My argument is that the thing that matters to Mr. Davidson is not a thing that matters in the context of life, concrete existence, it is simply an abstract, formal consideration. Don't take my word for it: "I dip into these matters only to distinguish them from the problem raised by malapropisms and the like." — JerseyFlight
What makes you think that Davidson cares about whether his distinction matters "in the context of life. concrete existence". Does music matter in that context, does poetry or the arts generally? Any pursuit, which is not a purely practical pursuit only matters insofar as it gives pleasure, exercises and strengthens the emotions, the intellect and/or the body in some way (preferably all three).
Pursuit of disciplines that one is genuinely interested in is better than mindless passive entertainment, because insofar as they develop the emotions, intellect and the body, people's lives are improved by such pursuits, and the improvement of individuals benefits society. In fact without the improvement of individuals there is not any benefit to society; no improvement of society at all. Society has never been improved by ideologues, or any other form of dogmatist.
It seems to me it's your notion of 'only that matters which benefits society' in its narrow ideological conception that is an abstraction and is elitist and idealist to boot. You are a walking performative contradiction; imputing to others, and attacking them for, all the negatives you exemplify.
"Further, philosophy can't explain this, it belongs to the domain of psychology." Jersey Flight
Please tell us just what it is, in the context of these kinds of questions of distinction, that philosophy can't explain but that psychology can, and how? — Janus
What makes you think that Davidson cares about whether his distinction matters "in the context of life. concrete existence". Does music matter in that context, does poetry or the arts generally? — Janus
I never claimed that one cannot ascend, rather, descend to an aesthetic pursuit of analytical philosophy. In that case we must stop pretending like it carries some kind higher relevance, or counts as some kind of higher social discourse. It doesn't, the real objective work is being done in other areas, analytical philosophy is an exercise in abstract games. I would even argue that this particular social form detracts from what can actually be achieved with language, it literally has a negative social value. This is not hard to prove:
Here I merely need to repeat my practical argument: 'You will still be using language just like we are still using mathematics after Gödel. And what matters most of all, is not papers like Davidson's, but those who figure how to use words to make the world a better place. Should we get a million people to read this paper by Davidson, or should we get a million people to read, "The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog," by Perry and Szalavitz? There is no contest. What these authors are doing in terms of relevance blows Davidson out of the water. And remember, life is short, so this is a decision we must make over and over again, and this is what I know: analytical philosophy loses.'
Language is psychological as well as developmental, you will not explain it by multiplying analytical philosophy's abstractions. If you miss vital stages of development you will be cognitively impaired, most especially in your language capacity. This is not an abstract consideration... analytical philosophy doesn't tell us anything here! What people are doing on this thread cannot even be justified in terms of real-world-relevance. As your response betrays, it's just an aesthetic game that analyzes abstract ideals. One is entitled to it, but one is not entitle to call it responsible philosophy.
"Another reason this [Analytical Philosophy] is fruitless is that the analyses we devise would not be particularly useful, even if one of them were widely accepted. The analyses that epistemologists now debate are so complicated and confusing that you would never try to actually explain the concept of knowledge to anyone by using them. So what is the point?..." Michael Huemer — JerseyFlight
So what is the point?..." — JerseyFlight
The "point" is merely to sharpen one's mind in this particular game, just to explore the possibilities of a certain kind of analysis. If you enjoy it, then there's a point to it; if not then not.
Who are you to simply pronounce that this pursuit "has a negative social value"? If it is "not hard to prove", then why have you not done so? In what way do you think it has a negative social value, and what's your argument for thinking so?
Instead of derailing this thread, why not start another entitled "Analytic Philosophy Has a Negative Social Value", and make your case there? — Janus
Who are you to simply pronounce that this pursuit "has a negative social value"? — Janus
I did not merely pronounce it, I provided a practical argument. Further the quote by Huemer, who has written 60 plus books (I don't like this game but will do it anyway only because of how analytical philosophers think, which is in terms of elitism) -- how many books have you written?
In what way do you think it has a negative social value, and what's your argument for thinking so? — Janus
Quite simple: people are communicating all over the place. Not all communication is the same, neither is it equivalent in terms of social value. Just take a look at this thread for instance, there are vast problems in the world and here we have a bunch of people talking about the abstract ideals of language, as refugees shuffle from island to island, as America collapses into authoritarianism, as the globe continues warming, as children lack essential nutrients and come from broken homes that shatter their cognitive quality and potential, and you stand here, bold faced, defending the doctrinaire, academic eccentricities of one Donald Davidson?
Let me tell you what the men who wrote the book I referenced have done with their communication. They have probed deeply into the damage that trauma inflicts on young lives, and they have sough to find a way to heal these poor, young, abused members of our species. There is no contest. The very fact that analytical philosophy has conditioned you to come at me the way you are is only further proof of its elitism, irrelevance and special pleading for its prolix form and idealist cause. Tell me, what are you really doing with your time when you spend it probing this kind of stuff? There is a vast world of productive and relevant communication beyond it! Communication that actually achieves real world value. And if you are not giving your time to this, then you are blinded, you are playing at mere abstraction, as Peter Unger said, a bunch of "empty ideas" that lead nowhere. — JerseyFlight
I did not merely pronounce it, I provided a practical argument. Further the quote by Huemer, who has written 60 plus books (I don't like this game but will do it anyway only because of how analytical philosophers think, which is in terms of elitism) -- how many books have you written? — JerseyFlight
The very fact that analytical philosophy has conditioned you to come at me the way you are is only further proof of its elitism, irrelevance and special pleading for its prolix form and idealist cause. Tell me, what are you really doing with your time when you spend it probing this kind of stuff? — JerseyFlight
There is a vast world of productive and relevant communication beyond it! Communication that actually achieves real world value. And if you are not giving your time to this, then you are blinded, you are playing at mere abstraction, as Peter Unger said, a bunch of "empty ideas" that lead nowhere.
Training in Analytic Philosophy may sharpen the critical intellect — Janus
Mostly Spinoza, the German Idealists, Heidegger, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, some Peirce, some James, some Dewey, some Frankfurt School, a smattering of Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze, bits and pieces of Zizek, — Janus
In any case why are you seeking to make this about me, rather than addressing my arguments? — Janus
To say Analytic Philosophy is nothing but "empty ideas that lead nowhere" is a dogmatic pronouncement — Janus
This is no better than religious puritanism which arrogates to itself the right to declare what has value and what doesn't for others. — Janus
I'm going to make a single point and then leave you to your crusade. — Srap Tasmaner
Bertrand Russell... He was also a prominent antiwar activist among many other things. — Srap Tasmaner
Michael Dummett, one of the most prominent philosophers in the analytic tradition essentially suspended his professional work for a few years to campaign for immigrants' rights and racial equality. — Srap Tasmaner
The point of these examples and of the Tarski quote I posted isn't that analytic philosophy can save the world, but that we don't need you to tell us the world is on fire. — Srap Tasmaner
This is true of Analytic philosophy for neglecting the experiential/embodies/practical side, but it's also true of Continental philosophy for neglecting the mathematical/ideal/linguistic side. — Pfhorrest
Not at all. Read more carefully next time: 'has conditioned you to come at me the way you are...' This is a reference to your approach, your method. — JerseyFlight
That's what Peter Unger argued in his Oxford book against Analytical Philosophy. It's even titled, "Empty Ideas." — JerseyFlight
If you want to see real life puritans try questioning the value of the Analytical form and see what happens. — JerseyFlight
It is as if he sought to cure alcoholism by interrupting the winos on the street and smashing their bottles and beating them up. — unenlightened
The last forty or fifty years can characterised in terms of the application of analytic techniques to areas previously not consider part of the analytic analytic - Phenomenology, psychology and psychiatry, social theory — Banno
Or tell me about the value of Analytical Philosophy in general? — JerseyFlight
Thanks for this quote. Got me googling. Here is the (oh so true) source:"Another reason this [Analytical Philosophy] is fruitless is that the analyses we devise would not be particularly useful, even if one of them were widely accepted. The analyses that epistemologists now debate are so complicated and confusing that you would never try to actually explain the concept of knowledge to anyone by using them. So what is the point?..." Michael Huemer — JerseyFlight
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.