Budding philosopher's dilemma

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Theages
 
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2009 12:42 am
@mickalos,
First, as a brilliant Oxford-educated philosopher, you should know what an ad hominem argument is. I didn't make one. You should also know what an appeal to authority argument is. You did make one.

Second, it is absolutely hilarious that you would cite John Searle out of all the people in the world to cite as a worthwhile thinker. You must have heard of his dispute with Derrida from the 70s. He completely embarrassed himself, the legacy of JL Austin, and the entire field of "analytic" philosophy. (Details available here: Limited Inc)

Anyway, keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better about your world-renowned clarity and your inability and unwillingness to try to come to terms with thinkers who are well out of your league.
 
mickalos
 
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2009 08:36 am
@Theages,
Theages;81713 wrote:
First, as a brilliant Oxford-educated philosopher, you should know what an ad hominem argument is. I didn't make one. You should also know what an appeal to authority argument is. You did make one.

Second, it is absolutely hilarious that you would cite John Searle out of all the people in the world to cite as a worthwhile thinker. You must have heard of his dispute with Derrida from the 70s. He completely embarrassed himself, the legacy of JL Austin, and the entire field of "analytic" philosophy. (Details available here: Limited Inc)

Anyway, keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better about your world-renowned clarity and your inability and unwillingness to try to come to terms with thinkers who are well out of your league.


Your last post was nothing more than a pathetic personal attack with no attempt to defend the shoddy methods of your 'intellectual' pin-ups, and this one is no better. My post contains examples of the charlatanism I talk of, backed up by the opinions of experts in the field of philosophy, confirming that the work of Derrida, Hegel and their ilk, does not meet the intellectual standards required by modern philosophy. Something of a peer review, you might say. I'm not quite sure what your problem is in appealing to the opinions of eminent philosophers regarding the standards set by their profession; in informal argument, appeals to authority are just as accepted and often necessary, as appeals to inductive evidence are. You are apparently unable to defend your idols' weak philosophical argumentation, deliberate obscurantism, wildly exaggerated claims, and attempts at profundity by paradox, which when closely examined is revealed to be either nonsense or trivial.

I'm not sure why you feel Searle embarrassed himself, let alone the entire analytic community. If anything the exchange was farcical, and perhaps establishes Derrida's credentials as a comedian, but certainly not a philosopher. Searle's enormous contributions to philosophy, not least in the philosophy of language, are more than enough to make him worthwhile, and you would struggle to name many living philosophers who are held in greater esteem.
 
Theages
 
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2009 12:32 pm
@mickalos,
Well, we can't all live up to the high intellectual standards of glorious Oxford and appeal to the petty personal bickering of a handful of names without ever having actually read the work of world-historical figures.

You correctly noted that not once did I attempt to defend the two names that I mentioned (or the slew of others that you implicitly and ignorantly slander). The reason for this is that I don't need to. Their works speaks for themselves. Their importance in the history of philosophy is already established, and ignorant polemics by nobodies like you will do nothing to change that. Even your alma mater, Oxford, the greatest university of all time, seems to agree with me. How do I know that? I have in front of me, as I write this, a copy of Hegel's Phenemenology, published by...Oxford University Press! And since high and mighty Oxford can do no wrong, it seems that Hegel really is someone worth considering.

So the choice is in your hands. Drop your pointless and thoroughly unwarranted arrogance and accept that maybe some French and German writers are worth your time, or keep up your outdated and dogmatic boycott and stew in your own spite and resentment.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2009 12:51 pm
@Lost2ize,
Speaking of embarassing, this kind of bickering and name-calling is hardly what one expects of anyone claiming to discuss positions from a philosophic point of view, and does neither of you any credit, Theages and Mickalos.
If you wish to discuss or to even argue about philosophy or schools of philosophy, do so on their own merits and leave personalities and snide comments for some other place or time; they do not belong here in Philforum. Everyone on this forum is expected to conduct themselves with courtesy toward one another and to attempt to reflect the highest standards of philosophical discourse in their conversations.

Read this and take it to heart:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum-administration-area/news-announcements/5288-banned-members-flaming.html
John
Administrator


 
mickalos
 
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2009 03:08 pm
@Theages,
Theages;81772 wrote:
Well, we can't all live up to the high intellectual standards of glorious Oxford and appeal to the petty personal bickering of a handful of names without ever having actually read the work of world-historical figures.

You correctly noted that not once did I attempt to defend the two names that I mentioned (or the slew of others that you implicitly and ignorantly slander). The reason for this is that I don't need to. Their works speaks for themselves. Their importance in the history of philosophy is already established, and ignorant polemics by nobodies like you will do nothing to change that. Even your alma mater, Oxford, the greatest university of all time, seems to agree with me. How do I know that? I have in front of me, as I write this, a copy of Hegel's Phenemenology, published by...Oxford University Press! And since high and mighty Oxford can do no wrong, it seems that Hegel really is someone worth considering.

OUP is a publishing house, if people will buy it, OUP will print it. I might point out the number of reading lists put out by the philosophy faculty on which Hegel appears, but as you are clearly unwilling to discuss anything in a mode other than that of a petulant child, I shan't.

Quote:
So the choice is in your hands. Drop your pointless and thoroughly unwarranted arrogance and accept that maybe some French and German writers are worth your time, or keep up your outdated and dogmatic boycott and stew in your own spite and resentment.

I answer this only to clear up my position. Being continental has nothing to do with the problem of continental philosophy; Frege, Carnap and Wittgenstein are perfectly good Germanic philosophers. The problem is with philosophers who propose overarching theories that are completely unverifiable through empirical demonstration or logical analysis, and what's worse is when they do it with language that deliberately seeks to obscure what they mean. When it doesn't descend into windy mysticism (as it does with Hegel) there is nothing wrong with phenomenology.
 
pondfish
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 05:19 pm
@Lost2ize,
You want to be philosopher? Easy!.

Ask questions to yourself. Be extremely Honest.

if you are extremely honest to a level you defy your existance , then you start to understand things and why people behave certain way.

it is not difficult if you let go off all your beliefs ( preconcieved notions and learnt habits).

If you see , there will be 1000s of philosopher and Godman now and in future. It is not difficult to be philosopher.

Ask questions , never agree or disagree.
 
PappasNick
 
Reply Thu 11 Mar, 2010 06:03 pm
@pondfish,
pondfish;138750 wrote:
You want to be philosopher? Easy!.

Ask questions to yourself. Be extremely Honest.

if you are extremely honest to a level you defy your existance , then you start to understand things and why people behave certain way.

it is not difficult if you let go off all your beliefs ( preconcieved notions and learnt habits).

If you see , there will be 1000s of philosopher and Godman now and in future. It is not difficult to be philosopher.

Ask questions , never agree or disagree.


After this, is the next step is to ask questions of others?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/03/2024 at 02:15:56