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

I still haven't seen your argument. Here we have instead a classic appeal to authority, and an implied ad hominem to top it off. Nice work!

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

I actually haven't studied much analytic philosophy. 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, some phenomenology. I am a self-admitted dilettante. I read as much poetry as I do philosophy. In any case why are you seeking to make this about me, rather than addressing my arguments?

As to what I am doing with my time: in participating in the discussion this new thread has been copied from, I'm pursuing ideas that are of some interest or that I feel offer some new insight, some way of looking at things I haven't encountered before.

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.

Of course practical research and communication in the everyday world may produce "real world value". Training in Analytic Philosophy may sharpen the critical intellect, which could then benefit any practical discipline, thus enhancing its "real world value".

To say Analytic Philosophy is nothing but "empty ideas that lead nowhere" is a dogmatic pronouncement that smacks of wowserism. This is no better than religious puritanism which arrogates to itself the right to declare what has value and what doesn't for others.

If you’re a person curious about ideas, you’d probably find something you like in such broad categories if you dig enough. That is, if you’re actually curious about ideas, instead of treating it as sports. I mean intellectual history of schools of thought has some importance, but ultimately, why should anyone care.

Yeah. This shit is like the idpol of philosophy. Drama for the small minded (not this thread, @Janus - which rightly de-tumored Banno's - but those who like to label and belittle on the basis of said labels).

Training in Analytic Philosophy may sharpen the critical intellect — Janus

In what sense does it sharpen it? Unto what end? Unto what purpose? Every critical thinking book I have read in my life has been vastly superior to the analytical philosophy I have encountered. Critical thinking is far more efficient.

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

Only Wittgenstein would be considered an analytical philosopher from this list.

In any case why are you seeking to make this about me, rather than addressing my arguments? — Janus

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.

To say Analytic Philosophy is nothing but "empty ideas that lead nowhere" is a dogmatic pronouncement — Janus

That's what Peter Unger argued in his Oxford book against Analytical Philosophy. It's even titled, "Empty Ideas."

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

If you want to see real life puritans try questioning the value of the Analytical form and see what happens.

I'm going to make a single point and then leave you to your crusade.

By all accounts, Bertrand Russell was one of the founders of what came to be called analytic philosophy. He was also a prominent antiwar activist among many other things.

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.

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. Do you think Tarski, after he fled Poland, forgot? Do you think any of us here live in the Ivory tower you imagine us building?

Presumption.

I'm going to make a single point and then leave you to your crusade. — Srap Tasmaner

If we're going to be analytical, you made more than a single point.

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

And these things have value, right?

And these activities are not Analytical Philosophy, right?

In fact, one must forsake Analytical Philosophy in order to pursue them, right?

Were Russell and Dummett wise to forsake Analytical Philosophy to pursue these things?

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

My argument is not about the world being on fire, but that Analytical Philosophy is lacking in value, that it's a personal hobby. My argument is also that it's just one form of communication, and when we view it as a form of communication among many forms of communication, we can see that it comes out at a very low place in terms of relevance and real world value.

This argument is dumb. Analytic and Continental philosophy both tackle important questions. There is a continuous spectrum from mathematical, ideal, or linguistic abstractions, to the experiential, embodied, practical life. (That's why I subtitled my book "from the meaning of words to the meaning of life").

Neglect either and the other suffers for its absence. 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. Both have their value, and each is of greater value in combination with the other.

Also, this kind of back-and-forth between abstract and practical philosophy has been a pattern for pretty much the entire history of the whole thing:

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

I am not talking about Analytical Philosophy versus Continental Philosophy. I am talking about forms of communication and real world value in contrast to Analytical communication. Neither am I claiming that mathematics or linguistics are not important, but these are not Analytical Philosophy. Analytical Philosophy might have their own questions they like to ask of these disciplines, but I am specifically referring to Analytical Philosophy. This thread was taken from a thread on Donald Davidson. Please go read the paper by Davidson and come back here and report on its value. I am open and ready to hear it.

Janus, if you wish to have a discussion, that is fine. But we should not call other members out on the board like this. If you wish to have a discussion with the people you are citing, then private message them. Calling them out, out of context publicly is not what we're here for.

The analytical approach lends itself to getting lost in the weeds, because it ignores the need for a constant back and forth between synthesis and analysis. Like a painter who takes a step back to look at the whole picture, the philosopher needs to « zoom out » once in a while, This allows him to briefly check that he is making sense at the aggregate, big picture experience level, before diving in the weeds of analysis again.

That it’s biggest problem: too detail oriented, not enough big picture coherence. Another issue is that some fake philosophers used this propensity of analysis to get lost in details intentionally, as a way to hash out facile, fake, meaningless philosophy that bewilders the average Joe, so this brings it a bad reputation.

I have no idea what you are talking about, all I've done is moved the discussion I was already having to this new thread since it was derailing the other.

:up:

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

No, you were making unwarranted assumptions about what I have been "conditioned" by.

That's what Peter Unger argued in his Oxford book against Analytical Philosophy. It's even titled, "Empty Ideas." — JerseyFlight

I'm not interested in references to works unless you want to quote passages from them that contain arguments to support your claims. I haven't seen an actual argument yet or any attempt to address any of the points I've made.

If you want to see real life puritans try questioning the value of the Analytical form and see what happens. — JerseyFlight

This is a completely unsupported generalization. You should be able to provide something more substantive.

Thanks, Janus, for this thread.

Moving off-topic discussion is standard practice.

Analytic philosophy, considered as the broad thrust of English-speaking philosophy since Moore and Russell, is now pretty much ubiquitous; indeed so much so that little is served by attempting to differentiate it from other approaches. 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... All use the techniques and strategies developed under the analytic umbrella.

Analytic philosophy is also pretty demanding, drawing on the extraordinary growth in logic after Frege; the understanding of language that came from work in Cambridge and Oxford; the analysis of scientific method and method more generally, form Quine, the Vienna circle, Popper; the focus on metaethics and deontology that resulted in new ways to view ethical issues... A dilettante is likely to mistake the puddles around the edges for what is a deep and broad sea.

And in the end, criticism from the ignorant is not critique.

I think it's best just to stick with Davidson. Just tell me about the value of his essay? This is all I really care about. Or tell me about the value of Analytical Philosophy in general? Life is exceedingly short, and I know of all kinds of tremendously valuable forms of communication scattered throughout the social sciences, Analytical Philosophy is not one of them. You show me what you can draw from Davidson, and I will show you what I have drawn from Perry and Szalavitz. This approache cuts through the abstraction and forces these forms to produce content. I call your bluff, now it's time to show your hand.

One has to wonder why someone who is cognisant of the terrible effects of trauma on human development is so negative, aggressive, accusatory, and unsympathetic to us, the traumatised, who are merely wasting our damaged lives in a fruitless roundabout of words as a diversion from the pain we all suffer. It is as if he sought to cure alcoholism by interrupting the winos on the street and smashing their bottles and beating them up.

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

You want to compare the academic elitism of Analytical Philosophy to the suffering of homeless addicts? You're claiming that you are like a poor, helpless Analytical Philosopher who is being physically beat and needs to be saved? I do indeed have a problem with this, and so should everyone else. I don't even know what to say.

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

Examples? It's very strange you claim this, because the social sciences have moved away from idealism and into the domain of concrete observation. If one just takes the example of Neurobiology, this has nothing to do with Analytical Philosophy, it's all based on observation. And I might add, it has a thousand times more explanatory power than any of the abstraction contained in your field.

Old fortune cookie:

Missing forest for trees is blind, missing trees for forest is empty.

:death: :flower:

Zen Kant?

Or tell me about the value of Analytical Philosophy in general? — JerseyFlight

As often the case, the term is also a way to define oneself in opposition to the other, i.e. "continental philosophy" in this case. Moreover, the word "analytical" in this context functions less as a methodological commitment to analysis (as opposed to say, synthesis) than as a critique of "continental philosophy" as generally "non-analytical" (mystical, poetic, intuitive, fun to read perhaps but not logical and rational).

By defining him or herself as an analytic philosopher, one is therefore saying: "I'm none of them heady continentals. I'm the dry, rational, English-speaking type of philosopher".

Other than that, what? How do you define the class of all 'analytical philosophy'?

Back when I played tournament chess, I noticed that we amateurs were always a generation or two or three behind what was going on in chess at the highest levels. It's that ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny thing again. When you're a young player, one of the best ways to improve and become more successful is to study old books like My System or Zurich 53 or My 60 Memorable Games because the people you're playing against tend to be at a level of chess where the techniques and approaches of grandmasters from years gone by are really effective. But real chess has long since moved on.

I often find myself thinking the same thing about philosophy. We amateurs are often still catching up to where philosophy was generations ago.

Analytic philosophy, I think, hasn't really been a thing for some time now. But philosophy doesn't have crosstables, and it doesn't have Elo ratings, and that only leaves fashion.

Btw, your thread should be called "Does Analytical Philosophy Have a Negative Social Value?" just to make it clear it's not about anything at all.

My apologies then, I stepped out of line. I suppose I will weigh in then.

While we can criticize individual philosophy writings "style", noting one paper being of little use is not enough to criticize all papers using this style. Further, what can be attributed to analytic philosophy is broad and varied. It is a shed word that we shove a bunch of other tools of thinking into.

And tools are how we should approach methods of thinking. Sometimes one approach to analysis is successful where another tool would be better. Stating one tool is "worthless in all cases" requires a great amount of citation and logical critique, which is not being offered here. Without this, it is merely an opinion war. A screwdriver may be worthless when one wants to hammer nails, but its pretty effective when they want to use screws instead.

Unless someone can point out very real negative value to society caused by the countless analytic philosophy papers that have been released over the centuries, continuing to assert that analytic philosophy is harmful as a whole would not be a philosophical conversation.

Reading further replies, it appears JerserFlight realizes this and want to focus on Davidson again in particular. JerseyFlight, since you've read the paper, what did you find worthless about Davidson's argument? While we cannot say all of analytic philosophy is worthless, it may be the case for this particular paper.

"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

Thanks for this quote. Got me googling. Here is the (oh so true) source:

https://fakenous.net/?p=1130

Summarized by the author as: "Analytic philosophers focus too much on playing with concepts, and not enough on thinking about the parts of reality that matter."