Personally I do think the current paradigm could do with a lot more scientific method — alieninstinct
Daniel Dennett respects Nietzsche, as does Rorty, Heidegger, Alva Noe, Evan Thompson, Deleuze, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Jean-Luc Nancy, Lyotard, Freud, most constructivists and constructionists , postmodernists and postructuralists, many pragmatists and hermeneuticists, enactivist approaches in cogntive science and philosophy of mind, and recent theories of perception .I have found that he revels in contradiction, and that it's therefore not my cup of tea. As have most professional contemporary philosophers. — NKBJ
He also wasn't a conventional philosopher by any means. He appeared more often as a common man in contrast to the self-aggrandizing and pedantic rhetoric of his contemporaries. — whollyrolling
I would recommend Heidegger or Deleuze's book-length reading of Nietzsche but I'm guessing you wouldn't be thrilled with those writers either. — Joshs
Logic: it's inherently illogical to try and make a logical argument against logic. — NKBJ
You can tweak rules of logic, maybe, but you can't just do away with it altogether and maintain sense. — NKBJ
The establishment is always by definition slow to catch on. — Joshs
There is no law of nature which requires all of reality to make sense. It's entirely possible that we are only able to see the components of reality which make sense to US, a tiny half insane semi-suicidal creature on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. — Jake
What could be our grounds for positing that there are things, or that there could be a "nature" to some things, that don't make sense to us, though? How could we know this? — Terrapin Station
There is no law of nature which requires all of reality to make sense. It's entirely possible that we are only able to see the components of reality which make sense to US, a tiny half insane semi-suicidal creature on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc.
A dog would describe the Internet as a square shiny thing covered with blinking lights. A pretty good description from the perspective of a dog's observation, but also a thoroughly inept explanation of a level of abstraction which is simply beyond the ability of even the very smartest dog.
We might be wary of any attempt to impose our own severe limitations upon all of reality, a realm we currently can't confidently define in even the most basic manner. — Jake
Ah, but we can explore the ways in which we are ignorant, insane and otherwise limited, and we can talk about that. — Jake
As for the insane bit: if we allow for insanity, it's all just a jumbled mess and there's no point to any of it. — NKBJ
Yeah, but it's THE tool. You literally can't make sense without it. — NKBJ
It's also possible that there is nothing that we can't really understand. — Terrapin Station
Nietzsche and Heidegger post-modernists?From personal experience, whenever I have brought up ''post-modernist'' thinkers (e.g. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, etc.) there has always been a look of caution if not outright trepidation in the eyes of my philosophy professors. — philosophy
No, it's not THE tool. It's a tool. A useful tool without question. You seem to be assuming that making sense is the only valid operation. So you should watch this excellent (very entertaining!) video called. — Jake
Yes, possible. Not very likely in my view, but this is clearly debatable. — Jake
I'm of the view that there's no way to determine likelihood for these sorts of things. — Terrapin Station
You can go down that rabbit hole if you choose to. I have no interest in it. That which is nonsensible is simply not of interest to me. — NKBJ
But don't say I didn't warn you if you get lost or stuck or just plain bored on your fantastical spelunking adventure. — NKBJ
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.