I think a serious problem in philosophical discourse is that individuals feel like their intelligence is being attacked when their belief is being attacked. In my experience Analytical Philosophers are exceedingly intelligent, most especially in terms of comprehension. I would think all of the people I have had extended discourse with on this Forum are smarter than me, but that doesn't mean their program is one of relevance or that their beliefs are accurate. We all have to continually challenge our beliefs in this sense. I think there's a good rule here, where there is pain and psychological defensiveness, that's usually the direction we need to go. — JerseyFlight
An asshole, though. — Ansiktsburk
Then I suspect he will be slapped on the wrist by some here if he ever posts from hell. — Olivier5
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? — Srap Tasmaner
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
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. — Pfhorrest
All individuals are narrow minded. It is only when they come together that their field of vision increases and blindspots are revealed. — MSC
What's so problematic about it? Mind explaining?Do you understand that your reasoning here is faulty? — Srap Tasmaner
Asserting that your view is "grown-up" is like an exercise in self-justification. — JerseyFlight
Can you not see that a great deal of your objections amount to form and style? — JerseyFlight
In other words, if philosophers don't want to analyze things in terms of the linguistic logical structure, then you should be content with this and simply validate it as an alternative approach. — JerseyFlight
What's so problematic about it? Mind explaining? — Olivier5
all the academic philosophy in the English-speaking world — Srap Tasmaner
Possibly so... I read Nietzsche as an old person.I had the misfortune of reading Nietzsche when I was young. [...]
This is terribly dangerous for a young person — Srap Tasmaner
almost all the academic philosophy in the English-speaking world in the 20th century — Srap Tasmaner
all the academic philosophy in the English-speaking world
— Srap Tasmaner
I have already that. They are quite a few academic English-speaking philosophers who don't define themselves as analytical philosophers. — Olivier5
Who's making a sweeping generalization now? — Olivier5
That was an oversight right? — Srap Tasmaner
Are you confident that almost all English-speaking academic philosophers self-identify as analytical? — Olivier5
insofar as philosophers range more widely than they did in the first three quarters of the 20th, they do so with a rigor that academic philosophy these days takes as a requirement, a rigor that was achieved through the analysis of reasoning and language carried out by our forebears. — Srap Tasmaner
You have an example of any clarity brought by the analytic tradition? Or, alternatively, of such rigorous modern philosophers? — Olivier5
Is it wrong for sellers of goods and services to take advantage of a natural disaster by charging whatever the market will bear? If so, what, if anything, should the law do about it? Should the state prohibit price gouging, even if doing so interferes with the freedom of buyers and sellers to make whatever deals they choose?
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.