So, would you consider the proper way of doing philosophy mostly conceived as with the analytic school, as philosophy proper or are we still struggling with how philosophy should be done? — Shawn
Can't bring myself to think anyone is doing philosophy 'properly' but I can bring myself to think some do it 'improperly — AmadeusD
So, would you consider the proper way of doing philosophy mostly conceived as with the analytic school, as philosophy proper or are we still struggling with how philosophy should be done? — Shawn
The analytic school of philosophy is the dominant way of doing philosophy, nowadays. — Shawn
Analytic method is all too prone to mistake oversimplification for clarification, banality for exactitude, and imaginative narrowness for intellectual rigor; moreover, its typical modus operandi is as often as not an unhappy combination of speculative timidity and methodological overconfidence. I do not know whether all of this is just an accident of philosophical history, and therefore corrigible within analytic tradition itself; I know only that Anglophone philosophy has produced at once the most copious and most frequently fruitless literature on the so-called mind-body problem. — Hart, David Bentley. All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life (pp. 18-19). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
Pierre Hadot, classical philosopher and historian of philosophy, is best known for his conception of ancient philosophy as a bios or way of life (manière de vivre). ... According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing. — Pierre Hadot, IEP
I know only that Anglophone philosophy has produced at once the most copious and most frequently fruitless literature on the so-called mind-body problem. — Hart, David Bentley. All Things Are Full of Gods: The Mysteries of Mind and Life (pp. 18-19). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.
It's both, and nothing I've writtrn here is inconsistant with that.Analytic philosophy is a toolkit and not a school of philosophy? — Leontiskos
I take it as analytic philosophers recognizing that the mind-body problem is not one which philosophy should grapple with anymore, and is best left to the scientist to elucidate such matters in terms of what can be said intelligibly. — Shawn
The analytic school of philosophy is the dominant way of doing philosophy, nowadays. — Shawn
As regards Hadot, I agree that it seems challenging, but I'm a subscriber to both Medium and Substack, and they're teeming with threads dedicated to revivifying ancient philosophy in the modern world. — Wayfarer
o, would you consider the proper way of doing philosophy mostly conceived as with the analytic school, as philosophy proper or are we still struggling with how philosophy should be done? — Shawn
Like this thread.
— Banno
I'm glad you like this thread. — Shawn
Are you saying that the question of "philosophy proper" or "a proper way of doing philosophy" can receive an answer that is non-philosophical or outside philosophy? — J
Or would any answer assume, or reveal, a particular conception of what philosophy is? — J
SEP has no article on "Analytic Philosophy". The IEP has an historical essay, tracing the developments in anglophone philosophy until the sixties, when analytic philosophy became ubiquitous. "On account of its eclecticism, contemporary analytic philosophy defies summary or general description."
Where does this lead? Nowhere. Like this thread — Banno
I would say that on the whole the (best) Continentals are slightly more skilled at performing the necessary self-reflection involved. — J
There's only one way our brain works — Christoffer
Rather, the historical approach found in IEP is the only option. — Banno
Even in its earlier phases, analytic philosophy was difficult to define in terms of its intrinsic features or fundamental philosophical commitments. Consequently, it has always relied on contrasts with other approaches to philosophy—especially approaches to which it found itself fundamentally opposed—to help clarify its own nature. Initially, it was opposed to British Idealism, and then to “traditional philosophy” at large. Later, it found itself opposed both to classical Phenomenology (for example, Husserl) and its offspring, such as Existentialism (Sartre, Camus, and so forth) and also “Continental”’ or “Postmodern” philosophy (Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida).
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.