The Death of Analytic Philosophy

Reply to Banno Quoting Banno

Schuringa sees the challenges - or failing - of analytic philosophy as developing from its fained apolitical stance; the challenges come from those ignored political stances; feminism, critical race theory, decolonisation and so on.

While he’s at it , he may as well add analytic philosophy’s failure to address in a primordial way values, affectivity and the body.

Reply to Banno
I believe that it was that kind of philosophy which created a negative image of philosophy, even among academics. It has taken the ideas of many other disciplines to bring philosophy back to life, and even now analytic philosophy probably casts a haunting and daunting shadow.

Another issue he mentions is "the recent growth of historical self-awareness within analytic philosophy".

Reply to Banno

Analytic philosophy, like Joe Hill, ain't dead, and like rock 'n roll, it will never die, as long as it's considered to be a method or collection of methods by which the detritus of philosophy is cleared. Those methods may be usefully addressed to such as feminism or critical race theory, but I don't see why it must take them onboard in order to survive or flourish.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White :up:

Reply to Ciceronianus the White Is philosophy like a magic closet that keeps filling up with detritus?

Instead of diligently cleaning it for the rest of eternity, why not just throw a few grenades in it?

Quoting Banno

Schuringa sees the challenges - or failing - of analytic philosophy as developing from its fained apolitical stance; the challenges come from those ignored political stances; feminism, critical race theory, decolonisation and so on.

I think what is called analytic philosophy thrives because it ignores these issues. Or at least, when it does deign to treat them, it does so in such a sanitized way that it may as well be altogether useless. The inoffensiveness of analytic philosophy when it comes to anything political is what makes it palatable to institutional power. So Schuringa has a point but the conclusion to draw is the exact opposite - APs 'never ending death' will be prolonged so long as it does not substantively address these issues.

The article I linked deals primarily with Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice (a supposedly premier piece of 'analytic feminism', here critiqued by Alice Cracy, a first-rate Wittgenstein scholar) but these kinds of issues were practically identical to the ones surrounding Rawls' Theory of Justice - a similarly defanged piece of liberal feel good sanctimony - nearly 50 years ago. I have no expectation that AP will ever change on this score. Its political inanity is a feature, not a bug.

[quote=Christoph Schuringa]. And yet analytic philosophy somehow seems to continue to be with us as the dominant force in academic philosophy.[/quote]

It is hard to see what other form could subsist in the English-speaking academies. Actual philosophy would be too antagonistic to their major patrons, technology and industry. That's probably why arts faculties and religious studies are on the chopping block all over the world.

[quote=Christoph Schuringa]Crucially, however, it is analytic philosophers who are the originators of the label ‘continental philosophy’, to designate an out-group to their in-group.[/quote]

[quote=Ray Monk; https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/how-the-untimely-death-of-rg-collingwood-changed-the-course-of-philosophy-forever-gilbert-ryle-ray-monk-analytic-continental]Things came to a head in 1958, at Royaumont in France. A conference had been held here to connect a group of continental philosophers (mostly French phenomenologists) and their Oxford counterparts, with the aim of bridging the gap between their two schools. But, as if determined instead to reinforce it, Ryle gave a paper called “Phenomenology versus ‘The Concept of Mind,’” the latter being the title of his most famous book. That “versus” captured his pugnacious mood. In this paper, Ryle outlined what he regarded as the superiority of British (“Anglo-Saxon,” as he put it) analytic philosophers over their continental counterparts, and dismissed Husserl’s phenomenology as an attempt to “puff philosophy up into the Science of the sciences.” British philosophers were not tempted to such delusions of grandeur, he suggested, because of the Oxbridge rituals of High Table: “I guess that our thinkers have been immunised against the idea of philosophy as the Mistress Science by the fact that their daily lives in Cambridge and Oxford colleges have kept them in personal contact with real scientists."[/quote]

There is a dangerous childlikeness in its insistence that anyone can come and argue, and everything will be considered from scratch, treating everyone as equals.

It's like saying anyone can sell razors in a supermarket.

[quote=Christoph Schuringa][Analytic philosophy] will need to open itself to immersion in cultural, social and political reality. [/quote]

[quote=Camille Paglia; https://www.bu.edu/arion/files/2010/03/paglia_cults-1.pdf]There [is] a massive failure by American universities to address the spiritual cravings of the post-sixties period. The present cultural landscape is bleak: mainline religions torn between their liberal and conservative wings; a snobbishly secular intelligentsia; an alternately cynical or naively credulous media; and a mass of neo-pagan cults and superstitions seething beneath the surface.

The religious impulse of the sixties must be rescued from the wreckage and redeemed. The exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism that my generation had to get haphazardly from contemporary literature and music should be formalized and standardized for basic education. What students need to negotiate their way through the New Age fog is scholarly knowledge of ancient and medieval history, from early pagan nature cults through the embattled consolidation of Christian theology. Teaching religion as culture rather than as morality also gives students the intellectual freedom to find the ethical principles at the heart of every religion.[/quote]

Reply to Banno It's never been entirely alive, the way I see it, more like a half-dead zombie philosophy, by virtue of what analysis is. It's about cutting ideas into small pieces to study them one by one. The process is bound to kill those ideas. You can cut a zebra into pieces to study it too, but the zebra often ends up dead.

Too much dialogue of the deaf signalled in that article. Analytic philosophy: "You must think like us because that is what 'thinking' is". Critical race theory, feminism: "You must think like us because otherwise you are silencing us." How about - "We could listen to you and learn something and who knows even vice versa." I don't know what life is like on the battleground of universities but if it's as described in the article I am glad I only sell sea shells on the sea shore for a living.

Quoting Gilbert Ryle as quoted by Ray Monk

I guess that our thinkers have been immunised against the idea of philosophy as the Mistress Science by the fact that their daily lives in Cambridge and Oxford colleges have kept them in personal contact with real scientists.

Perhaps they just lacked imagination, constrained as they were in a narrowly insular mentality. The quote above is saying in essence: "Our thinkers are better than your thinkers." But don't thoughts travel across borders? :-)

Quoting Banno

Christoph Schuringa has a piece called The never-ending death of analytic philosophy, mentioned in The Philosopher's Zone.

What a refreshing and welcome introduction to a new place-to-go for accessible philosophy.
Thanks for providing links to both text and audio versions.

Quoting Banno

I'll leave it for you to read the details in his article, perhaps just noting mention of the tension between Davidson and Wittgenstein to which I am most drawn.

Unfortunately, reading and responding to the details of an article is something that I don't always give time to. Or if I do and it stimulates thought in any way, then any TPF discussion moves on at pace and I feel I have lost a window of opportunity...
It seems I need more time to think than most commentators here.
For example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11175/philosophical-plumbing-mary-midgley/p1

I felt it worthy of a deeper analysis than my usual. I refreshed my memory as to how to read a philosophical text. How to analyse a philosophical essay. Then I read and took notes.
With other mundane and special activities to tend to - in lovely warm, summer weather - this took a couple of days. By this time - although I had reached a better understanding of Midgley's approach, views and arguments - I began to wonder if it was worthwhile entering my thoughts into the records of TPF.

Still, it made me appreciate the analytical skills I had previously learned and forgotten.
If you don't use it, you lose it, huh ?

So, without giving this too much time and effort, here are a few thoughts re some paragraphs:

Quoting Christoph Schuringa

...On the other hand, so the thought continues, there is still a distinctive style in philosophy that can be aptly called ‘analytic’ (characterized, perhaps, by clarity of argumentation in its self-presentation and by openness to vigorous, non-hierarchical debate)...

...Analytic philosophy may seem more diffident today, and more sensitive to the other. It is true that a recent growth of historical self-awareness within analytic philosophy, and the growth of the history of analytic philosophy as a subdiscipline, have helped make it more self-questioning. This development reflects a remarkable overcoming of analytic philosophy’s previously staunchly ahistorical self-conception, which had tended to keep its past buried and hidden from view.

It seems to be characterised as a 'distinctive style' all the better to clarify argumentation by being open to 'vigorous, non-hierarchical debate'. Hmm.
I think it more a rigorous method - as per @Ciceronianus the White: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/554632
But perhaps there is not that much difference...

I am not convinced that about the lack of hierarchy, given that it is mentioned as 'the dominant force in academic philosophy'.

As per @Fooloso4 : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/554523
The self-questioning issue is due to an increasing awareness of other aspects and ways of using philosophy. To take account of social changes, as you say:
Quoting Banno

His evidence is sociological, and persuasive.

Perhaps, this means a broadening out from its arguably narrow academic hierarchical 'home'.
To be more inclusive and less divisive, even within its own ranks. *
The skills of analysis and critical thinking can be started in early education, for all.

*Quoting Christoph Schuringa

Nagel had been trained in the United States, and the articles are effectively a travel diary of a year in which he tried to meet representatives of various kinds of what he identified as ‘analytic philosophy’ in Europe (including Britain). Nagel’s four big categories...

...What Nagel further draws our attention to is that the approaches he groups together were not always friendly to each other.

And then, further divisions and antagonisms developed:

Quoting Banno

Of interest also is the creation by analytic philosophy of "Continental Philosophy", an act that served in the main as an exercise in self-affirmation by expelling the Other.

I remember - a long time ago - trying to figure out what position, if any, I had re analytic v continental philosophy.
The picture that has stayed with me is that of both sides shooting from their bows.
Me running under an archway of arrows...

It is similar to how I feel about the continual atheism v theism arguments and the way they seem to pervade any thread about any topic...

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Those methods may be usefully addressed to such as feminism or critical race theory, but I don't see why it must take them onboard in order to survive or flourish.

There is no compulsion to take current issues on board in order to survive.
However, I think the necessary self-questioning aspect of relevance is a good way forward, don't you think ? Thoughts travel...

Quoting Olivier5

But don't thoughts travel across borders? :-)

Wow. Just what I was thinking. Our posts crossed :cool:

Quoting Cuthbert

How about - "We could listen to you and learn something and who knows even vice versa."

Indeed.

Reply to Amity Hi Amity, always a pleasure to share with you. :-)

Guess I should return to the deep songs page.

Reply to Olivier5
Moi aussi :cool:

Quoting Olivier5

Perhaps they just lacked imagination, constrained as they were in a narrowly insular mentality. The quote above is saying in essence: "Our thinkers are better than your thinkers." But don't thoughts travel across borders?

That’s why I posted a cross-link to that particular article. It’s an article about how the untimely death of R G Collingwood - a sensitive soul, philosopher, sailor, music-lover - created an opening for Gilbert Ryle, described in the article as the ‘generalissimo of English philosophy’. ‘No ear for a tune’. Tough-minded, hard talking, none of this lily-livered idealism nonsense! And, according to the article, immensely influential on post-war philosophy in Britain and therefore globally.


Don’t he just look so much the part?

Reply to Wayfarer Careful here. Collingwood did contribute his "2 cents"; Popper and Whitehead too, to mention only two other non-analytic philosophers. The fact that analytic philosophers dominated academic philosophy in the British isles during the 20th century cannot be explained (in my view) by the untimely death of any one philosopher. There was something deeper, more structural than that at play, a sort of escapism from the difficult questions into mere word play, e.g. "is there something Mary thinks about when she thinks about something?".

This is the kind of question a salaried philosopher can safely indulge in without ruining his career. My idea is that the academic environment in Oxford incentivised such small, safe, boring analytics over more fundamental and risky questioning.

It's another way to defang our good friend Sophia: make her a bureaucrat.

The creation of analytic/continental philosophy as a historical category definitely escaped me -- I basically had the standard history in my head before reading this, though I would use that history to attempt to demonstrate that there is not a meaningful distinction if the topic happened to come up. This is definitely a new take on that!

I would still say I agree with him, though -- that there should be something driving a philosophy, be it political or moral or something, that isn't just "pure inquiry", given the inability to step out of our political lives. And I would encourage a reorientation to such an approach -- it seems to me that many would see this as giving up on some kind of ideal of the philosopher. But the best philosophers in history were those engaging in contemporary issues. Even Kant had contemporary issues in mind while writing what appears to be a Pure Critical Inquiry that seems entirely a-political.



I wonder how Heidegger fairs, on this account? :D

I guess there is something of this idealization of the philosopher in my own mind, still, since I do enjoy Heidegger even though I find myself nodding along to this article.

Quoting Olivier5

The fact that analytic philosophers dominated academic philosophy in the British isles during the 20th century cannot be explained (in my view) by the untimely death of any one philosopher.

Yes, you're probably right, but I think Ryle's tenure has particular significance even if only as a representative of that kind of dry British positivism.

Quoting Olivier5

It's another way to defang out good friend Sophia: make her a bureaucrat.

That's one for the ages.

Quoting Wayfarer

dry British positivism

AP is less of a school of thought with its own tenets than a manner of thought in my view, if not a mannerism i.e. a style that progressively turned into meaningless flourish.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's another way to defang our good friend Sophia: make her a bureaucrat.
— Olivier5

That's one for the ages.

If you say so... :blush:

*

Quoting frank

Instead of diligently cleaning it for the rest of eternity, why not just throw a few grenades in it?

I think that's been tried, at least as to certain aspects of philosophy; metaphysics, for example. And yet it keeps reappearing in various guises--like a demon that refuses to be exorcised. Analytic philosophy (to mix metaphors) is therefore similar to a mallet which may be used in a game of Whac-A-Mole, the moles being replaced by specific philosophers or philosophical theories, satisfyingly wacked by those seeking clarity and rigor in philosophy and eschewing obscurity.

But the moles keep popping up until the game is over.

Again, I view analytic philosophy as a method--a tonic and roborative, perhaps even a purgative. It shouldn't pretend to be anything else, I think. It's not the end of philosophy, it's a way of addressing problems.

Quoting Amity

There is no compulsion to take current issues on board in order to survive.
However, I think the necessary self-questioning aspect of relevance is a good way forward, don't you think ? Thoughts travel...

The only formal education I had in philosophy was devoted to the study of Analytic Philosophy, Ordinary Language Philosophy, and (through a particular professor) Deweyian Pragmatism.

Dewey, unlike the other philosophers I studied, was deeply concerned with social issues. However, he was similar to them (I think) in his emphasis on the consideration and application of a method of addressing and resolving problems he called "inquiry." "Inquiry" is broad enough, I think, to include the methods employed by AP and OLP in addressing traditional philosophical questions. But Dewey felt inquiry should be applied not merely to philosophical issues but current social issues as well.

So, I have no problem with philosophy addressing social issues.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

"Inquiry" is broad enough, I think, to include the methods employed by AP and OLP in addressing traditional philosophical questions. But Dewey felt inquiry should be applied not merely to philosophical issues but current social issues as well.

So, I have no problem with philosophy addressing social issues.

'Inquiry' is certainly a broad enough term to include practically anything.
Careful ways of reading, listening and questioning might be seen as obvious and necessary skills if we are to progress from the sometimes narrow and seemingly irrelevant to a broader holistic understanding.

But that's easier said than done...

Dewey I keep meaning to read...but...what is putting me off...I don't know.
Perhaps I need help to put my finger on that particular pulse ?
Any advice welcome, especially any of his analyses regarding social issues, thanks.

Quoting Cuthbert

Analytic philosophy: "You must think like us because that is what 'thinking' is".

The study of animal thought has long been thwarted by such narrow mindedness.

Quoting Amity

I remember - a long time ago - trying to figure out what position, if any, I had re analytic v continental philosophy.

My approach is the read those philosophers who interest me.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

But the moles keep popping up until the game is over.

What is the cause of this? Too much leisure time?

Quoting Fooloso4

I remember - a long time ago - trying to figure out what position, if any, I had re analytic v continental philosophy.
— Amity

My approach is the read those philosophers who interest me.

Why yes. Sometimes though, one encounters the phenomenon of schism: imagine you like two philosophers, and in studying them you happen to read a virulent critique of one by the other and vice versa. Sometimes I ask myself in these cases: how to position myself in this dispute, even if only in my own mind? Do I need to? Is the debate meaningful or is it hiding more than it's showing (personal feuds)? Other times, you hate one philosopher and love another, and you find a glowing review of one by the other... These things are a bit destabilizing, in a good way I think. They break the silos, the churches.

Reply to Olivier5

Sometimes I will side with whoever is more persuasive. Other times I leave it open, seeing no way to reach a satisfactory conclusion one way or the other.

When I like one and not another and one gives a glowing review then I look to see what what I might have missed or what the reviewer might have missed.

Quoting frank

What is the cause of this? Too much leisure time?

That would be a factor. Another would be self-love (the belief in one's own importance, and the resulting search for a justification or explanation for one's existence). Related to that would be the need to minimize the significance of ordinary, day-to-day life by positing the existence of some more satisfying reality behind it or transcendent of it. Also the "quest for certainty," based on, I suppose, fear of a world of probabilities and change. The disappointment of those brought up in the Christian faith when they find it to be incredible. That enough?

Quoting Amity

'Inquiry' is certainly a broad enough term to include practically anything.

According to Dewey, "the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole" though use of reason, experimental method, logic, etc., instead of, e.g., divination, prayer, consulting authority, luck, etc.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

According to Dewey, "the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole"

Well. What can I say.
Apart from: "that quote does not exactly set my juices flowing".
So, unless you can tell me what he means...offer any seductive examples...I'll leave him there, I think.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

through use of reason, experimental method, logic, etc., instead of, e.g., divination, prayer, consulting authority, luck, etc.

I did 'get' that but, again, some examples would help, ta.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

That would be a factor. Another would be self-love (the belief in one's own importance, and the resulting search for a justification or explanation for one's existence). Related to that would be the need to minimize the significance of ordinary, day-to-day life by positing the existence of some more satisfying reality behind it or transcendent of it. Also the "quest for certainty," based on, I suppose, fear of a world of probabilities and change. The disappointment of those brought up in the Christian faith when they find it to be incredible. That enough?

I don't think analytical philosophy would interfere with any of this. I mean, "there's a god" is true IFF there's a god.

What am I missing?

[quote=Christoph Schuringa]The death of analytic philosophy has been announced many times[/quote]

Sextus Empiricus' death paradox vis-à-vis Socrates! Funny, how ideas can die multiple times, meaning if given the opportunity they come back to life.

[quote=Christoph Schuringa]On the other hand, so the thought continues [...][/quote]

Exactly!

[quote=Christoph Schuringa]It also displaces a standard narrative about analytic philosophy, in which its founding act is the so-called ‘linguistic turn’, through which the problem of meaning was made central to philosophy.[/quote]

Sextus Empiricus' death paradox begins to take on a greater relevance. Socrates, founding father of Western philosophy, was primarily concerned with meaning. What is piety? What is justice?

[quote=Christoph Schuringa]Lacking distinctive doctrines or aims, it was no longer really in contest with other approaches: it was really just careful, clever thinking.[/quote]

Dialectics, the so-called Socratic method, essentially a process that consists of asking the right questions to expose a rather troubling truth viz. philosophy suffers from a chronic condition, that of poor/bad definitions.


Why analytic philosophy resurrects each time it's executed by its opponents (?) is because the "...just careful, clever thinking" that defines it is too general a quality - every other philosophy must also be "...just careful, clever thinking." Too, that it shares its identity with Socrates' philosophical method ensures that it'll never die, not any time soon at least; at any rate, philosophy only begins after one has defined one's terms.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Analytic philosophy, like Joe Hill, ain't dead, and like rock 'n roll, it will never die, as long as it's considered to be a method or collection of methods by which the detritus of philosophy is cleared. Those methods may be usefully addressed to such as feminism or critical race theory, but I don't see why it must take them onboard in order to survive or flourish.

Great answer.

Schuringa seems more like a name dropper who is saying "I know my analytic philosophy" and to the amateur interested in philosophy (me, that is) his basic message is vague. If there really is a message, it perhaps looks like to be this:

In today’s world, analytic philosophy faces a range of new challenges. It has heard the call of feminism, of critical race theory, and of the movement to decolonize the curriculum, and it is actively in the business of trying to heed these calls. Academic philosophy faces a particularly acute inclusivity problem, even by the standards of the academy: representation of women and of non-whites in the profession is shockingly poor.

Why are these a "challenge" to analytic philosophy seems strange. It is far more an issue to "Academic Philosophy" and generally to the educational departments in the Academia than a particular school of philosophy. They, the departments and institutions, have to cope with the demands from various entities. That many philosophy departments are openly "analytic" doesn't mean that the school of thought is the one that has to change.

Similarly, would you ask how the "Continental Philosophy" has to cope with decolonization of the curriculum etc? Or is "Continental Philosophy" close enough to critical race theory to adapt it as part of itself or what? Or are they part of it? Basically the division of philosophy to "Analytical Philosophy" and "Continental Philosophy" doesn't work all the time.

Yet Schuringa goes on with this entity "Analytic Philosophy" and what it ought to do and cannot do or has problems with doing:

there are specific reasons why analytic philosophy is peculiarly underequipped to meet these challenges. Although it places emphasis on open and non-hierarchical debate, it conceives of such debate within a problematic framework. In line with the apolitical profile it gave itself in the years following World War II, analytic philosophy tends to conceive debate on the liberal model of a ‘marketplace of ideas’. This is unsurprising, since the ‘apolitical’ are, just by virtue of sealing themselves off from political engagement, particularly susceptible to unwittingly falling into line with the prevailing ideology and its structures.

Or perhaps Analytic Philosophy is interested in Philosophy, not politics, and that's the reason why it is apolitical, which Schuringa sees so problematical?

At least an amateur philosopher like me is confused how and why a School of Philosophy like "Analytic Philosophy" should have an answer (opinion? theory?) about decolonization of the curriculum, critical race theory, etc.

Quoting ssu

Or perhaps Analytic Philosophy is interested in Philosophy, not politics, and that's the reason why it is apolitical, which Schuringa sees so problematical?

Happily, I know little of what goes on in the academic world. When I was taught philosophy, what I read and what was discussed had little to do with political or social issues, and much to do with traditional philosophical issues in metaphysics and epistemology, and ethics, somewhat, but primarily with the language used in ethical statements. Professors had their views on politics, but those I encountered who taught philosophy made no claims of special knowledge or insight regarding social issues, nor did I expect them to do so. I didn't expect them to have any special knowledge or insight either. Maybe it's different now. Maybe there's an expectation that professors should expound on politics, society and culture, and Schuringa thinks they should. Everyone else does, unfortunately. Unless they actually have special knowledge or insight, though, I hope they don't, as in that case it's not clear to me they contribute any more to resolution of problems than do the many, many pundits we can find anywhere in the media or the Internet.

Reply to Amity

Dewey certainly isn't a scintillating writer.

His definition of "inquiry" is very broad, I think, because it's intended to apply to problems or concerns whether they be mundane or trivial or highly significant. He believed we only think when we encounter problems we wish to solve or circumstances we wish to change. Otherwise, we act merely by instinct or habit or react without thought. Because the definition is to apply to any problematic situation, it's difficult to specify a particular instance in which it would especially apply.

Let's say we need to buy a car because the one we have no longer works. There are various factors to be considered in deciding which car to buy, e.g. the cost, what we have available to use to make payment of the purchase price, what we use a car for, primarily (distance driving or local driving, off-road driving, etc.) the climate in which we live, the size of our families, the color of the vehicle, safety features, the list goes on. What's the best decision will depend on how we weigh and assess the various factors of concern to us and determine their priority or significance.

Now say we want to go to the moon, or build a house, or travel from point A to B, or are trying to avoid a confrontation with another person, or want to fire an employee, or decide who to vote for, or when water boils, or whether we're a brain in a vat. What is the most efficient and effective means by which we resolve the questions/problems presented? That's the process of inquiry, I believe.

Quoting frank

I don't think analytical philosophy would interfere with any of this. I mean, "there's a god" is true IFF there's a god.

What am I missing?

I think analytic philosophy would not so much interfere with the musings, if we can call them that, which result from these characteristics and concerns, as it would analyze them, and find them to be lacking if they're intended to be anything more than evocative. If you're looking for an example of the approach of a form of analytic philosophy to the kind of musings which might result, the one that comes most easily to my mind is found in Carnap's article THE ELIMINATION OF METAPHYSICS THROUGH LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE, which you can find here:

http://www.ditext.com/carnap/elimination.html

I refer especially to his analysis of the statements made by everyone's favorite Nazi, Heidegger, in his musings on metaphysics.

I think this is an example of one of the methods employed by analytic philosophy, which I would view as including the logical positivism of some of the members of the Vienna Circle.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White

Ahh. I love Heidegger's essay on metaphysics. It's like Jimi Hendrix.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Happily, I know little of what goes on in the academic world. When I was taught philosophy, what I read and what was discussed had little to do with political or social issues, and much to do with traditional philosophical issues in metaphysics and epistemology, and ethics, somewhat, but primarily with the language used in ethical statements. Professors had their views on politics, but those I encountered who taught philosophy made no claims of special knowledge or insight regarding social issues, nor did I expect them to do so. I didn't expect them to have any special knowledge or insight either. Maybe it's different now.

Or maybe not.

The perception that we have (those who are outside the university and it's campuses) is based on various narratives picked up in the public debate and in the media. Perhaps too much emphasis is given to things like "student activity", demonstrations and political campaigns. The public narrative typically is based around certain individual events, which may hide the actual normality behind everything. Likely a far bigger change has been the corona-pandemic restrictions now, which has abolished one very important part of the university: meeting other students and enjoying a crucial part of their young adulthood. Those that were first year students had really a bad timing in their life.

Just to give an example, the topic is like the question "How has the military changed in the decades after the Cold War?" There too the pitfall is to follow a narrative given by someone who has a specific agenda in mind. The changes might look to be great, but with a more carefully observation the changes might be far more subtle.

In the end the academic world is part of the society and societal changes do have naturally an effect on it. We might exaggerate the changes and not take into consideration just how similar the institution still is: I think it still is a place of learning. How many were "Hippies" in the 60s and how many are the "Woke" now? Likely the vast majority of students are quite similar. I remember what my great-great-aunt told me about her studies in the university.

"The Student Body of the University held an impromptu celebration at the Student's House in honor of Finland having declared it's independence. She didn't stay at the party for long as she had reading to do for her upcoming exams."

Perhaps reading the books for exams still is in the epicenter. And for the academic professionals, it's still publishing and getting money for future research.

Quoting frank

Ahh. I love Heidegger's essay on metaphysics. It's like Jimi Hendrix.

He certainly was adept at creating a haze, if not a purple one.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White
Eh. Some people's eyes glaze over at Davidson, so there's plenty of that.

I've read quite a bit of analytic philosophy, as well as some about its history.

My own view of the matter is that 'analytic philosophy' ended around 1979 or so, with its last major work being Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. It ended not because it was criticized or replaced – and the latter work is well within the tradition, just at its tail-end, rather than a repudiation of it – but rather because a new generation of philosophers simply replaced the old. There were some people, like say Dummett or Evans, that sort of continued the tradition after that point, but they're remnants lost in the general swarm of change that happened after that.

The philosophy that has taken place in the Anglo world after 1979 doesn't bear much resemblance to what came before it. I don't know what to call it, but the continuation of the name is fairly superficial. I would say it's a kind of Anglo neo-scholasticism, that represents the intellectual concerns and political interests of the dominant Anglosphere. It doesn't have any interesting central project, or even really a central aesthetic beyond over-professionalization, but all of it reflects the political and social views of its practitioners.

The article makes the common historicist mistake of assuming that something came into existence when people self-consciously began referring to it as a genre or collecting the works of that genre. But that's nonsense; by that criterion, Tolkien is not fantasy. The real story of analytic philosophy's birth is the fairly boring mainstream one – though you could push its impulses back to, say, George Boole if you like, and find ancient precursors in some Greek stuff.

I've actually spent some time just looking through old journals, month by month – the collections of analytic papers the author alludes to reflect a pre-existing sociological reality, rather than creating it.

Reply to Ciceronianus the White
Quoting Ciceronianus the White

Dewey certainly isn't a scintillating writer.

For sure. It is easier to read what others have written about him and his philosophy.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

What's the best decision will depend on how we weigh and assess the various factors of concern to us and determine their priority or significance.

Decision-making by way of cost-benefit analysis is fine up to a point. We can only do our best given our current knowledge and circumstances. How to factor in the 'unknowns'...and filter out our own bias or attitudes. It seems that one way for Dewey is not just through calculation but through education and collaboration. A mix of theory and practice with feedback.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

What is the most efficient and effective means by which we resolve the questions/problems presented? That's the process of inquiry, I believe.

I read about Dewey's 5 stage process: Problem Recognition, Information Search, Alternative Evaluation, Choice, and Outcomes. It seems similar to a process in health care.
Assessment - gather information about presenting problem(s), needs, wishes.
Diagnosis - identifying and prioritising problem.
Planning - involving holistic, interdisciplinary team and individual to set goals and identify best action.
Implementation - actions and treatment carried out by relevant parties.
Evaluation - determining whether outcomes have been reached.
And then repeat as necessary...

This isn't purely an analytical medical enterprise but in an ideal world involves the individual, the self and family. Enabling them to adapt and involves coping with emotions - the health professional too.
I think Dewey encompasses this and more. As per:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey/#toc

Quoting SEP article: John Dewey

...human thinking is not a phenomenon which is radically outside of (or external to) the world it seeks to know; knowing is not a purely rational attempt to escape illusion in order to discover what is ultimately “real” or “true”. Rather, human knowing is among the ways organisms with evolved capacities for thought and language cope with problems. Minds, then, are not passively observing the world; rather, they are actively adapting, experimenting, and innovating; ideas and theories are not rational fulcrums to get us beyond culture, but rather function experimentally within culture and are evaluated on situated, pragmatic bases. Knowing is not the mortal’s exercise of a “divine spark”, either; for while knowing (or inquiry, to use Dewey’s term) includes calculative or rational elements, it is ultimately informed by the body and emotions of the animal using it to cope...

He spoke on topics of broad moral significance, such as human freedom, economic alienation, race relations, women’s suffrage, war and peace, human freedom, and educational goals and methods. Typically, discoveries made via public inquiries were integrated back into his academic theories, and aided their revision. This practice-theory-practice rhythm powered every area of Dewey’s intellectual enterprise,

How could we at TPF learn from Dewey ? Would it be as exciting and stimulating ? Does it sound boring to be peaceful ? He thought it worthwhile to problem-solve in a peaceful way via group process of discussion and debate. But philosophy, as learned and practised...how effective is it ?

Dewey in the 21st Century
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1158258.pdf
Quoting 12 page pdf - Dewey in the 21st Century

Dewey’s beliefs about democracy, community, and problem solving, guided the development of his social and educational philosophies. John Dewey may have been the most well-known and influential philosopher to impact education to date (Theobald, 2009).
John Dewey was a pragmatist, progressivist, educator, philosopher, and social reformer.
He felt strongly that people have a responsibility to make the world a better place to live through education and social reform (Gutek, 2014). According to Schiro (2012), Dewey believed that education was “a crucial ingredient in social and moral development” (p. 174).

Page 9 - discusses philosophy for children (P4C). Interesting. Listen up. We might learn something ?

Students learn and take on appropriate social behavior by becoming engaged and reflective listeners, who respect and challenge the different opinions of their peers (Hopkinson, 2007). This is a skill that is certainly crucial to the goal of appropriate social learning in ideal classrooms as presented by John Dewey.

We can challenge opposing points of view and still keep an attitude of respect, can't we ?
Or are certain negative behaviours an ongoing problem with anonymous internet chat...
But which, nevertheless, we can still learn from...

It's all good. This 'Inquiry' business, innit ?

Reply to frank

True enough.

Quoting Amity

For sure. It is easier to read what others have written about him and his philosophy.

That's true, unfortunately. I'd recommend Larry Hickman's books about Dewey.

I'm not sure just what it is about Dewey's writing that makes him difficult to read. It's not that he's obscure or because he uses a special jargon, but his style seems awkward. He can be tedious, but is worth the effort, I think.

Quoting Amity

We can only do our best given our current knowledge and circumstances. How to factor in the 'unknowns'...and filter out our own bias or attitudes. It seems that one way for Dewey is not just through calculation but through education and collaboration. A mix of theory and practice with feedback.

I think Dewey would say that the process of inquiry educates us. We learn new things as part of the process of thinking. So, he thinks conclusions are, at least in theory, subject to correction, modification or rejection as we learn more, have new experiences and discover new or more evidence.
This troubles some people. His view of ethics has been disturbing to some because he doesn't identify a definite summum bonum, for example. So, in ethics and otherwise, he's accused of relativism. I think that accusation is unfounded because of his emphasis on the method of thinking to be used to make conclusions.

Quoting Amity

It's all good. This 'Inquiry' business, innit ?

I think it's the best we can do.

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

I'd recommend Larry Hickman's books about Dewey.

Thanks for recommendation.
I searched for books after reading his impressive lecture on Dewey:
https://www.ikedacenter.org/thinkers-themes/thinkers/lectures-talks/hickman-lecture

It includes criticisms of Dewey. Mind-boggling that some thought his ideas to blame for the shooting at Columbine High School !
Quoting Larry Hickman

In 1999, for example, shortly after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, the vice-president of a suburban Chicago school board complained in print that Dewey's ideas had been responsible for that tragic event...
Dewey's philosophy of education has dominated the field of learning. We are now paying the price." He then charged that "the seemingly mindless slaughter at Littleton was the acting out of the pragmatic view. If it works, if it feels good, do it. They did."

Most books I saw were quite expensive. However, have just downloaded this for £0.00 !
Pragmatism as Post-Postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey (American Philosophy) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

Quoting Ciceronianus the White

So, he thinks conclusions are, at least in theory, subject to correction, modification or rejection as we learn more, have new experiences and discover new or more evidence. This troubles some people.

Yes. But for others, it is dynamic and necessary to be flexible and adapt to change, or be the change.

Another article by Hickman:
Quoting Hickman on Dewey

In Dewey's view, then, learning is much more than simply a preparation for living. It is a process of living whose goal is the growth of individuals and institutions in ways that will allow them to participate fully in a life that is free and democratic....

If our effort is to be intelligent, it must negotiate a creative compromise between the actual and the ideal. Where there is enthusiasm for such activities, where there is a “unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and actions,” said Dewey, there is religious experience...
Working together, he argued, science and religion can establish platforms on which we can build a common faith, a faith for all humankind...

What ? Religious experience...Buddhism ? The message of 'Peace, Learning and Dialogue' from the founder of the website https://www.ikedacenter.org/ who is described as Buddhist philosopher, peacebuilder, and educator Daisaku Ikeda.

Not sure about this dimension...

Quoting Amity

Mind-boggling that some thought his ideas to blame for the shooting at Columbine High School !

Right-wingers have believed Dewey destroyed the educational system for quite some time, and that as a consequence our youth are not being taught Truth,Justice and the American Way as in the good old days.

Quoting Snakes Alive

My own view of the matter is that 'analytic philosophy' ended around 1979 or so, with its last major work being Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. It ended not because it was criticized or replaced – and the latter work is well within the tradition, just at its tail-end, rather than a repudiation of it – but rather because a new generation of philosophers simply replaced the old. There were some people, like say Dummett or Evans, that sort of continued the tradition after that point, but they're remnants lost in the general swarm of change that happened after that.

What, in your view, unites the standard story up to Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature?

Reply to Moliere Roughly, it begins with things philosophers say as its data, rather than questions presented by the wider tradition. Its focus is on creating technologies to explicate what is said, whether formal calculi like mathematical logic, or metasemantic heuristics, like ordinary language analysis or the positivist criteria. Its first observation is that someone has claimed something, and its typical concern is with what one could possibly be doing by having said that.

There's more to it than that, and the techniques bear a family resemblance, but that's the gist of it.

Reply to StreetlightX But is that a bad thing? Analytic philosophy marked the end of speculative philosophy; the demise of making shite up. Instead of philosophical bullshit, we might have had a more solid base for social theory. It now seems that making shite up is returning. I will maintain that the tools developed by analytic philosophers are quite suitable for cleaning up bullshit.

Quoting Wayfarer

Actual philosophy...

...as done by actual Scotsmen?

Advocating a return to making stuff up. Perhaps a valid point.

Reply to Amity There's a second episode looking at the hegemony of analytic philosophy in American journals. I wasn't very impressed by it; special pleading, in the main. The analytic toolkit was developed in order to dismantle Hegelian Idealism and its bastard children. It proved more far-reaching. Now folk are complaining that there is nothing left, as if that were not a good thing.

There are unanswerable questions. Analytic philosophy helps us to recognise that.

But professional philosophers cannot make money by pointing out the uselessness f philosophical speculation. So it's an economic necessity that they reject analytic philosophy.

Hence the return to making shite up.

Quoting Banno

But professional philosophers cannot make money ...

I have noticed the attempt to move philosophy from the world of academia where jobs are scarce to public forums. Seems to me to be more that a bit of pandering involved.

I don't know that this divides along the lines of analytical versus other approaches though.

Reply to Fooloso4 The only division is between analytic philosophy and bad philosophy. :wink:

Quoting Banno

Analytic philosophy marked the end of speculative philosophy; the demise of making shite up.

Oh sweet summer child. There are none more deluded than those who think their chosen camping spot in philosophy is not just shite made up. Probably the biggest piece of made up shite of all it.

Reply to StreetlightX Obviously. Trite.

Reply to Banno Then we are agree that the idea that the idea that 'analytic philosophy might provide a more solid basis for social theory' on the basis of the fantasy that it does not make shite up (lol) is just a fantasy? Especially given that 'social theory' in AP is more or less utterly toothless and has been since its inception?

Reply to StreetlightX You seem to be off to one side...

Perhaps the reason analytic philosophy is unhelpful is that philosophy is unhelpful.

Reply to Banno Maybe, maybe not. Not being a speculative dogmatist about the issue, I'm not particularly keen to rule one way or the other in advance of cases to discuss. What I do know is that philosophy has certainly provided very powerful lenses for how people go about framing issues - even if in a downstream, altered manner - and will continue to do so. The question is whether one contributes to that, and how.

I think that I wouldn't say analytic philosophy is over; but, the linguistic turn is, and that might be somewhat confused with or associated with analytic philosophy...

Go fish.

Analytic Philosophy seems like it has been useful to politics mostly in pieces, like providing a toolbox of better arguments here and there. Not as much in initiating a holistic system of a thought, the debate surrounding Rawls & Nozick bores me to tears.

I really like Erik Olin Wright's work. He's a sociologist, but his style comes from a group of intellectuals steeped in that philosophical tradition. If there's a resurgent political project in Analytic Philosophy, that's the kind of thing I'd like to see.

I do agree that a philosophy that doesn't spend its time making shit up serves a largely negative function, so can't survive as an independent discipline. But I also think that it doesn't matter whether philosophy survives as an independent discipline, any more than it matters whether astrology does. It affects little, matters little. It's been grandfathered in, and would never survive today on its own merits.

To the extent that Anglo-American philosophy continues to exist, it will do so because it apes other disciplines, or flails to be 'relevant' to them by means of commenting on them. But this too is uninteresting, in my view, since typically philosophers are worse equipped to comment on these things than those who actually work in them. They tend to be dilettantes, trained with a generic 'toolbox' of techniques of inquiry that don't really work. And so they remain a kind of peripheral annoyance, but one that for the most part keeps to itself.

Quoting Snakes Alive

I do agree that a philosophy that doesn't spend its time making shit up serves a largely negative function, so can't survive as an independent discipline

But there are so many other disciplines making up shit--even philosophical shit. That will keep philosophers busy for many years.

In my view it is not wrong to say that the entire Philosophy from the ancient time of Thales up to now, could be defined as Analytic. The recent anglo-american analysts just made it more rigorous system.

Quoting Banno

Analytic philosophy marked the end of speculative philosophy; the demise of making shite up.

The start of conceptually coherent, self-consistent, clearly stated speculation (i.e. making up shite) perhaps. (Don't ask for examples or exemplars – that's for another thread.) You're just channeling a cranky Lord Kelvin's 'end of physics', y'know... Anyway, where would scientific or historical 'conjectures' be without speculation (such as Feyerabend's "anything goes" context of discovery)?