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 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. — Srap Tasmaner
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. — Janus
Analytic philosophy, I think, hasn't really been a thing for some time now. — Srap Tasmaner
This insight is right on target. It is not the case that analytic philosophy is vacuous or useless or fruitless. Rather, the charge should be that it is finished as it is constructed. It is done. The real questions are What is next? Which way should 21st century philosophy turn? — magritte
Which way should 21st century philosophy turn? — magritte
My way of confronting this is to try and convince philosophers to enter into politics, not just political philosophy I mean seriously try to get into politics. — MSC
Is somebody being asked to decide what 21st century philosophy will be? Not me. — Srap Tasmaner
Analytic philosophy is over for the same reason ordinary language philosophy is over: it won. — Srap Tasmaner
Which way should 21st century philosophy turn?
— magritte
Sorry, I just don't get the point of this question. (See, MSC this kind of thing.) — Srap Tasmaner
My main reason to post is if I have something to say -- that's not entirely or even mostly, I think, a judgment about whether the post is good or interesting. — Srap Tasmaner
Analytic philosophy is over for the same reason ordinary language philosophy is over: it won. — Srap Tasmaner
Did it win? Or was it playing a game with itself? — MSC
Yes it did. And thanks for reminding me about the chess thing, which I am honor-bound to comment on — Srap Tasmaner
If you want to see real life puritans try questioning the value of the Analytical form and see what happens. — JerseyFlight
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. — Srap Tasmaner
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!? — Janus
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. — JerseyFlight
a real philosophical question, and that is whether Davidson's particular paper added value to society, detracted value from society, or is largely irrelevant to society. — Philosophim
Its at A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.you could try presenting the positives that we can glean out of Davidson's argument, — Philosophim
I think he initially did, but realized his error later on and stated
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. — JerseyFlight — Philosophim
The refocus is on a real philosophical question, and that is whether Davidson's particular paper had a point of value.
I do not know what the previous conversation on Davidson was, but if you want to salvage this thread from a PC vs. Apple argument, you could try presenting the positives that we can glean out of Davidson's argument, and JersyFlight can present his negatives. As long as it is understood this cannot be a judgement on analytic philosophy as a whole, there might be an actual conversation here worth salvaging. — Philosophim
Surely he couldn't be concerned about the negligible negative social value of just poor ole Davidson could he!? — Janus
That sums it up for me. It's a narrow-minded use of philosophical talent, that is generally used as a posture rather than to do any actual productive work. — Olivier5
My way of confronting this is to try and convince philosophers to enter into politics, not just political philosophy I mean seriously try to get into politics. — MSC
So what type of discourse do you think is appropriate for a philosophic board? One that doesn't ever question anyone's motive? One that respects intellectuals, always and without distinction? One that forever gets lost in details without ever attempting a generalization?I am genuinely puzzled by this, because it sounds like the sort of anti-intellectualism I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board; it sounds like the sort of sweeping generalization I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board; it sounds like the sort of baseless impugning of other people's motives I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board. — Srap Tasmaner
Of course it says a lot that the zealot for 'reason' here is indulging in a couple of totally fallacious appeals to authority while offering about as much substantive critique as an empty juice box. — StreetlightX
I am genuinely puzzled by this, because it sounds like the sort of anti-intellectualism I expect to find anywhere but on a philosophy board — Srap Tasmaner
This doesn't mean anti-intellectualism. This means you must agree with me, not question me, not challenge me, in order to be considered an intellectual. — 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.