A Non-Metaphysical Theory

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 03:54 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151511 wrote:


"Rorty's "pragmatism" is simply an abandonment of the very attempt to learn more about the nature and adequacy conditions of inquiry. Instead of aiding us in our aspiration to govern ourselves through rational thought, Rorty weakens our intellectual resilience and leaves us even more vulnerable to rhetorical seduction. Rorty's pragmatism is dangerous, performing an end-run on reason, and therefore on philosophy."
Richard Rorty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Ordinary non-academic "philosophes" don't understand that Pragmatism is all over analytic philosophy today: in fact, someone is invariably a pragmatist somewhere in his philosophy at some point.


Pragmatism is pretty sophisticated, and Rorty is perhaps a sophist. But then I'm not allergic to the term. I disagree with him here and there, but generally love the guy. Rorty is trying to make us conscious that anything can be described in a way that makes it sound good or bad. He attempts to make us conscious of our rhetoric as rhetoric. I disagree with that quote. I think Rorty is trying to holistically dissolve various inane pseudo-problems, and I think he succeeds. He's a Hegel who knows how to write in pleasant English, and who negates himself Nietzsche-style.

The truth is an army of metaphors. This is a radical notion. But Rorty can assimilate Nietzsche's genius without assimilating Nietzsche's more anti-social aspects.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 05:02 PM ----------

Extrain;151518 wrote:
...and I got Nietzschean quotes tattooed on my body when I was 19 years old, so this doesn't count for anything really. Anybody can read Nietzsche, and so many non-academics DO read Nietzsche. And FYI, N- is more widely read in LITERATURE departments, NOT PHILOSOPHY departments throughout the States. Most academic philosophers condmen Nietzsche, and not for his beliefs, but for his poor Freudian psychological generalizations and his failure to be disciplined in his approach to philosophical problems.

N- is a creative and powerful writer, and he does say some very truthful things. But non-academic philosophers too often mistake Nietzsche's well-articulated prose for critical thinking--which it is not.

Nietzsche's philosophy is full of logical fallacies almost on every page.


I'm well aware also that N is controversial. I've bumped into many types on this forum, by the way. And I have criticized N with gusto. Some of N's generalizations were brilliant. Freud spoke well of N's self-knowledge. I suppose you consider Derrida non-academic? Please don't speak as if for the Academy. Also, I really don't care to drag in opinion polls. It reminds me of what Hex calls "group-think." It gives me pleasure, personally, to find what others miss.

And to say that N isn't a critical thinking is to my ears Absurd. N was especially a critical thinker. The beginning of BG&E is potent critical thinking. Are you sure you read the guy?

I've never been one for tattoos, myself, but I dig your point. Yes, I've seen them come and go. It might be Nietzsche. It might be Jim Morrison. Idolatry, misunderstanding,shallow imitation, etc. Training wheels. It's a stage we probably all must go through. But this doesn't erase the genius of the original. You aren't talking to a 19 year old, if such is not obvious, so we can move beyond this particular issue. N is a central figure these days, both for his faults and his genius. Such is life.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:03 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151519 wrote:
Rorty is trying to make us conscious that anything can be described in a way that makes it sound good or bad. He attempts to make us conscious of our rhetoric as rhetoric.


? But Susan Haack is accusing Rorty of failing to do exactly this!

The job of all practicing analytic philosophers is to make us conscious of the difference between our muddle-headed rhetoric and our clear well-articulated thoughts. And Rorty fails to do this.

Reconstructo;151519 wrote:
I disagree with that quote. I think Rorty is trying to holistically dissolve various inane pseudo-problems, and I think he succeeds. He's a Hegel who knows how to write in pleasant English, and who negates himself Nietzsche-style.


But how does one succeed in "dissolving" a pseudo-problem by presenting more pseudo-problems with badly articulated language?

The person is then just talking dogmatically by using metaphors to articulate his own thoughts, and so the proposed "analysis" collapses in on itself and so fails to articulate anything at all. That's the entire problem of Rorty's and Nietzsches and all post-modern thinking like Saussure and Lacan.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:07 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151524 wrote:
? But Susan Haack is accusing Rorty of doing exactly this!

The job of all practicing analytic philosophers is to make us conscious of the difference between our muddle-headed rhetoric and our clear well-articulated thoughts.

That's just it. I see Rorty as a destroyer of confusions. Of course this destruction itself is going to seem like confusion to those who do not like it. Well, for me it is as clear as a glass of ice-water. Rorty brilliantly assimilates Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Nietzsche, Hegel, Dewey, etc., and he leaves behind what he can't use. He also assimilates Harold Bloom, who is another thinker I admire.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 05:08 PM ----------

Extrain;151524 wrote:

But how does one succeed in "dissolving" a pseudo-problem by presenting more pseudo-problems with badly articulated language?

Like I said, we completely disagree on that.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:10 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151519 wrote:
N was especially a critical thinker. The beginning of BG&E is potent critical thinking. Are you sure you read the guy?


I disagree. Nietzsche criticized people. But his criticisms were generalized logical fallacies toward the actual philosophical problems encountered in philosophy. This is precisely why he is not generally respected in analytic philosophy, but only among those in literature.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:11 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151524 wrote:

The person is then just talking dogmatically by using metaphors to articulate his own thoughts, and so the proposed "analysis" collapses in on itself and so fails to articulate anything at all. That's the entire problem of Rorty's and Nietzsches and all post-modern thinking like Saussure and Lacan.


The issue is the nature of language itself. Rorty is coming from a Heidegger and Wittgenstein angle on the nature of language. In my mind, the issue of trope is crucial. To deny or dodge this issue is to lose the battle. Lacan has a few nice concepts, by the way, but he may indeed by generally full of sh*t. It's not exactly easy to make sense of him. Derrida attacked Saussure, I believe, but I'm not an expert of Derrida. I have, however, put some time in on the nature of metaphor. And for me, metaphor is the rock that most philosophers crash on. They cannot or will not process it.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151526 wrote:
That's just it. I see Rorty as a destroyer of confusions.


No, Rorty is a creator of more confusion. Why do most of us pragmatists who stayed in analytic philosophy abandon Rorty? It's because he fails to articulate his thoughts clearly, and chooses to speak in ambiguous metaphorical language instead. This isn't philosophy, this is literature. And Rorty even abandoned analytic philosophy and became a literary theorist.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:15 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151528 wrote:
I disagree. Nietzsche criticized people. But his criticisms were generalized logical fallacies toward the actual philosophical problems encountered in philosophy. This is precisely why he is not generally respected in analytic philosophy, but only among those in literature.


In my opinion, this ties in to the metaphor issue. And of course Nietzsche would probably reject the analytic spirit as a retreat from the question of values. But I can't speak for a corpse.

In the Prejudices of Philosophers, Nietzsche opens quite the can of worms. He questions the will to truth, and this is already quite a leap. Why truth? Why not rather untruth? He plays with redefining truth as that which serves life. His epistemology prioritizes life over eternal truth,etc. Spengler writes brilliantly on this. From Schopenhauer on, Western philosophy moves away from atemporal truth, toward ethicss and pragmatism. Before long, it's ethics and utility that are the foundation of epistemology, and not the reverse.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 05:16 PM ----------

Extrain;151530 wrote:
No, Rorty is a creator of more confusion. Why do most of us pragmatists who stayed in analytic philosophy abandon Rorty? It's because he fails to articulate his thoughts clearly, and chooses to speak in ambiguous metaphorical language instead. This isn't philosophy, this is literature. And Rorty even abandoned analytic philosophy and became a literary theorist.


That's just it. He argues that the distinction twixt philosophy and literature is largely confusion, and I agree. But I don't mind if that doesn't appeal to you. I'm on the dark side, Extrain. You have met a passionate fan of Rorty. Smile

This is his caustic vat of holism, in which obsolete dichotomies melt.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:16 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151529 wrote:
The issue is the nature of language itself. Rorty is coming from a Heidegger and Wittgenstein angle on the nature of language. In my mind, the issue of trope is crucial. To deny or dodge this issue is to lose the battle. Lacan has a few nice concepts, by the way, but he may indeed by generally full of sh*t. It's not exactly easy to make sense of him. Derrida attacked Saussure, I believe, but I'm not an expert of Derrida. I have, however, put some time in on the nature of metaphor. And for me, metaphor is the rock that most philosophers crash on. They cannot or will not process it.


Analytic Philosophers don't abandon the function of metaphor in language.

Analytic Philosophers only deny that metaphor should always be the proper way of expressing a thought--especially when it comes to a case that deserves critical thinking and weighing evidence pro and con.

Those who insist on speaking in metaphor, only, crash on their own attempt to say anything intelligible at all. So their philosophy eventually turns to truth-valueless nonsense.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:18 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151534 wrote:

Philosophers only abandon the use of metaphor to express thoughts.

In my opinion, language is a reef of dead metaphor. And significant new thoughts tend appear as metaphors. Or at least as a twist (trope) on an old word.

From Rorty's angle, we are always already using old metaphors, that no longer function as metaphors. This is his linguistic angle, or part of it.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 05:20 PM ----------

Extrain;151534 wrote:

Those who insist on speaking in metaphor, only, crash on their own attempt to say anything intelligible at all. So their philosophy eventually turns to truth-valueless nonsense.


I agree with Wittgenstein. In brief, human discourse can ever have the perfection of formal logic. It will always be sloppy and contingent. Now this is my interpretation, but I stand beside it. Of course we do our best to act against this natural sloppiness, but there are limits to our success. Eliot also references exactly this dilemma in the Four Quartets. "o purify the language of the tribe" ----as much as possible.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:22 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151535 wrote:
In my opinion, language is a reef of dead metaphor. And significant new thoughts tend appear as metaphors. Or at least as a twist (trope) on an old word.

From Rorty's angle, we are always already using old metaphors, that no longer function as metaphors. This is his linguistic angle, or part of it.


If you insist on defending Rorty, can you please give me examples?

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 04:26 PM ----------

Reconstructo;151535 wrote:
I agree with Wittgenstein. In brief, human discourse can never have the perfection of formal logic.It will always be sloppy and contingent. Now this is my interpretation, but I stand beside it. Of course we do our best to act against this natural sloppiness, but there are limits to our success. Eliot also references exactly this dilemma in the Four Quartets. "o purify the language of the tribe" ----as much as possible.


That's right. That's just the burden of any natural language: it will never be formal like logic.

But if someone chooses to abandon logic while trying to express a metaphor, then they've failed to express a rational thought.

So the problem is not in metaphorical meanings or using metaphorical meanings to express a thought per se; the problem is when someone uses metaphor to replace logical thinking. Which is just inane. And you will fail to make anything intelligible to your interlocutor as a rational thinker when you do this.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:32 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151537 wrote:
If you insist on defending Rorty, can you please give me examples?

It would be too much work. I can only recommend his Essays on Heidegger and Others as perhaps my favorite. Or Objectivity, Truth, and Relativism.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 05:36 PM ----------

Extrain;151537 wrote:


So the problem is not in metaphorical meanings or using metaphorical meanings to express a thought per se; the problem is when someone uses metaphor to replace logical thinking. Which is just inane. And you will fail to make anything intelligible to your interlocutor as a rational thinker when you do this.

I agree. The two must be used together. And sometimes Nietzsche, for instance, is absurd. In my mind, it's all about assimilation. Take the good and the leave the bad. (Nietzsche is always relevant. I like that. Even where I have come to disagree, at least he is always talking about philosophy that matters.)
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 04:50 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151543 wrote:
It would be too much work. I can only recommend his Essays on Heidegger and Others as perhaps my favorite. Or Objectivity, Truth, and Relativism.


I suspected you would say that. Your understanding of the philosophical landscape is pretty impoverished. Offering examples is crucial if you intend on making any kind of substantive case for your opinions. Without examples, our discursive exchange just becomes a *word-salad* of hot air.

I used to like Heidegger. I admit he is fun to read. But years ago I got really upset at the continental tradition because the more I applied myself to it, the less I could make any sense of it. This came as a dawning revelation for me when I couldn't make sense of one particular crucial passage in Heidegger's The History and Concept of Time, where he sketches out his plan for his most famous Being and Time which he wrote later. The passage was fundamental to understanding Heidegger's philosophy, and I simply couldn't determine what was being said.

The same goes for Rorty's writings. So in stark contrast to Rorty and Heidegger, I would suggest:

Davidson, Donald, Inquiries Into Truth and Interpretation (1984)

Davidson, Donald, "The Structure and Content of Truth." Journal of Philosophy, (1990).

Haack, Susan, Evidence and Enquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. (1992)

Haack, Susan, Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate. (1998).

Reconstructo;151543 wrote:
I agree. The two must be used together. And sometimes Nietzsche, for instance, is absurd. In my mind, it's all about assimilation. Take the good and the leave the bad.


That would certainly be a healthier and more intellectually honest way of approaching Nietzsche. N-- must be approached with caution since anybody can use his writings to say anything they want.

But that's precisely the dilemma. Did N-- say anything at all if this has happened so frequently from the Nazi Party and his sister Elizabeth Forster Nietzsche to the Liberal Modern-day Feminists?

Nietzsche too often says everything and nothing at once, and so he fails to say anything at all in those passages.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:33 pm
@Extrain,
[CENTER]come one come all[/CENTER]

[CENTER]coming soon
to a thread
near you[/CENTER]

[CENTER]a philosopher
who combines
the best of[/CENTER]


[CENTER]european philosophy[/CENTER]


[CENTER]analytic clarity[/CENTER]


[CENTER]pramatism and[/CENTER]


[CENTER]delightful metaphors[/CENTER]



[CENTER]come one come all[/CENTER]

[CENTER]jose ortega y gasset[/CENTER]



[CENTER]viva ortega[/CENTER]


[CENTER]by the way, did i mention that when ortega was a kid he ate nietzsche flakes for breakfast

:flowers:[/CENTER]
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:42 pm
@longknowledge,
That's cute, Longknowledge.:a-ok:

Not sure if Ortega succeeds, though...simply because all philosophers have the tendency for advancing "The BIG Synthesis."--from Plato, to Hegel, to Kant, to Ortega, to Sartre...

Don't get me wrong, though. I like Ortega.

I would just have to sit down and re-read Ortega's writings with those ideas in mind before I passed any jugment that Ortega succeeded in doing this--which there is a good chance he didn't. "Synthesis" is a very complex word which can mean many different things to different philosophers. Smile
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 05:51 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151550 wrote:
I suspected you would say that. Your understanding of the philosophical landscape is pretty impoverished. Offering examples is crucial if you intend on making any kind of substantive case for your opinions. Without examples, our discursive exchange just becomes a *word-salad* of hot air.

What you don't understand, and your understanding of basic socialization is nakedly impoverished, is that I don't owe you my time. You are no one to me, just another loudmouth on the internet. Get it? I don't care, ultimately, what you think. You bore me. Before I tune you out (thanks Ignore function!), as one more anti-social wretch with a little boy-scout-axe to grind, here's a parting gift.
YouTube - Massengill Douche commercial on a boat with Cara Buono
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 06:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;151563 wrote:
What you don't understand, and your understanding of basic socialization is nakedly impoverished, is that I don't owe you my time. You are no one to me, just another loudmouth on the internet. Get it? I don't care, ultimately, what you think. You bore me. Before I tune you out (thanks Ignore function!), as one more anti-social wretch with a little boy-scout-axe to grind, here's a parting gift.


Huh? Why should I care what your priorities are? And what does this have to with the discussion?

I simply want to know in which ways you think Rorty has "destroyed all philosophical confusion" contrary to the opinions of most practicing philosophers in mainstream academia who disagree with you. I also want to know in which ways you think Rorty has, as you say, "brilliantly assimilated Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Nietzsche, Hegel, Dewey, and Harold Bloom."

If you can't give me examples that answer either of these questions, then I have the intellectual right to seriously doubt what you say is true.

Since you continue to come up short in these matters, some of us are no longer taking seriously what you say in these threads. It's your own fault for acquiring the reputation for changing the subject everytime someone asks you a pointed question you can't answer. This isn't an isolated incident; this is a general recurring problem you have in this forum, R.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:26 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;146422 wrote:

Reality and Existence

This has got to do with the difference between between reality and existence. I am working on the idea that what is real, and what exists, are not the same. I already know this is controversial and unconventional but I will try and provide a bit more detail at this point to see if it has any future.

What I propose exists, consists mainly of objects. Objects are the kinds of things we see, from the subatomic, to the galactic, in size. (I won't list them:bigsmile:)

Now I would like to say that this category of items called 'objects' comprises 'everything that exists', or every material thing. (I suppose this leaves out a very important particular, which is energy. I will put that aside for now.)

In this definition, all existing things are compounded, or made of parts (leaving aside the constituents of atoms e.g. quarks, leptons etc). Objects are also temporal - they begin and end in time.

Now I want to consider the idea of number. I regard numbers as being a type of universal. In other words, here I am proposing some kind of mathematical realism. I believe numbers are real, although they are not real in the same way as objects are. Some refer to them as abstract objects, but I don't think there is any such thing, for reasons that will become clear. Universals also include the various attributes of an object such as roundness, red-ness and so on, as per the traditional description.

Now I don't regard numbers as existing things. They are real, but they don't exist. Instead, mathematical relations, universals, and the like, are inherent, or implicit, in the way things exist. The universe exhibits tendencies to behave a certain way - in other words, it is lawful. Lawfulness consists of predictable regularities, the tendency for certain things to happen. The Pythagorean insight that 'all is number' is profoundly true, because number describes the ratio of all things to each other.

What I am considering is that the relationship between existing things - the lawful manner in which things exists - is of a different order of reality to the things themselves. In this depiction, the material objects are given form by the lawful operations of the Universe which are of course implicit everywhere.

But putting it like this, you can see that 'the lawfulness of the universe' cannot be objectified. It is not anything in particular - it is simply the way that everything is related or comes to exist. In other words, in itself it does not exist. It is not any particular thing. Nevertheless, without it, nothing would exist. Furthermore, it underlies not only all material particulars, but also the way that the mind itself works. So again, it cannot be objectified or considered.

Universal Mind

Now in some respects, this could be understood as a theistic idea, but really it is much more like Neo-platonism. In this understanding, 'the universal mind' can be understood as the origin of this order, but this too is not something that exists. There really is no universal mind. But wherever mind exists, there is a certain way that it operates. It will always develop along certain lines and operate in certain ways, in the same way that planets go around in elliptical orbits, and so on. In other words, it is lawful. So in this way there is a universal mind - not because this or that mind is universal, but because wherever mind appears, it always operates this way. The tendecy is real, but it does not exist until it is 'instantiated' in the specific instance of this or that mind.

It seems to me that a lot of the philosophical difficulties we have in relation to the idea of 'the lawfulness of the universe' come from trying to imagine 'where' these laws exist. We can't imagine what such a 'place' would be like, of course. A lot of the problem with Platonism is wondering 'where' the forms exist. Now in this understanding, that problem is solved by the answer that 'they don't exist anywhere. They are simply the way in which things tend to exist. So they are kind of implicit within the fabric of the cosmos, but can never (of course) be apprehended'.

Now I realise this is very sketchy. It is an idea I have been working on since I joined the Forum. And it is not actually a metaphysical idea because it does not propose the idea of 'substance'. Material things all exist, but they only exist by virtue of being expressions of the law. So I will throw it out there and watch what comes back.

thanks.
So there are a lot of unknowns. Physicists became unleashed from our inherited conventions regarding objects in time and space with Einstein. Since then, things have only gotten weirder. Apparently the idea of causality has survived, but not in the form we once knew. As physicists now offer what they say are internally cohesive theories of gravity and the big bang... a lot of us just stare like deer in headlights. Huh?

It would be nice if they'd do an experiment to confirm their theories. They say they can't. Yet.

In the meantime, we continue to live with the conventions of our forebears. We "drink the same stream, see the same sun, and run the same course our fathers have run." We learn the old theories because they have practical value. And to know the difference between real and unreal is a pretty significant practicality. People who don't know the difference are in big trouble in terms of function. They're insane.

So a rule from some of our more materialistic forebears is this: are you functioning according to your liking? If so... you must be doing something right. So if my outlook is fundamentally flawed, wouldn't that be manifest in my circumstances? I must be "right for all practical purposes."

Then there are those who aren't satisfied with that. That would be us.

The wind exists. Wind is a real thing. Wind is caused and in turn is a cause. It isn't a particular object, though, even though it can be sensed. It's air in motion. We don't know exactly what air is and we don't know in an ultimate way what motion is. Our physicists are still working on the details. We know that wind is air in motion, though.

We know what we experience. We know because we reflect on our experience. We remember what's happened. It would appear our memory is fundamentally ordered by our conventions of thought.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 07:34 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;151506 wrote:
I am interested in any criticism of this proposal, from an essay I rather like on another forum: Note by 'criticism' I don't mean insult, derogation or contumely. I think it makes a valid point about the distinction between 'real' and 'exist'. Can anyone show why it doesn't?



If A, B, and C are non-existent things which are a subset of the real, then clearly A, B, and C don't exist. But you insist on telling everyone that though A, B, and C don't exist, they are still nevertheless "real"--whatever that means.

So I don't understand your distinction whatsoever. And anyone who claimed he did, doesn't know what he is talking about.

Can you show us how non-existence can be "real"?

After all, nothing is just nothing. If nothing were something, then nothing would be something, and hence no longer nothing. So nothing would be not nothing. Negation applied to a negation makes something something. So "nothing is something" is a contradiction. So if A does not exist, then clearly A is not "real," either. A is nothing.

No one can make sense of nothing. Neither can you. Nothing is just nothing.

As you can see, this is just gibberish talk...good look in trying to make any sense of it--I sure as hell can't even make sense of what I just said!

Anyone who chooses to go down this linguistic route of talking just gets lost in the syntax of grammar, that's all.

So I strongly recommend paying attention to the meanings of your own words.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 08:02 PM ----------

Arjuna;151586 wrote:
The wind exists. Wind is a real thing. Wind is caused and in turn is a cause. It isn't a particular object, though, even though it can be sensed. It's air in motion. We don't know exactly what air is and we don't know in an ultimate way what motion is. Our physicists are still working on the details. We know that wind is air in motion, though.

We know what we experience. We know because we reflect on our experience. We remember what's happened. It would appear our memory is fundamentally ordered by our conventions of thought.


This is a lot more refreshing to hear. Though I don't agree with every detail of your post, it is at least a much more sensible way of going about assessing the merits of the actual scientific/philosophical landscape than what Jeeprs has been saying about the current state philosophy and science.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 08:13 pm
@Extrain,
Extrain;151569 wrote:
Huh? Why should I care what your priorities are? And what does this have to with the discussion?

I simply want to know in which ways you think Rorty has "destroyed all philosophical confusion" contrary to the opinions of most practicing philosophers in mainstream academia who disagree with you. I also want to know in which ways you think Rorty has, as you say, "brilliantly assimilated Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Nietzsche, Hegel, Dewey, and Harold Bloom."

If you can't give me examples that answer either of these questions, then I have the intellectual right to seriously doubt what you say is true.

Since you continue to come up short in these matters, some of us are no longer taking seriously what you say in these threads. It's your own fault for acquiring the reputation for changing the subject everytime someone asks you a pointed question you can't answer. This isn't an isolated incident; this is a general recurring problem you have in this forum, R.


In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates talks of "misologists" who are haters of reason and argument, and he advises no one to discuss anything with them. He tells us that they became that way because, like misanthropes (haters of people) they encountered some bad arguments, and they concluded that are argument is bad in the way that misanthropes encounter bad people, and conclude that all people are bad. Both groups are, of course, the victims of bad argument themselves. The fallacy of hasty generalization. Rorty and his epigone are, misologists.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Tue 13 Apr, 2010 08:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;151606 wrote:
In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates talks of "misologists" who are haters of reason and argument, and he advises no one to discuss anything with them. He tells us that they became that way because, like misanthropes (haters of people) they encountered some bad arguments, and they concluded that are argument is bad in the way that misanthropes encounter bad people, and conclude that all people are bad. Both groups are, of course, the victims of bad argument themselves. The fallacy of hasty generalization. Rorty and his epigone are, misologists.


So that's what you call that! "Misologist." I've been needing a term to express that phenomenon--I've always just conveniently labeled this attitude "philosophical nihilism," or a "absolutist resignatory attitude" toward philosophical problems.

...and just notice the same kind of "misologist" demise of critical thinking witnessed here, too.

Frege, Russell=shallow persons.
So, all analytic philosophy=shallow
So, all Logic=shallow.
Therefore, all critical thinking=shallow.

Philosophical thesis of Materialism=bad.
Therefore, Idealism=good

Conclusion:

All philosophy should be metaphorical, relativistic, pragmatic, and dogmatically Eastern.

The dogmatism swings both ways.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 12:08:23