without resorting immediately to the notion that dissent reveals a lack of intelligence or moral character. God only knows why you bother to start a thread with such a sentiment.

Well there's a big literature on this stuff that I don't know terribly well, but in my idiosyncratic use I'd want to say 'scientific image' is how something looks from the scientific point of view. And I would think that, just as this chair looks different depending on the light, the position of my body, etc., the scientific image of something can change depending on how you're capturing it in various descriptions, models, applications, theoretical explanations, etc.

Hmm. Something like this?

1. We've carved up the world conceptually. Word-concepts apply to a variety of things.
2. We encounter something new through exploration.
3. This something has the manifest image of a pre-existing word-concept and so is something we could at first sight seemingly cover with the existing word-concept.
4. However, we discover that this thing has a scientific-image that is different from that which underlies the previously known iterations of the manifest image.
5. Therefore we have two options:
a. Extend the pre-existing word-concept to cover all versions of the manifest image and restrict the use of differential vocabulary to distinguishing between the two scientific images which underlie the manifest image.
b. Add a new word-concept in order to distinguish the manifest image by variations in the underlying scientific images.

Society does not function based on mothers playing with their children in the garden, rather on hard work, technology, exploitation,sacrifice and the like. — Andrew4Handel

No, society functions at its best to enable people to have the means to engage in healthy loving relationships, joy, and the simple pleasures of life. Many of us work hard, use technology and sacrifice on behalf of our children because we love them, want to be close to them, and want them to live a life that's best for them.

On my view, your vision of society, where we work hard, get exploited and sacrifice for its own sake, without some goal towards which we strive, is dystopian.

So using some kind of irrational sentimental template to justify the rest of what reality consists of, the real non manipulative harsh reality(famine war, disease, blind chance) I find more than disturbing and not the least philosophical. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know. You're talking about abstract reasoning regarding the rights and entitlements which ought to govern the way a whole society operates with respect to who does and does not get to participate in the remarkable joy of having a loving relationship with your child. It concerns me deeply when you think you can reason about these matters of supreme importance and yet you dismiss discussion of the mutual good of having loving playful days with your children as mere 'irrational sentiment'.

I am honestly a little disheartened that you took one sentence to attack from what was not an argument but instead a thoughtful explanation of my concerns and request for clarification and insight about how you feel I ought to go about rethinking my position. But hey this is philosophy so who knows why I expected something different.

In any case, you've exemplified one concern I have with this type of talk generally. When I say, hey, I'm worried about how this might eliminate the sort of value I see in the simple pleasure of a mother playing with her daughter, you reply with a shocking level of intensity without even addressing the underlying point, which you dismiss as naive.

The immediate notion that there's something insane or unhinged about my concern with preserving the simple pleasure of a mother playing with her daughter...like, WTF are you talking about? Some children starve to death, some children play in the garden with their mothers. Clearly what we want is to eliminate the former category and encourage the latter. If you had a childhood where you didn't play with your mother than I am sincerely sorry for you, but there's nothing "Disney" about such an idea. I have the pleasure of knowing a lot of mothers who enjoy loving relationships with their children.

It is an empathetic and not a legalistic mindset that refutes the right of people to have children along side personal experience of dysfunctional families.I can't think of any children's right movements inspired by legalism. — Andrew4Handel

Well, what do you mean by a "right"? Are you suggesting "Someone with empathy should feel that they are not entitled to have a children under these circumstances" or are you suggesting "Society should use formal or informal mechanisms to codify a set of rights which will prevent people from having children under these circumstances"?

Sincere question: What do you make of the flustered this is so effing stupid response?

A few years back I had a professor who was one of the leading voices in this weird academic niche of arguing for redistributing children to the most able parents, and I had to take this person's seminar. At the time I remember just being upset every day that we were even having the conversation, which struck me as analytic philosophy gone mad, the result of an increasingly frantic moral-rights talk.

But now I'm seeing a lot of these weird moral-rights talk games become serious conversations among normal people and I'm starting to feel like maybe I'm missing something? Maybe I'm just too close-minded? It just seems to me like a theoretical approach to the rights and duties of child-rearing is itself a stupid and dehumanizing approach, the last vestige of real human relations being drowned in an ever-growing sea of purely formal juridical relations. No long mother and child playing in the garden, but rights-holders and rights-bearers agreeing to participate in an activity that has been circumscribed and approved by abstract moral reasoning.

What am I missing?

I'd only want to say, his ideas resonated with me especially at that time in my life, and have had a lasting influence. — Baden

That's great! If I had a nephew who was an undergraduate and he came to me and said that he wanted to explore philosophy because of Pirsig I would think that's fantastic. If, later in life, he told me that he had aspired to become a philosopher because of Pirsig's influence - an influence which marked his whole way of looking at the world - also great. Or if he told me that he eschewed worrying too much about philosophy because he felt like he had got all that he needed from Pirsig - that reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle liberated him to live the life he wanted - also, I think, perfectly reasonable.

I would be pretty concerned, however, if he were suddenly in charge of the Fed and felt inspired to make decisions about monetary policy based on his exclusive dedication to Pirsig's philosophy.

For the same reason, if he told me that he wanted to get a PhD in philosophy writing a dissertation on Pirsig, I would almost certainly advise that this would be a really bad idea. The problems are: (a) dedicating three years of your life exclusively to studying Pirsig likely doesn't offer enough, on his own, to merit significant rewards; (b) society -- both at large and within the micro-society of academia -- won't recognize the topic as contributing much to the conversation of mankind.

It's worth noting the difference here with other non-philosophers like Tolstoy or Gandhi. Someone might reasonably earn a PhD in political philosophy from a great university with a dissertation that focused on, for example, Gandhi's views on nonviolence or Tolstoy's asceticism. And it would not be nearly as troubling for the Speaker of the House to live a life dedicated to the philosophy of Gandhi or Tolstoy.

This is all posturing, there's no way to prove a negative. The critique of Rand isn't this or that position she holds but that she is ignored by most because the vast majority of people interested in philosophy fail to see any value or sophistication in her attempts at philosophy. If the majority is wrong, the onus is on Rand and her supporters to demonstrate and convincingly argue for the power of her ideas. This is the basic premise of all dialectic and philosophical discourse between people who see each other as equals.

It's a great recommendation! Do you know of anyone good, other than Baker & Hacker, who fit the OP's criteria of writing a commentary that takes on the PI aphorism by aphorism?

I recommended Hacker/Conant/Diamond because those are the only high-quality examples I'm familiar with and in many ways they are among the few excellent philosophers who don't attempt to subsume Wittgenstein's thought into some broader historical interest or wider project. (When OP says he wants somebody "cold and clinical"... you think Hacker, no?) I much prefer C&D, but I think Hacker works as a great foil for them.

Sure, that's always been obvious. But there are many possible reasons for that other than "She's a moron and her philosophy is shit." — gurugeorge

Egg on my face for holding that position you randomly made up. :rofl:

Anyway, glad we agree it's "obvious" Rand is not a philosopher in any practical sense of the word. The second-order concern -- "should this be the case?" -- is surely up to everyone to judge for herself.

Good luck! Feel free to PM me if you don't like the direction we pointed you in or if you need more recommendations.

Well if you put it that way, then Rand isn't "ignored," but a modestly popular taste on the Right. (Lots of books sold, remember?) — gurugeorge

Sure, I guess. She has one philosophical work that cracks 500 citations and a philosophically-themed novel.

And if you want to use "intelligence," as a criterion, what better measure of general intelligence do we have than IQ tests? — gurugeorge

I don't want to use it as a criterion. That's why I did not mention it except in response to your quote. I am simply responding to the question "Is Ayn Rand a philosopher?" with "How do the many hard-working and smart people who comprise the community of people who evaluate and discuss philosophy treat her work?" And I take it the clear answer is that the majority of this community does not hold her work in very high esteem.

Neither of us recommended anything a grad student writing on Wittgenstein hasn't read. The summer school I mentioned is for professional and budding scholars focused on Wittgenstein as an AOS. Beyond that you'll have to look into the books yourself to see if they fit what you're looking for. There's not much more we can offer unless you want more targeted advice -- e.g. "Can someone give me the lay of the land on the literature surrounding McDowell, Kripke and Cavell on rule-following?" -- or more general recommendations (though that stuff should be clear enough: Cambridge Companion, Routledge Guide, etc.).

Generally a good guide, but not always. — gurugeorge

A good guide when discussing someone's intellectual status.

(Also, I'd be careful about that sort of appeal to authority - libertarians have the highest IQ of all the political persuasions ;) ) — gurugeorge

I'd be careful defending any political position that fails to adequately account for the views expressed by a large community of intelligent and hard working individuals from across the political spectrum. I'd also advise against equating IQ with any sort of insight or wisdom regarding politics.

So I've been looking for a book, idealy, that disects "Philosophical Investigations" remark by remark from start to finish, and just explains everything remark by remark. — Amit Mish'an

I believe what you're looking for is a series of books, the first of which is Wittgenstein : Understanding and Meaning, Volume 1 by PMS Hacker. There are also some summer courses offered by Cora Diamond and James Conant which go aphorism by aphorism within some delimited sections of the book. The audio is definitely floating around the web (pretty sure you can find the link if you check out Conant's UChicago website). Not to mention a lot of great lectures and programs you can find by typing his name into youtube or itunes podcasts (e.g. "In Our Time has a great episode on Witty).

Personally, I would recommend you consider a small book to start out with: Hans Sluga's Wittgenstein.

Like any big philosopher there is a mountain of literature on him so there's a lot more to point to. But those are definitely good starting points (along with Ray Monk's biography if you're interested in his life at all).

Well that's why I referenced him - like, come on guys, get off your arses, it's not totally alien to your own tradition. So what if you get it wrong and other philosophers laugh and point? Try. — gurugeorge

Sure, we can respectfully disagree. I'm still not sure how any of this relates to Rand and the entirely empirical matter of how utterly uninteresting her attempts at philosophizing seem to be to the majority of educated people who nonetheless flock to the grand political visions of Marx, Nietzsche, Arendt, Delueze, Foucault, etc. etc., or how Rand stands as some sort of testament to the failings of analytic philosophy over-against any of those far more worthwhile figures, but I promise to leave off obnoxiously prodding your position.

You're right, that's certainly a huge issue with current academic philosophy (though it's notable and interesting that you want to move in the direction of how Sellars views philosophy, so obviously the big-picture vision is not entirely dead in analytic departments). But we're talking about an individual's choice in engaging with the grand visions of various historical figures. So one again needs to wonder -- why engage with Rand over the myriad other options?

Here, I just don't see a good philosophical reason, though you're right that there is perhaps a good sociological reason. The problem with this 'sociological' reason, however, is that few want to spend the amount of time and energy it takes to master and respond to a thinker if they feel that time is not well spent -- who wishes to spend a year researching and writing an article (let alone a dissertation) on Rand instead of other folks who articulate their vision in a more cogent and rigorous way? Ultimately, her thought is not of high enough value to justify the personal expenditure for most individuals and so there's only a limited market for her intellectual services.

She wasn't "officially" a philosopher no, but she had a decent enough educational attainment (in the context of her milieu) to be not entirely discountable as a thinker. IOW, she was notably bright and did well at school and university, so people who try to make out that she was thick and utterly discountable are protesting too much. — gurugeorge

:brow:

Even were we to grant this rather dubious claim, is this not true of hundreds if not thousands of Assistant Professors around the world? Not to mention people like my Harvard/Oxford educated friend who can't even find a job in this market. And these people don't even generate enough interest for anyone to so much as bother to discount them as thinkers. Her being discounted is itself a sort of achievement that seems to fit with her level of qualification and accomplishments.

It's true that her understanding of philosophy and the history of philosophy isn't what's standard these days, but again, that's down to the context of her education — gurugeorge

Well, this is the reason why there are so many hyper-educated, very brilliant philosophers who virtually nobody bothers with any more, like Roy Wood Sellars or Leonard Linsky. But even then you're certainly inflating her qualifications and accomplishments within her own era.

One might say, in a trope, that her understanding of philosophy is frozen in amber, from a past time and another culture, and that's why it looks a bit strange to people who have been weaned on either the post-Frege/Russell analytic tradition or the post-Lukacs continental tradition. — gurugeorge

Sure, or perhaps their interests and ways of looking at things won out because they were a million times more interesting and intellectually sophisticated and are still worth engaging with. Hence, few still bother with Rand, just as few bother with Roy Wood or Linsky. As is the case with a lot of decent but ultimately unremarkable thinkers. Isn't this how every discipline works?

For example, criticisms of her ethics on the basis of the standard analytic is/ought distinction (such as Nozick's), completely miss the point that she really does take seriously the Aristotelian view that things have specific natures, which bypasses the Humean problematic entirely. — gurugeorge

There are plenty of brilliant Aristotelian female philosophers of the same era who continue to attract enormous attention, such as Anscombe and Arendt.

In sum, once one understands her context and limitations better, one tends to cut her some slack, and within those limitations, she's actually quite an interesting philosopher. But of course many people will be unwilling to cut her that slack, for the obvious reason that she was vehemently anti-Communist and pro-Capitalist. — gurugeorge

Are you sure? I have no doubt that you are sincere in finding her semi-interesting when you simply discount all her flaws and contextualize her as a heavily limited thinker of her era. But then, for the rest of us, why bother with her over the thousands of similar people for to whom we might extend the same courtesy?

Moreover, given the prevalence of anti-Communists and pro-Capitalists throughout the canon -- including literal Nazis -- doesn't it make a lot more sense to conclude that people are genuine in their belief that she is simply not a particularly remarkable thinker?

The problem with defending her through a mix of "people are ignorant of context" and "people don't like her nasty views" is that the same reasons for dismissal would seemingly apply to any of the myriad example of people who are taken very, very seriously in intellectual circles.

I'm sure there's an interesting question in here about the status of a philosopher, who gets to 'count' as a philosopher and who does this deciding in the absence of formal criteria.

Undergrads who are really into Rand are interesting, because once they get it into their head that her exclusion from respectable discussion is a mix of left-wing conspiracy and petty academic stupidity there's little anyone can do to explain convincingly why that's not the case.

At least from an institutional perspective, I think that Rand's philosophy is largely ignored for the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy is ignored: both wrote a bunch of novels and expressed a bunch of philosophical musings, both did so in a way that convinced a few folks that they're super geniuses with the keys to life answers, but ultimately there's nothing valuable, profound, or interesting to it -- and how the hell do you explain to all the various cult members why they don't earn more respect?

Nietzsche already more or less said that but kept doing it anyway. — csalisbury

I ask this sincerely. it seems like a virus of the mind, one with which I've been infected, and im really just tired of it. It doesnt care for its host, or others, and seems to have no raison d'etre of its own. — csalisbury

I disagree with Banno. If I've understood csalisbury rightly, then "just stop" as advice is akin to "be less depressed" when one is overtaken by a deep sense of pessimism.

I hope you'll forgive the obscene gesture of portentously quoting Nietzsche but I've had the feeling you seem to be describing quite often and it always triggers me reflecting on the following aphorism:

"Can an ass be tragic? - Can someone be destroyed by a weight he cannot carry or throw off? . . . The case of the philosopher." — Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

What can obstruct such an observation is that it can quickly reveal than we, including almost all the so called "experts", are not the intelligent rational people we like to assume ourselves to be. — Jake

As example, writing an article about Plato as your kitchen catches on fire could be labeled philosophy given that Plato is generally seen as an important philosopher. But surely such an activity could not be labeled an act of reason. — Jake

Personally, I choose not to give much attention to thinkers who can't reason their way to grasping that the kitchen fire is a more pressing matter than their Plato article. — Jake

What nuclear weapons can teach us is that as human beings we have a very tenuous relationship with reason. We think we are reasoning, but usually what we are doing is referencing authority, typically in the form of the group consensus. — Jake

I agree, these are all very pressing issues. I just wish society could figure it out where we have some group of people dedicated to questions like "What is reason?" so that we can enable more practically minded people to learn from and use that accrued wisdom in dealing with the very serious moral, economic and political issues facing the world.

Personally, I refuse to learn from anybody who has not written about nuclear weapons. It did make K-12 a bit tough but I got through it all right.

Glad you like it!

I find the Kyoto School incredibly beautiful but remarkably difficult to understand. If you come up with any interesting thoughts through reading them please come back and start a thread so I can comment! :smile:

You should read up on the Kyoto School. They present the most prolonged and sophisticated attempt to come to grips with the problematic you're gesturing at. They take this problematic to be "first philosophy" and give a reading of the Western philosophical canon from this perspective, claiming that we (in the West) are pathologically incapable of understanding the problem as a result of our cultural upbringing. They may be right about that, because I've never seen a discussion of the problem on this forum end in anything but an anarchy of condescension produced by a healthy dose of skeptical people taking the problem to be nonsense, simplistic, or stupid.

I believe that your goals might be best served by this course and related reading material.

If you're interested in Kant and Wittgenstein specifically I am sure a more capable member can help so long as you give a tad more explanation of what it is you might be looking for.

Kant has very little to say explicitly about language, although there's a saying that goes 'semantics is the soft underbelly' of Kant's thinking. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, wrote his two major books on language, but not "solely" on language because the crux of his genius and originality is his ability to show why it is the case that language cannot be separate from what it means to think, tickle a loved one, play in a field, etc.

But I agree, perhaps I was out of line. Actually, I know I was. But I am very sensitive when it comes to ideas about LGBT — Blue Lux

These are very sensitive topics which is why it's important -- though difficult! -- to maintain certain standards of discourse. I suspect with empathy and an open mind that you might get a sense of where some people are coming from and discover that some posts which you perceive as prejudiced against LGBTQ are rather other peoples' expressions of their own sensitivities. Hopefully, this might help you better understand their viewpoints and vice versa, while strengthening both of you in the struggle against all the very real forms of bigotry and prejudice that exist in the world.

Random quotes? Oh really? Jabbing a finger? Oh now I am the bad guy? Not the Virgin who makes a contention that transgendered people are fundamentally inauthentic and at base are delusional. Oh yes, the opposition to this is going to be very kind, caring and concerned of the other, and is going to be absolutely respectful!
And what is philosophy if it is without polemic? — Blue Lux

I've been reading that thread pretty carefully because I'm deeply pro-LGBTQ rights but also concerned that the moral legitimacy of the rights and claims made on these grounds are being used in some cases to justify some noxious behavior, including the legitimization of certain forms of bullying, and the current political climate seems geared towards forcing one to choose between one concern and the other. I refuse to choose because I accept that multiple legitimate moral concerns can exist simultaneously without competition and instead demand a need for analytical judiciousness and moral discretion.

In my view, it's not okay to shout people down with ten posts in a row no matter how morally bankrupt you might feel their world views to be. It's unacceptable to feel morally entitled to be rude to people whom you take yourself to be morally or intellectually superior to, which is the definition of mansplaining.

At least if you guys had let him/her have a third thread s/he would have had an outlet for his/her manic posting and I would still be able to follow the discussion happening in the original thread. Now we've got Blue Lux posting nine times (!) in a row.

Nine posts in a row is the philosophical equivalent of someone jabbing a finger at your chest screaming "And another thing!", "Oh, and another thing!"

I think overall we may need some clarification on the rules of multiple postings and multiple threads. My intuition is that there ought not be any hard and fast rule but it's more common sense. Five threads on the same topic are fine in theory if they're covering distinct aspects of the question in a manner that makes sense. Multiple posts in a row are fine if they're responding to distinct points within the thread which you might want to separate out for some reason. But neither are okay if you're just goofing around, insulting people, or throwing up random quotes.

I'm going to try and take some units of philosophy for fall and was wondering how do you go through getting the best out of it. — Posty McPostface

What courses are you thinking of taking? Have you done coursework before in philosophy?

I've always wondered how ancients and the great philosophers before us have studied philosophy. — Posty McPostface

It's a really great question! The ancient Greeks only left about 10,000 pages worth of extant works and of course very little work was done between antiquity and the Renaissance, so I think that it was actually possible until about 1800 or so to have read almost everything worth while by the time you were in your twenties, especially with much stricter and longer K-12 education.

As to habits, like when and how often did they do their thinking and writing....well gosh, now I am curious.

Is there some method to it? — Posty McPostface

Daily reading and writing? Trying to remain calm and joyful in your work? Engaging some secondary literature so you're not too far out on a limb?

But, in my free time, which I have an overabundance of, I was wondering how to follow through with studying philosophy out of academic constraints? — Posty McPostface

What are you looking for that you're not getting now? Your Wittgenstein thread is exemplary!

That's a really interesting post. One of my main interests was (still is, in an amateur sense) in how people hold and defend ideas, and places like this are irreplaceable as a resource for that. — Pseudonym

I am also interested in how people hold and defend ideas and came here with the expectation that I'd find all those great discussions and thoughts that the stuffy old out-of-touch academy stifles. That's in a vague, arrogant sense how I remember my brilliant "insights" from before I got wrapped up in and corrupted by an academic mindset. What I'm finding is that there's not much difference, and that what I'm remembering is almost certainly the arrogant tone of that youth which vastly underestimated others. Like, oh yeah, not that smart now but also not that smart then!

What's interesting for me about what you're saying is that I see so many similarities between the young would-be geniuses and some of the more seasoned academics, in terms of the way in which beliefs are held. The more seasoned simply have better rhetorical skills. — Pseudonym

This is one of the most informative threads on the site. It's (in my opinion so please nobody sue) absolute philosophical fluff couched in genius level posturing and it is all the more fascinating to see how effective that type of posturing is when it's going to work on total fluff. This might seem like an insult but it's certainly not, that guy has a 1000x my rhetorical skill and one's likely to be far more successful putting some philosophical meat on his skill than the other way around.

The whole discussion about post quality (though I get the feeling that it's really not quite about what I first thought it was) reminds me of certain team meetings where everyone agrees collectively that there needs to be improvements only each individual is nodding along sagely without realising that all the others think the improvement needed is their immediate dismissal. — Pseudonym

:lol: These posts are therapy because you get to see your own stupidities and myopia reflected in others. It's a test of your strength to try and avoid the sad little ego telling you "Oh no! I don't do that!"

Whoa! I thought you were jorn doe and I was taken aback by some of your responses, in other threads because it just didn't seem like his kind of wording.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum John! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Thanks for the welcome! Hope my prose isn't too awful then! :yikes:

Maybe because I'm new, but I still feel like I learn a lot from even very low quality posts.

The number of people who come in here thinking they've proven some huge metaphysical point in only two paragraphs of dubitable axioms and erroneous inferences; the posturing of clearly very young men (~18-21) who are deeply frustrated that their brilliant ideas or interests are almost completely ignored, thinking that this says something about their genius over/against society rather than their own problematic interests; the way that certain threads are filled to like Page 63 with lots of awful posts along with interesting posts has given me a bit of a new perspective on how it feels to (for example) enter into Hegel scholarship; the fact that some big name posters get away with slightly shameful posts that would go ignored or have angered the mods if made by a new member due to having built up seniority and relationships reminds me a lot of tenure and academic networking.

In short, the way this place works as an institution reminds me so much of academic philosophy that it's (a) given me a new perspective on what's going on in academia; (b) got me suspecting that it's no accident that academic institutions run the way they do -- perhaps this is simply what happens when you throw a lot of people from different ages and life circumstances together to engage cooperatively in thinking about philosophy.

Thanks, this helps give a lot of context to the old posts explaining what happened. I guess I never understood what happened because I could never wrap my mind around the idea: Who the hell buys a philosophy forum to turn a profit? And what good would it do to bully the members who in effect are the site?

From what I am reading it looks like Paul got paid handsomely and the site remained completely in tact (in this version) despite some drama, so I think everybody wins.

I can see why Paul would stop frequenting the site. The nasty nature of the destruction of the older site and change over to this one must have been hard on him but I am very glad that he appears to have received a duly deserved financial reward for all his work.

In any case, there's this very interesting post from Paul:

Maybe so according to the notion that more = better, but the most fun times I had at PF were in '02-'05. For me, the discussions were more fun precisely because there were few enough people that I could actually read a whole thread instead of having to skim 10 pages super-quick. And it was possible to get a good back and forth going with someone. Why bother to post if there are going to be too many replies to engage with? — Paul