Analytic philosophers focus too much on playing with concepts, and not enough on thinking about the parts of reality that matter." — Olivier5

I will be starting a thread later that is related to this one. I'll briefly explain myself here and make a fuller accounting in the other thread. The reason I won't post it here is because the thread will also address other ideas besides Analytical philosophy.

Now, Jersey already knows some of my thoughts on Analytical philosophy, an area where our views share some overlap, however I feel he has misinterpreted the meaning I was trying to convey. Which is my fault for not being substantive enough to do my own point justice.

What I have said, Privately; Analytic philosophers are very good at being half of a philosopher.

Now you'll probably be thinking "only a continental philosopher would say such a thing." But then you'd be making the same assumption I am about to demonstrate.

This statement may sound like an attack on analytic philosophy, but it's actually just an attack on some analytical philosophers. Which is a very important distinction to make.

Now Jerseys issues revolve around the behaviour of some analytic philosophers. He attributes the behaviour to analytical philosophy. This, is an assumption on his part that he has correctly identified the cause of the behaviours.

In order to demonstrate what I mean;
Lets say that X is a belief about philosophy.
Y is a belief about ethics.
Z is a questionable behaviour with a cause.

For the next part, I'm going to use some famous philosophers names as examples but will not be talking about their historically held beliefs, I'll just be saying their belief is X and/or Y for the purposes of the explanation.

Wittgenstein Believes X
Wittgenstein Believes Y
Wittgenstein Engages in Z

Socrates does not Believe X
Socrates Believes Y
Socrates engages in Z

Hume Believes in X
Hume does not Believe Y
Hume does not engage in Z

Dewey does not Believe in X
Dewey does not Believe in Y
Dewey does not engage in Z

Based on this, what causes Z?
X or Y?

Now so I'm not making a single cause Fallacy, let's assume that Socrates did not engage in Z. This would suggest that in order to engage in Z, one must believe in X and Y at the same time. Meaning the combination of X and Y creates another value, which we will call W, that we can say is the cause of Z.

Personally, I think that the problem isn't analytical philosophers in general. The problem is the beliefs some analytical philosophers have.

Like any tool, analytical philosophy has it's uses. It is down to the believer to make sure the belief is being applied correctly to the context. This will mean that sometimes it's useless, other times it will not be. We can never be certain if a tool is useless in a given situation when what may be stopping the tool from working is in fact another tool we are using along with it.

I can make pancake batter with a whisk and a bowl, I cannot cook pancakes without a pan and a heat source.

Which is why I say that analytical philosophers are very good at being half a philosopher. All that means is that a tool user is good at using his tool or he isn't. He can't do his job without all the tools he needs.

I can give you a tool, I can teach you how to use it. What I can't do, is tell you that it's a universally applicable tool. There may be some kind of job I've never done with that tool in order to find out it is useless.

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

Maybe, Maybe not. I do however have very little faith in your ability to recognise who the ignorant are and are assuming it is not you.

Can't believe how unjustifiably full of themselves some people on this forum are and how rude they can be when ignoring people who disagree with them. Trust me @Banno your time is not that important that it requires you to be so picky about where and who you spend it on. Methinks someone is just trying a little too hard to control their public image, not realising that they barely have one worth trying to control. I'd say get down from your ivory tower, but I can see you have just walked up a hill and are pretending to have built an ivory tower only you can see. Boring.

I don't believe Analytical philosophy has a negative social value.

I do think some analytical philosophers do.

I can tell people what I think is the thing that has the negative social value, but people won't like to hear that ugly truth.

But philosophy doesn't have crosstables, and it doesn't have Elo ratings... — Srap Tasmaner

Could we do that? I'm in. But I'd not expect a high score; my Lichess correspondence score never gets over 1600, and blitz, never over 1200.

You are right. The analytic/continental distinction was waning when I went to school fifty years ago. What I see in my small understanding of contemporary philosophy is the application of analytic techniques to issues that would have then been classified as continental. Always small steps that are not going to impress the folk in the stalls, but interesting enough for me.

Could we do that? I'm in. But I'd not expect a high score; my Lichess correspondence score never gets over 1600, and blitz, never over 1200.

You are right. The analytic/continental distinction was waning when I went to school fifty years ago. What I see in my small understanding of contemporary philosophy is the application of analytic techniques to issues that would have then been classified as continental. Always small steps that are not going to impress the folk in the stalls, but interesting enough for me. — Banno

@JerseyFlight The above quote is where you should look for the thing with the real negative social value. It isn't Analytic philosophy. Just ignore him. Not worth your time. He can barely reciprocate any of the time I spend on him. It's just getting transparent as to why now too. Don't throw gems into a feeding trough. You'll just lose the gems. Don't even waste your time trying to show him how to use the toy he chose to buy when it was literally able to be picked up outside.

↪Srap Tasmaner — MSC

?

Are you serious right now?

Analytic philosophy, as I understand it, is a tonic, a roborant. It's a cure for what ails philosophy to the extent philosophy is assailed by the grotesqueries and mummeries of certain practitioners, which arise from the misuse of language, the appeal to the mystical, reification, dualism, Romanticism, jargon and other blights. It may restore clarity and vigor to critical thought, and ferret out appeals to the occult (meaning hidden or concealed) as explanation. Good training for analytical thinking of the kind employed by the finest lawyers too. That's social value enough for me.

Analytic philosophy, as I understand it, is a tonic, a roborant... — Ciceronianus the White

...and an emetic!

Unless one dislodges the elitist assumption, that lies at the base of this elitist position, the elitism will remain. This assumption states that one is engaged in a superior philosophy because one is engaged in a more sophisticated form. Nothing has been offered to sustain this assumption aside from the fact of the bare form itself, but no one has shown what it is that gives this form value. In the alternative form I provided, it would be nearly impossible to deny that its form produced value -- and not just an aesthetic value, but a value the goes beyond mere subjectivity -- social value.

Analytic philosophy, as I understand it, is a tonic, a roborant. It's a cure for what ails philosophy to the extent philosophy is assailed by the grotesqueries and mummeries of certain practitioners, which arise from the misuse of language — Ciceronianus the White

You are quite mistaken. Davidson's article was one of skepticism, "there is no such thing as a language." Analytical Philosophy does not bring clarity, and neither does it make real-world-progress, what it does is produce a semantic narrowing! I contend that you only think this about Analytical Philosophy because it purports to be so logical, but the way in which it is logical, ends up negating both value and relevance.

I take this to be a strong antithesis to the Analytical form: one doesn't have to use the Analytical style to arrive at truth. One doesn't have to use the Analytical form to state a true premise. Conclusion: the Analytical form must justify itself against the relevance and value of other forms. Why? Because life is exceedingly short. The Analytical form demands that truth take on a certain form in order to be considered valid or valuable, this is false, even as the Analytical Philosopher makes more use of other forms than he does his own form. He does this because his own form is lacking in real-world-value. His form is a game that is not conducive to reality.

I'm just gonna come right out and say it. I am putting in a lot of effort to honestly engage with individuals on this site and contribute something, anything I can of value to the discussions. I do not get the same in return. I am ignored and excluded from conversations in which I have the same right as anyone to take part in. This is a public forum and last I checked there wasn't a sign on the door saying "People with degrees only."

I don't know if it is cowardice, jealousy or just plain ignorant arrogance but it's pretty pathetic and removes a lot of the general respect I have for everyone, from the individuals that do this. Show me something to respect and prove me wrong.

:up:
:smirk:

You old farts are the bees' knees. Sláinte. :mask:

Davidson's article was one of skepticism, "there is no such thing as a language." Analytical Philosophy does not bring clarity, ... — JerseyFlight

Seems fallacious to blame an entire philosophical school for the sins of one (or a even few) of its renown acolytes. I think it's more accurate to say "Davidson's philosophy does not bring clarity ..." (I agree).

What is that supposed to mean exactly?

I call your bluff, now it's time to show your hand. — JerseyFlight

That's hailarious! I haven't claimed anything about the value of analytic philosophy other than that it, like other intellectual pursuits, can sharpen the critical mind. It also can reveal insights specific to its domain, that obviously would not come to light if no one studied it. This is true of any area of intellectual pursuit. You are the one claiming that it has "negative social value". So, I think the burden is on you to make an actual argument to support your claim.

Well, if the shoe fits. If it encourages outright bullying, discrimination and exclusion then it does have a negative social value.

I did provide an argument in defense of the analytical method, but the behaviour being displayed by some of the individuals here, also defending it, is utterly shocking to me. It utterly shocks me because these people are clearly aware of what they are doing yet still holding high opinions of themselves while trying to make others feel inferior. So I don't even know what to make of my own argument.

Maybe Belief in X is the cause of Z if this displayed behaviour is supposed to be evidence of it.

Nevermind, I'm not going to change my thoughts. Some people just aren't aware of their privilege and sense of entitlement I guess.

:up: yes, and the kind of iconoclastic analysis you are referring to is not confined to the anal tradition either! The intercontinentals also did their fair share :lol: laxative too for the anally retentive. :joke:

Why are you worried about the behavior of individuals? Aren't you here to do some philosophy, to learn? The people you refer to can likely teach you something if you stop focusing on their behavior and pay attention to what they are saying. Of course if you're not interested in what they are saying, that's fine to; but if that were the case then why would you bother engaging them in the first place? Surely not to castigate them for their allegedly bad behavior?

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. — Philosophim

I think Jersey does want to claim worthlessness for the whole tradition, and even negative social value. Surely he couldn't be concerned about the negligible negative social value of just poor ole Davidson could he!?

the anally retentive — Janus

Did you mean analytically retentive?

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. — Srap Tasmaner

Oh dear, if it's not about anything at all does that mean its worthless, or even has negative social value? Do you have an argument for that? :wink:

Did you mean analytically retentive? — Banno

Now, that's an interesting question! Are the analytics analyitcally retentive or analytically expressive? (I have known quiet a few anal expressives).

I wouldn't know; I never progressed past the oral stage.

I was just wondering why you tagged me or that post or both.

Sorry, all I meant was "huh?"

Why are you worried about the behavior of individuals? Aren't you here to do some philosophy, to learn? The people you refer to can likely teach you something if you stop focusing on their behavior and pay attention to what they are saying. Of course if you're not interested in what they are saying, that's fine to; but if that were the case then why would you bother engaging them in the first place? Surely not to castigate them for their allegedly bad behavior? — Janus

Believe me, I've payed plenty of attention to the individuals I am talking about. What isn't happening is reciprocity. I'm here, I'm very interested in what people have to say. If they have something to say to me then say it instead of ignoring me and excluding me from the conversation.

Do you really need to ask why the behaviour of individuals worries me? Am I not supposed to call out anti-social behaviour when I can see it clear as day?

I also made a lot of effort to engage without bringing behaviour into the discussion at all. How patient do people reasonably expect me to be before I start noticing that they aren't returning any of the respect I have made every effort to give them? If this was happening in a school, other students actively ignoring everything I say in a moderated debate we are being graded in, do they really think their silence would get them a good grade? Please. I'm not stupid or ignorant enough to believe that. So don't you act like you are and don't act like you wouldn't feel just as insulted.

@Srap Tasmaner

You were tagged because you have been extremely relevant to the discussion and as Jerseys most recent interlocutor at the time, I figured what I had to say may be valuable to you or that you would have some useful criticisms for me. I don't know if my logic is correct. I need feedback, just like everyone else. Otherwise I may as well just write a monologue and never share it.

Consider yourself lucky then?

You were tagged because you have been extremely relevant to the discussion and as Jerseys most recent interlocutor at the time, I figured what I had to say may be valuable to you or that you would have some useful criticisms for me. I don't know if my logic is correct. I need feedback, just like everyone else. — MSC

I got you.

Thing is, I wish I had never engaged with the guy. It was a mistake. I do that. Now and then I let my frustration get the better of me.

Discussions about this or that school of philosophy are really of no interest to me. I responded to himself because he kept disrupting conversations and I wanted him to stop doing that. I tried a couple different ways of doing that -- well, they seemed different to me -- but I don't know why. It's really clear this is just an ideological thing for him, and I shouldn't have allowed myself to get sucked in.

Anyway, that's why I didn't have anything to say about your causal analysis. While himself may have been attacking something he puts a name on, I wasn't ever trying to mount a defense of that, since I'm not sure it's a thing and if it is I doubt he knows what it is. At most I was mounting a modest defense of those being swept up in his accusations. What you're writing about -- I just don't have anything to say.

If they have something to say to me then say it instead of ignoring me and excluding me from the conversation. — MSC

I know how you feel. But people have different styles, and some simply won't respond if they don't find what you have said interesting or relevant enough to bother, no matter how polite and non-contentious you are being. It's happened to me plenty of times, but I wouldn't take it personally, just realize that some people are pompous asses at times, and sometimes it really is because what I've said is uninteresting or irrelevant. We can't be geniuses all the time. :wink:

At another time, on another subject, you might find you are able to engage with them. No one on here is under any obligation to respond; you have to deal with others as you find them.