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.

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

That's all pretty fair. I do understand why he is viewed as abrasive by some, maybe I'd find him that way too if our beliefs, experiences and emotions shared less overlap. He is 13 years older than me though, so I don't know if I should be putting so much focus on helping him.

It might seem like an ideological thing. I think it is a psychological thing though. He feels wronged by people whom he views as similar to you, you are his proxy. If you respond in the way his original harmer or harmers did, he's just going to see it as evidence of why you are a good proxy. My advice there would be to speak less as your philosophical identity and speak to his humanity and ask about his experiences, instead of his views. It might be that in the same or similar circumstances you'd be doing the same thing. It might be that although you ideologically match his harmer in one way, you don't match it in another.

It might seem like a cry for attention, because that is partly what it is, in my experience though people seek out what their life has been lacking. Seeking attention for the right reasons, and in the right way is okay. Do I feel his reasons are right? Probably. Do I feel his methods for getting it are the right way? Probably not. Do people sometimes ignore what they want from others because they aren't getting it from someone else? Absolutely.

Be that as it may, it's your choice to engage or not engage, with him and with me. What I'd like you to consider is that there may be a right and wrong way to even not engage someone. That might seem counter intuitive but it's something to think about.

No hard feelings between me and you. I won't turn down a reasonable explanation, when it is given.

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

I'll keep this in mind. I don't believe I am a genius, even some of the time, but then I have a definition of genius with a high bar for deserving that label. I can solve problems, I can't stop new problems from occuring. Doing that, takes and makes, a true genius. However, maybe philosophy is the wrong field for that definition of genius to be applicable. At least I'm not the "strong and stable genius" running things where I am. ;)

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?

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

Critical Contextualism. We've built and tested many different tools. Time to start using them and experimenting with them.

Ultimately philosophy is at a cross roads where it needs to decide if it still wants to only discuss problems or if it wants to try its hand at actually solving them.

There are roadblocks to this however. Indecision, lack of leadership and fears of making mistakes with real world consequences. Which means another road block is ethical consensus. Lack of ethical consensus breeds enormous amounts of mistrust. It makes collaboration difficult and contributes to philosophies lack of power to apply thought into societal action. We can only talk so much, without the attention and trust of the general population, we might never get the chance to find or provide evidence to back up what we claim. Which is what we need right now in order to get the attention amd trust of the general population.

Basically, Philosophy has finished school but no one wants to give it a job until it can show it has enough experience to do the job. It certainly doesn't help that the social sciences are vilified in popular media and by the hard sciences.

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. The right polemic method, support, the right kind of charisma and the ability to simplify complex ideas, could potentially take on the political elite who normally enter into politics. Above all, what will be required is a realistic vision for our species that is both attractive and possible.

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.)

Is somebody being asked to decide what 21st century philosophy will be? Not me.

I always have ideas about what I want to do next and I assume everybody does.

Analytic philosophy is over for the same reason ordinary language philosophy is over: it won.

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

One of my old philosophy professors did run for Congress. Oh, and it turns out he's running for Senate.

Is somebody being asked to decide what 21st century philosophy will be? Not me. — Srap Tasmaner

Agreed, philosophy is going to change, it always has. It now looks almost nothing like it did 100 years ago, nevermind a thousand.

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?

Tell your old philosophy tutor some random asshole on the internet thinks very highly of him. I'm sure he'll care haha

Seriously though I hope he wins, but not before the person he may replace gives a big fuck you to the rest of the GOP, before they go into retirement.

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

That's because you're not imagining the psychological reasons behind asking the question. I know that ultimately this says more about a persons view of philosophy than it does about philosophy. But what does their desire to ask the question say about philosophy? These are things that interest me, but then, my education started in psychology before philosophy, so I would say something like that ;)

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

Do you mean a judgement about the post you are making or the post you are responding to? If the latter, would it not be the case that if you didn't find it relevant or interesting, then there would be nothing to respond to, and hence no reason to post (other than just a sense of obligation on account of politeness if there be such) ?

Analytic philosophy is over for the same reason ordinary language philosophy is over: it won. — Srap Tasmaner

Pretty much.

I meant: whether I respond absolutely isn't a judgment on whether a post was interesting or relevant or right. People say stuff and sometimes I have stuff to say about what they said, but usually I don't. Even if a post is good, that doesn't mean I have anything to say. Sometimes I want to have something to say, but I don't.

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.

Yes it did. And thanks for reminding me about the chess thing, which I am honor-bound to comment on — Srap Tasmaner

Excellent! I need another critical eye on that. It's messing with my head and I wrote the bloody thing, now regretting doing so haha

:ok:

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

This is an emotional state acting on itself transitioning into authoritarianism:

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

By "disruption" one cannot mean, "that which contradicts or challenges my theology." If that is the case then we can dismiss all philosophy simply by noting that it contradicts our belief.

What all positivity longs for in the presence of negation: "I wanted him to stop doing that."

No engagement with any objection, just ad hominem dismal, hence the term, "ideological."

Two prominent professors have already been cited as advocating the same position.

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

Ah yes, the same Michael Huemer who also said that "Many people interested in Continental philosophy are perfectly nice people. That said, analytic philosophy is obviously better... The other thing to point out is that the substantive doctrines most commonly associated with continental philosophers are false".

The correct conclusion, of course, is that Michael Huemer is a wanker whose blog posts on these topics are embarrassing, second only to anyone who takes them seriously.

Of course it says alot 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.

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 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

JerseyFlight is passionate and opinionated, but he also claims to value logical thinking. Philosophical arguments can get heated, and it is easy to push too far. I think when someone states they are willing to bring the scope of the argument back down to a reasonable and philosophical level, it is respectable to take it. If you are expecting any person in philosophy to come out and state, "I was wrong," you might be waiting until the heat death of the universe. Its not the point. 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.

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

My first instinct is that this is not a question we're likely to be able to answer. By "society" I assume we want something maximal, all people now and in the future. By "value", the well-being and flourishing of all those people. Something like this, right? I'm trying not to get stuck on semantic issues. Let's say we can even measure something like this -- because we're talking about it increasing or decreasing. Even given all that, is there much prospect for measuring the impact of something like this? We can point to examples like The Turner Diaries or Mein Kampf and say, this bit of writing had a negative impact on society. I'm not sure what you could get as large a number of people to agree on for a positive impact, because a lot of people are going to reach for a sacred text.

If we don't talk about measuring, we can just say we think things are good. I think The Last Unicorn is good for the world. I think One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is good for the world. I'm not measuring their impact; I'm saying I approve of them, that's all. I'll bet they've both made the world a slightly better place than it would have been without them. But that's assuming the causal analysis is dead simple. If someone blows up an office building in Atlanta and we find his manifesto online and it identifies the presence of wicked King Haggard in the modern world and our bomber's belief that he has taken up the role of Prince Lir -- then what? (The Catcher in the Rye has to deal with this -- book that meant a lot to a generation or two but not all of them righteous.)

What do we do if we can't measure? How do we judge? In the usual way.

you could try presenting the positives that we can glean out of Davidson's argument, — Philosophim

Its at A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.

WEll, that's were the discussion about Davidson is. This was not a discussion about Davidson, hence it's change of location.

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

Well, we'll have to wait for Jersey to return and state whether he is only concerned with the "negative social value" of this particular paper of Davidson's or whether he still wants to claim that analytic philosophy in general has a negative social value. Once he has done that then the onus would be on him to support his claim, whichever it is, with some actual argument.

I said earlier:

Surely he couldn't be concerned about the negligible negative social value of just poor ole Davidson could he!? — Janus

leaving it open for him to voice his concern about Davidson, and explain just what it consists in. Although this thread is nominally about analytic philosophy in general, I'm flexible enough to accept a focus just on Davidson if he wants it that way, without complaining about the thread being derailed.

:up: I agree that the question almost certainly cannot be plausibly answered. If Jersey will either admit that or submit an answer, then we can put this to rest.

Analytic philosophers are very good at being half of a philosopher. — MSC

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.

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

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.

I just can't figure out how else to read it. Even if you had filled in exactly what you mean by "actual productive work" instead of leaving us to guess, it would still be all of those things.

Why does this seem okay to you?

Once I attented a basic analytical philosophy course at the University of Peshawar, of all places. I was totally into Popper at the time, and knew from reading him how much contempt he had for the likes of Wittgenstein, so I was curious, but I left before the august teacher could reach Wittgenstein. Fredge and the foundation of set theory was good stuff, I must admit, and if analytical philosophy as ever "won" anything, that may be in helping found set theory.

Then he moved on to Russel, which proved a big disappointment. Minuscule, sluggish thinking, especially on linguistics, where I knew something and could compare with the structuralist approach started by Saussure... I became impatient.

Then at some point the question was raised, of whether the following proposition is true, false, meaningless or what: "The king of France is bald."

<sigh>

I left the course a little after that. By then I understood Popper's contempt for poseurs, and shared it. He was writing about how to define science, and how to defend democracy against mounting fascism, while down the corridor at Cambridge, some clowns were wondering if a non-existent French king could be said to be lacking a non-existent hair...

So here is one negative: at least some analytic philosophy is futile, a vacuous game that distracts from real and important problems.

I was not the first student to leave the course. Imagine them young Pakistani boys (there was no girl in the class) trying to enter life in a poor and dictatorial country, having to go through a painstakingly slow interrogation of the purported baldness of imaginary French kings... The difference between their real life and the vacuous word games of some philosophers couldn't be brought in sharper contrast.

And that brings me to the second negative: it drive people away from philosophy.

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

While that is a lovely idea, I think it would take a very rare personality to both do philosophy well and also survive a political race. Most people with aptitude in one arena seem to lack it in the other.

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

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?

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

Come now friend, you only say this because you demand the Analytical form as a bias of value. I do indeed hope you will not ban me for contradicting you, that would indeed be a tragic move for the state of philosophy on this Forum. Let emotion fall to the side, nothing is personal here. We must let this form hang in the balance for the sake of value itself. I only need here to repeat myself. Do not attack me, just deal with the premises:

'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 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.

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

No it really doesn't.

I wouldn't find this an acceptable way to talk about "modern philosophy" or "Marxist philosophy" or "feminist philosophy" or "German philosophy".

We can do better, can't we?

I'm about as much a proponent of 'the analytical form' as I am a coconut. What I am against however, is the peddling of ignorance by the ignorant and arrogant.

And I don't understand how you think this is any kind of defense.