As for myself, I am perfectly clear on what I was reacting against, and accusing analytical philosophy of. At the end of the History, in the chapter on analytical philosophy, Russell says (and I can almost quote it verbatim from memory - this will convey the meaning quite clearly) "While we [analytical philosophers] are aware that there are many questions of the utmost importance to which we cannot find an answer, we refuse to admit that there is a hidden or higher way of knowledge that is not available to the intellect or to science".

Ironically, or perhaps not, I gained admission to the University of Sydney as a mature student, on the basis of a comprehension test on Russell's Mysticism and Logic. And I basically spent my whole time contemplating that quotation in the History, which I believed wrong from the moment I read it. I still believe it is false, for the very simple reason that the kind of philosophy I am interested in, actually changes your self-understanding and the way you see other people and the world. I don't believe that 'science and the intellect' will do that for you. They might provide excellent skills in debating or analysis, but you can still remain within the 'citadel of yourself' for your entire life.

(And in fact, I think Russell actually had a very strong spiritual side to his nature, which he consciously suppressed, because of its inevitable conflict with his libertarian social views and the manner in which he choose to conduct his relationships. But it did enable him to write more perceptively about the spiritual aspects of philosophy than many others in his generation.)

Now after the comments I got yesterday, I acknowledge that it is quite possible to practice an analytical style of philosophy, and still maintain a commitment to spiritual principles. However I think this is the exception rather than the norm, certainly in academic philosophy, and the reason I chose to major in religious studies, rather than philosophy.

The reason I am always drawn to the spiritual elements in platonism or the various schools of the 'perennial philosophy' is because they do embody exactly those higher truths and that hidden wisdom which Russell denies,

and I will always attempt to present those perspectives here on the forum and anywhere else I speak of it.

I think that it is difficult for those who understand the term, "philosophy" only in terms of so-and-so's philosophy, or in terms of some school of philosophy, to take the notion of analytic philosophy in. And I can understand that. It takes rejecting a particular paradigm, and accepting a different one. And that is difficult.

It is because of that that you find non-analytic philosophers mostly engaged in "explication de texte" like Humanity and other posters. That is what they think philosophy must be all about.

But as for my 'whopping generalizations', do you think it a whopping generalization that analytical - by this I mean Anglo-American - philosophy downplays or neglects the spiritual element in philosophy? I mean, 'short-sighted, misinformed, naive'? Bit strong, don't you think?

What are you not understanding here?

Your first question.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 12:09 PM ----------

I don't think 'the spiritual experience' is represented in current anglo-american analytical philosophy. If it is, tell me where.

You find me an example from the recent tradition which attempts to tackle the broader spiritual questions.

He didn't say this. Look at the text again. He said these things really exist be that he didn't care what you call it so long as you don't grant that these things "can exist unperceived outside the mind".

It is because of that that you find non-analytic philosophers mostly engaged in "explication de texte" like Humanity and other posters. That is what they think philosophy must be all about.

I think I mentioned Frege, Quine, Ayer, and Russell (who you covered). I don't think you will find any awareness of the themes of the perennial philosophy amongst any of them. They are spiritually dessicated, as far as I am concerned.

And a great deal of what I see modern philosophy doing is, defending a robust sense of the normality, and normativeness (if that is a word) of our modern middle-class society.

And I don't see many real outsiders and radical critics of the social norms, which was common amongst the traditional philosophers, other than Marxists. But by all means, correct me if I am wrong.

And slightly further afield, where are some examples of philosophers in this tradition who speak of universal truths? If you were to say Hegel, Spinoza - in fact anyone before Spinoza - then I would agree. Liebniz after all coined the term 'perennial philosophy'.

But modern analytical philosophy beginning with Moore's refutation of idealism is, I think, broadly secular and anti-spiritual, (which is the subject of the essays in Thomas Nagel's Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament.)

So Russell's scientistic and positivist tendencies are still strongly alive in the academic philosophical community as far as I can see.

If you would like to indicate any current analytical thinkers who criticize these tendencies and advocate a more traditional philosophical viewpoint, then I will take note.

The only ones I am really aware of are a couple of contemporary Thomists, Maritain and Gilson, and some of the radical theologians, for example Tillich. But again, I don't know if these are analytical philosophers, in the sense we are discussing.

I know what analytical philosophy is all about.
By its definition, it merely analyse what is on hand and adds nothing new as in other of philosophies which are synthetical.

My issue with analytical philosophy is with its practitioners who proclaimed that it is THE philosophy everyone should subscribe to and mock those do not agree with them.

well a lot of that is OK with me. I think we have a lot of common ground and I respect your viewpoint and skills. As far as that is your motivation, I salute you for it and hopefully your influence on the discipline will be considerable.

But as for my 'whopping generalizations', do you think it a whopping generalization that analytical - by this I mean Anglo-American - philosophy downplays or neglects the spiritual element in philosophy? I mean, 'short-sighted, misinformed, naive'? Bit strong, don't you think? You find me an example from the recent tradition which attempts to tackle the broader spiritual questions. I think I mentioned Frege, Quine, Ayer, and Russell (who you covered). I don't think you will find any awareness of the themes of the perennial philosophy amongst any of them. They are spiritually dessicated, as far as I am concerned. And a great deal of what I see modern philosophy doing is, defending a robust sense of the normality, and normativeness (if that is a word) of our modern middle-class society. I don't see many real outsiders and radical critics of the social norms, which was common amongst the traditional philosophers, other than Marxists. But by all means, correct me if I am wrong.

And slightly further afield, where are some examples of philosophers in this tradition who speak of universal truths? If you were to say Hegel, Spinoza - in fact anyone before Spinoza - then I would agree. Liebniz after all coined the term 'perennial philosophy'. But modern analytical philosophy beginning with Moore's refutation of idealism is, I think, broadly secular and anti-spiritual, (which is the subject of the essays in Thomas Nagel's Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament.) So Russell's scientistic and positivist tendencies are still strongly alive in the academic philosophical community as far as I can see. If you would like to indicate any current analytical thinkers who criticize these tendencies and advocate a more traditional philosophical viewpoint, then I will take note. The only ones I am really aware of are a couple of contemporary Thomists, Maritain and Gilson, and some of the radical theologians, for example Tillich. But again, I don't know if these are analytical philosophers, in the sense we are discussing.

This contradicts the latter statement here:
There simply doesn't exist THE analytic philosophy as if it were ONE school of thought. If there were, can you tell us what it is?

But as for my 'whopping generalizations', do you think it a whopping generalization that analytical - by this I mean Anglo-American - philosophy downplays or neglects the spiritual element in philosophy?

The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels [...] the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature [...] and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner of the third style.[6]

After so many years in philosophy forums, i can understand your reservation with analytical philosophy as projected by its practitioners (APPs).
However, I noted the word 'spiritual' would often evoke, irk, rile and bring out the devil in these APPs.
I think a more less sensitive word could be 'holism' and 'wholesome'.

---------- Post added 03-27-2010 at 09:04 PM ----------

Where is the contradiction.
I am writing from experience of how analytical philosophy practitioners in philosophical forums regard philosophy.
It is in the sense of Scientism, an in a similar vein i would coin the word
'APPism' for people who idolize analytical philosophy like as if it is their 'god'.

jeeprs, I've read a lot of your posts so I think I know what you mean. But understand that you have your own particular view of what is spiritual. It's different from what many people have. There are mathematicians who find complicated math to be beautiful and pure you know? When to me it would probably be dessicated and lifeless

You admired the thoughts of Einstein in another thread, he says:

So why don't you believe "science and intellect" are strongly tied to spirituality?

Most often I get the impression that you find the "debunking" of certain philosophies as anti-spiritual. But some people feel the spiritual draw of the truth, and seek to clear out anything that isn't true. Purity is closely related to spirituality I think.

"THE philosophy" directly implies that whatever philosophy this is, that this philosophy possesses some definite stance on a set of issues. And if Analytic Philosophy is THE philosophy, then tell us what it is. What is it?

But Analytic philosophy is not Scientism. And I certainly don't know of any current philosopher who is a "scientist." Scientism is false--and most philosophers agree.

You idolize Berkeley as if he were God. At least analytic philosophers take great responsibility for being cautious and clear in their thoughts and arguments--instead of making childish messes out of poorly formulated Dogmas.

I had already explained what I meant by "THE".
Why don't you condemn homosexuals for using the word 'gay' and 'lesbos'.
The islanders of Lesbos did, but they could not assert any godlike authority on anyone as far as the usage of words are concerned.

I know. I said 'in the sense' and meant the same type of attitude and pomposity held by both.

I hate reading Berkeley being mocked based on the misinterpretation of his
views.
I don't idolize Berkeley nor anybody, I have access to more overriding philosophies than the basic ones of Berkeley.

huh?

oh, I see. You think the position asserted by analytic philosophy is "We are the authority on all matters philosophical." Uh, I hate to break it to you but the problem with analytic philosophers is that so many of us have a hard time agreeing on so many things. So how could we possibly think we as group of people are the final "authority"? And what authority is that? We don't appeal to ourselves as authorities. We appeal to reason and critical analysis as the final authority, just like all philosophers do. So I really don't know what you are talking about at all. Sounds like you just don't like having your own opinions challenged. But I guarantee you will go nowhere in philosophy if you are not willing to have your own views consistently challenged by others. As philosophers, that's all we do--we challenge each other.

Look. I happen to be a person of faith, and I am completely aware of the scientism that comes along on these forums mocking itself as "analytic philosophy" which it actually is not. I think you are noticing all those atheists who use "scientist" style of arguments to say this or that, but I promise you they are terrible philosophers because they possess no formal training in analytic philosophy. I've taken to task in great logical detail atheist arguments, and so they fall apart rather quickly. So don't let a few bad apples distort your view of the incredible value of the discipline. The ability for us human beings to critically think in depth about matters should be praised, not abandoned, because when we go about searching for the truth, and strive our best to be free ourselves from error by questioning our own opinions, we begin to learn how many incedibly illogical and ridiculous things we actually believe. And I've heard many times from actual practicing analytic philosophers in the profession say things in full modesty exactly like this, "There is a good chance about 90% of my beliefs are wrong." Analytic philosophy is totally an investigative enterprise, it is not dogmatic at all-- and above all, it DOESN'T claim to have a firm grasp of the truth, which is precisely why it keeps going along searching for it.

I just strongly recommend that you begin critically thinking about his views in depth if you think he was correct, because most intellectuals since Berkeley believe he committed terrible blunders in his very scanty analyses of structure of experience, including Kant. It is always good for the soul to question other philosophers' opinions.

You might actually try exploring Kantian Transcendental Idealism in depth. It is totally different than School of Philosophy advanced by the empricists. But you might want to become really familiar with Hume first, since Kant's Transcendentalism is primarily directed at Hume's empirical skepticism. You must know Hume pushed the empiricist principle even further than Berkeley, getting results that contradict alot of Berkeley's philosophy too.

In any case, Kant's philosophy didn't end up at a dead end in Metaphysical Idealism like Berkeley's veiws did, and it is still very much alive and well to this day being discussed and explored even beyond what Kant had to say.

I don't believe he is that stupid as to think that "reality is all in the mind in terms of ideas and sensation" as what his opposers think he is.

You admired the thoughts of Einstein in another thread

So why don't you believe "science and intellect" are strongly tied to spirituality?

Most often I get the impression that you find the "debunking" of certain philosophies as anti-spiritual. But some people feel the spiritual draw of the truth, and seek to clear out anything that isn't true. Purity is closely related to spirituality I think.

After contending with Berkeley all these years, and looking at the philosophical context within Europe at the time, I'm positive this is how Berkeley views his own task set before him.

I am aware most interpreters jumped at the glaringly obvious and misinterpretated Berkeley from that basic perspective.I started philosophy from the Eastern perspective and thus was fortunate not to be corrupted by the prejudgments of Western and academic philosophers.

I have explored Descartes, Locke, Hume and researched Kant quite in depth.
I believe i have understood Kant's core ideas i.e. his an attempt to put metaphysics in rein and in its right perspective based on a critique of pure reason.

My basic philosophical principle is that humans are part and parcel ofthe whole of reality.At the common sense level, we can afford to forget that we are an essential part of reality and for effective survival sake, it is best to deal with an external reality.But at a more refined level of philosophy we cannot ignore the fact that we (self, subject, observer, mind) are a part of reality.

As i had stated, i only got involved to defend him from strawmen in philosophy forums.

it was often suggested that i stand in front of an oncoming train orjump from a flying plane without a parachute.
At that time, to me, it was, who the f.. is this Berkeley?
So i decided to find out more about Berkeley and that was how i came
to see (imo) the strawmen.

So? Did you know that atheists across Universities in America and Western Europe dominate academia, especially in analytic philosophy and the sciences, not to mention in Mathematics and other disciplines?

Does this mean that there is something wrong with mathematics and the empirical sciences, or that these disciplines stunt your thinking? Should we abandon these sciences in favor of just studying religion? Are they necessarily contrary and directly opposed to eachother? If not, then what's your point anyway?

I wouldn't call him "stupid." You just need to understand the context of when Berkeley was writing and what philosophical issues were on the table. He was faced with answering the severe skepticism introduced by the Cartesion "Evil Demon" or "Brain in the Vat" hypotheses. So his claim that "reality is all in the mind" was a way to answer the charge of skepticism. If all reality is Ideas--and what immediately perceive is Ideas, then the "external world" skeptical problem presented by Descartes is immediately solved in one shot. So then Berkeley of course felt that it is was encumbent upon him to spend all his time in trying explain to people like Hylas (who is representative of the common=-sense view that external matter DOES existence of the mind) that Berkeley's Idealist solution to skepticism about the external world view is not that bad after all because it doesn't undermine common sense. After contending with Berkeley all these years, and looking at the philosophical context within Europe at the time, I'm positive this is how Berkeley views his own task set before him.

But Berkeley explicitly did say this. After all, what would be the point of his going to great lengths in his Dialogues to explain what is immediately obvious? That the mind directly perceives sensible things?

Either Berkeley was a full-scale emprical realist whose philosphy was trivially true and said nothing any more novel than Locke before him, or Berkeley was, in fact, a full-scale emprical Idealist offering a very substantive and different non-common sense view which denied the existence of the external world independent of the mind.

Btw, i am very aware that the primary purpose of Berkeley in his Treatise was to support the existence of God.
Thus there are two aspects to Berkeley's Treatise and Dialogue, i.e. general philosophy and theism.
His theistic intention had been easily and convincingly refuted by Kant's.
When we take away the god factor, what is left is Berkeley's philosophy of mind, which can be independently discussed as a philosophical topic.

I understand the historical aspect.
But the fact is that forum posters (not here) are still using Berkeley as a strawman to bash others, warrant that a discussion of Berkeley should to be taken in the current philosophical perspective and with the advantage of hindsight.

I do not read him literally and taken within the full context, what he wrote should not be taken literally on a sentence basis.

You will note in the dialogue that he seemed to curse the word "matter"as if it is a taboo word to him that he would not touch, but towards the end, he would tell Hylas to do whatever he want with the word 'matter' as long as it is qualified.

It is similar for other seemingly 'explicit' concepts, but when we read both the Treatise and Dialogue, there is deeper and wider meaning for some of the concepts, like perception, ideas, matter, material substance, etc.

Berkeley did better than Locke by including primary qualities as mind dependent qualities. Berkeley is an empirical realist as scientist and common layman.

As a philosopher he is a philosopher of the mind.

Others labelled Berkeley an Idealist, he did not called himself an idealist. In reality I would not label Berkely an Idealist, but only do so as a matter of convenience and communication.

I presumed you understand concept spheres and Venn diagrams which are appropriate for certain purpose but there is always a danger of them being wrongly abused ignorantly or for sophistry.
I tend to be very careful with labels like 'Idealist' and other universals.