Philosophy as critical thinking as personal liberation. Philosophy as the destroyer of idols and the encouragement of self-realization. Philosophy as an open path, an enlargement of personality. Philosophy as the consciousness of freedom.

Not philosophy as mere memorization of philosophy past. Not philosophy as the self-abasement before famous philosophers. Not philosophy as the methodical application of other men's statements.

Philosophy as conversation without limits. Philosophy as self-invention. Philosophy as a weapon. Philosophy as a crown. Philosophy as the edge of human language use.

A person could replace the use of the word "philosophy" with the word "rhetoric," but "philosophy" has a better reputation.

I don't know what's going on here. Did you perhaps misread the words "I would guess that as a Marxist he wouldn't" as "I would guess as a Marxist that he wouldn't"? In any case that was only an aside to one remark in an article in which I made several remarks. I did wonder if my article was too long and/or poorly structured - perhaps this is evidence that it was. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the thread, just indicate that your response puzzles me.

This is a silly tirade.

Seriously. If you want to claim the phrase "common sense," you are going to have to make a case.

The KKK probably works harder at the presentation of its prejudices.

The United States is a huge hybrid. To speak as if there is one American type sounds embarrassingly naive to us sinister, power-hungry, sex-obsessed, materialistic, reason-hating, racist, barbaric, obese Americans.

Also, concerning "political grounds." One of America's political problems is that many of its citizens are apolitical. Some are too cynical. Others too lazy. Yes, this is the dark side of wealth. On the other hand, America hasn't socialized health or education. We have no shortage of murder in our cities. We have more guns than citizens. This disparity of means and proximity to murder probably makes Americans different. But those Americans who visit Europe are not generally the Americans who live near the trouble. America is niether its tourists nor its tourist traps. America is crammed with a-political individualistic artistic types, who trust neither dominant party.

Let me attempt to explain myself. By the way your post was not poorly structured at all. I just figured you would know who Gramsci (the political and cultural revolutionary!) really was, and what his influence is. And that you would know who Levinas really was. And I think I know exactly what you mean by saying that philosophy is psychotherapy done right and that it is to be conscious of personal identity, or of the personal identity of others.


I hear this, what I would humbly suggest is crazy talk, all the time.

[...]

Gramsci has won, the revolutionaries, who apparently are no longer aware they are revolutionaries, have won. Philosophy is just as dead as is 'reason' in the Universities and common sense in the culture.

You may believe that it is silly, but I just stated what I believe to be humble, not to say banal, matter of fact.
The plebian common sense that once prevailed in America is actually not my taste, to tell you the truth. But if American society has gone over the deep end I should be able to speak my mind about it. I would be happy to make the case demonstrating the death of 'common sense' in America. Where would you like to start?
Are you insinuating that I am (my views are) somehow related to the K.K.K? There is an ongoing and very effective political and cultural movement which uses the K.K.K. to label white people in general as evil and racist especially against blacks. Aren't you implying that my defense of the old 'common sense', 'everyman', America is akin to being a racist? This would be a fruitful subject to persue.
Did you know that America thirty or forty years ago was a rather homogenous society? Did you know that multi-culturalism is something that is recent in American history? Now, I would agree with you that Anglo-America has died (along with 'common sense' and the 'everyman') but does this mean that the ideas that killed it are no longer a topic of discussion or debate?
Is this your manifesto?

Sure. Also consider that my original post hardly made any claim to be exhaustive. If philosophy is described metaphorically as a weapon, this is a rhetorical device used to emphasize an aspect of philosophy.

Wouldn't you say that your last post is the wielding of rhetoric in the name of philosophy? Are you using rhetoric/philosophy as a weapon against the concept of rhetoric/philosophy as a weapon?

I'm aware that many seek from philosophy a sort of replacement for religion.

I'm not saying this is you. But many a man points his finger in indignation and calls it wisdom. Calls the Bible silly, worships other books instead.

Hmmmm ..ok let me repharse, imo human nature gets in the way of your noble thinking.

This seems vague. Some might call the O.P. an anti-noble attitude. Philosophy-as-rhetoric is as old as the sophists. I don't call it either.

"Human nature" is a concept just a little more precise than "God."

I'm not sure excatly how to handle this, your thoughts, reasoning and arguments seems idealistic based, not pragmatic.

That's funny. My views are similar in many ways to Richard Rorty's -- today's most famous pragmatist.


This book is great.
Contingency, irony, and solidarity - Google Books

Just because a doctor is a doctor, doesn't mean he's skilled in what he does.

I don't care what you think you are alligned to, it doesn't change the fact that I see no pragmatism in your thinking.

(If there is a way of listening to Derrida or Lacan, for instance, that does not make them sound crazy, in a really bad way, then I don't know what it is. I wrote that sentence quite carefully! So please read it with care.)

Except, of course, that rhetoric fails unless it persuades, but philosophical argument need not persuade to be succeed. Now, there's a difference!

I'm glad you've figured this out.

---------- Post added 02-12-2010 at 02:56 AM ----------

More's the pity. Do some research. Do you know what pragmatism refers to in a philosophical context? You sound young, which is fine, but you don't sound like you've studied the philosophical tradition.

Sure, you can be a philosopher without reading philosophy, but probably only a bad one. Yes, it's a matter of taste. Good luck.

I must confess I didn't know that there was a branch of philosophy called Pragmatis. Been raised in the belive pragmatic meant efficient, rational, chosing the obvious right solution and such.

Nor does it sound you are very wise in the ways of philosophy, now that you lash out at me in such puerile ways.

1. Pragmatism is related to the practical and to practice. You would probably like it.
2. I wasn't all that rude, man. I even wished you good luck. You came on a bit arrogant. So maybe I was returned a little of that. No hard feelings, unless you insist on them.
3. As to my knowledge of philosophy, it's not too shabby, considering my age.

Philosophy as the strip-tease of a Virgin Goddess.

The Goddess is the Final Truth, the one that philosophers tend to lust for, and many claim to have found.

I call her a Virgin to emphasize that her stripping has not endangered her hymen.

Philosophy as fiction whose theme is non-fiction. Philosophy as half-fiction.

Philosophy as adjustment. Philosophy as maintenance on our network of beliefs and desires.

At some point, many painters stopped painting what was in the world and started trying to paint feelings, etc. And then they were just painting paint. It was just paint, and that was how they wanted it evaluated.

At some point art stopped representing reality and started representing representation. I think philosophy is largely the game that tries to name itself.