But most of them had (or still have) an obfuscatory style of writing — jkop
I was referring specifically to the Bouveresse v Rorty debate — Frederick KOH
then maybe you can tell me what specific pro-reductionist argument Weinberg makes that strikes you as being very strong and/or generally ignored in the philosophical literature. — Pierre-Normand
Yes, and I was reminding you that your take on "this debate" shouldn't motivate your dismissal of Ramberg's unrelated piece, — Pierre-Normand
You forgot the gratuitous name dropping. — Frederick KOH
Challenge accepted. I propose as reference his Reductionism Redux collected in Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries — Frederick KOH
But my earlier point is, people are often saying this sort of thing, but not citing the apparent purveyors of it. Who are these postmodern 'thinkers'? What is the detail of their claims? How do they get to be so influential? Why is it so hard to name or quote them? It would be good to get to grips with them. — mcdoodle
If one that I dislike has actual social implications, I will argue against it on a political level. But that's arguing against the idea, not against a nebulous 'ism'. — andrewk
According to Chomsky it was around the 1970s when a group of Parisian intellectuals and maoists (e.g. Julia Kristeva & Co.) could no longer deny the atrocities in Asia for which other maoists had been responsible. So, did they reconsider? No, instead they became outspoken post-structuralists who rejected the self-sufficiency of right, wrong, true, false, good, bad and so on. As I understand it they exploited problems of philosophy as a means to get away with a dubious past. — jkop
Not all Parisian intellectuals were maoists, of course. But most of them had (or still have) an obfuscatory style of writing which has the illegitimate benefits of making themselves (or their interpreters) the sole intellectual authorities of their claims, and thereby also immune to criticism. If one does not blindly accept their claims one runs the risk of being intimidated and accused for being ignorant.
I think postmodernism has little to do with philosophy, although demarcation seems to be a recurring theme. Kristeva, Derrida, Baudrillard, Foucault, Deleuze etc. became intellectual rock-stars by making all kinds of outrageous claims embedded in impenetrable jargon which attracted the intellectually curious as well as those with a grudge against established knowledge, skills, or habits.
It is not over yet, though. Currently many professors at our universities are old fans of these rockstars. Most graduates from my school of architecture know very little about how to build, because many of their teachers think it is naive to believe that there would be right or wrong ways to build. As if an absence of right and wrong would make us creative. But the way we build will therefore be determined by power instead of knowledge or rightness. I don't think that's so creative. — jkop
Not if one is arguing for the benefit of the audience - and ultimately of the voters. As I said, the yardstick there is what convinces the voters, not what one's opponent accepts. It is futile only if I fail to convince the voters. I very much doubt the average voter uses a Foucaultian paradigm to decide what cause to support.Under such premises it is futile to argue against anyone's detailed ideas. — jkop
Good for you! I for one will look forward to reading your comments. This thread could yet turn into something worthwhile and educational - for me at least.Do you really endorse that? OK, let me read this chapter and I'll comment later. — Pierre-Normand
Under such premises it is futile to argue against anyone's detailed ideas. — jkop
Not if one is arguing for the benefit of the audience — andrewk
Further, the argument is aimed at persuading not the interlocutor, but the audience of the debate. Hence I am not constrained to use techniques that the interlocutor accepts as valid. All that matters is that the audience sees them as valid. — andrewk
Foucault replaced argument with discourse, recall, so, you don't get to argue at all. Instead there is discourse, and whatever rhetoric you can muster e.g. by word play, charm, bribery, populism... anything but words that refer to facts. Explain the benefit of that. — jkop
What about Gorgias? — andrewk
These are prevalent caricatures of his work, but they are wrong. — StreetlightX
The premise of the archaeological method is that systems of thought and knowledge (epistemes or discursive formations, in Foucault's terminology) are governed by rules, beyond those of grammar and logic, that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects and define a system of conceptual possibilities that determines the boundaries of thought in a given domain and period. — SEP
Neither did he equate discourse with rhetoric (and indeed spent alot of time and effort trying to disentangle the two). — StreetlightX
governed by rules, beyond those of grammar and logic, that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects and define a system of conceptual possibilities that determines the boundaries of thought in a given domain and period. — SEP
I'm sure he did, but did he succeed, or just try, and thus failed to disentangle discourse from rhetoric? — jkop
The explanatory power of the argument is thus made less significant, or irrelevant even, compared to, say, bribery, good looks, or whatever powers there could be lurking beneath consciousness. — jkop
Instead I am criticising claims ascribed to Foucault, his method, and the deplorable influence they have on the quality of thought (for example, in our universities) — jkop
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.