Why has post-modernism proven to be popular in literature departments but not in philosophy?
The biggest impact post-modernism (e.g. Derrida's ''deconstruction'') has had has not been in philosophy departments but, rather, in literature departments, along with departments in ''communication'' and ''media'' (see, for example, https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/the-myth-of-the.html). From personal experience, whenever I have brought up ''post-modernist'' thinkers (e.g. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, etc.) there has always been a look of caution if not outright trepidation in the eyes of my philosophy professors. By contrast, such names appear to be treated with glee in various other departments, at least from what I have gathered from my friends.
Why do you think this might be? I suspect, of course, the reason is that post-modernism is not taken to meet ''acceptable standards of logic, rigour, and clarity'' which are seen as fundamental to the practice of philosophy. Whilst this may be true, I'm not sure whether it is a particularly strong argument to make given that these are the very things that post-modernist thinkers tend to critique/question.
Why do you think this might be? I suspect, of course, the reason is that post-modernism is not taken to meet ''acceptable standards of logic, rigour, and clarity'' which are seen as fundamental to the practice of philosophy. Whilst this may be true, I'm not sure whether it is a particularly strong argument to make given that these are the very things that post-modernist thinkers tend to critique/question.
Comments (103)
Also, although it's difficult to know just what the academic background might be of most folks on the board, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, etc. are WAY more popular on this board than any analytic philosophers.
There are also not an insignificant number of philosophers who have argued that an analytic/continental distinction is nowhere near as black & white as it's often made out to be.
And indeed I said nothing like that. That should have been obvious to you by the fact that I used the phrase "and more broadly continentalism." "And more broadly continentalism" wouldn't make any sense if I were saying that postmodernism and continentalism were the same thing.
Postmodernism is a subset of continental philosophy. I mentioned continental phil and not just postmodernism because (a) they tend to be assessed similarly by the analytic philosophers in question, and the issues they have with postmodernism they see as an outgrowth of problems with continental philosophy in general, and (b) you mentioned Heidegger, who is not conventionally seen as a postmodernist. I wasn't interested in bickering with that, so I just broadened things a bit.
On the flipside of (a), the folks who embrace Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, etc. tend to embrace Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc. as well. It's not the New School for Social Research, UT Austin, etc. who made Derrida guest lecture under the literature department.
That was also the case with most philosophers who wound up categorized as existentialists (which often includes Heidegger).
It's similar to how most folks won't accept being called a hipster or SJW--they try to "decharacterize" any characterization of those categories, etc.
Anti-labelists basically . . . who certainly wouldn't like being labeled as anti-labelists.
I don't know why you think that these aren't strong arguments.
Logic: it's inherently illogical to try and make a logical argument against logic. You can tweak rules of logic, maybe, but you can't just do away with it altogether and maintain sense.
Rigour: If you/some philosopher does not want to put in the necessary work/research into their theories, I don't see what the point is in paying any attention to them. It's a bit much to say "I may not have put much effort in my theory, or thought it through properly, but you STILL should listen to me 50 years after others have already debunked me."
Clarity: If you can't be clear about what you're saying a) it shows you don't actually understand yourself what you're saying, b) it usually stems from illogic and/or contradictory content, c) it's demanding your listeners/readers do the work of making sense of your ramblings, when it is actually your job to make your theory sensible.
Basically, you can't just throw together some illogical mess of a theory and then demand that people pay any attention to you. There's so much good, clear, logical philosophy being done, that the rest of us need to choose wisely on what to spend any time or effort. Being vague, semi-mystical, and illogical just makes that decision regarding these authors pretty easy.
Indeed!
lol I would say building castles of reason is a solipsistic/masturbatory fantasy and also that analytic philosophy is the worst offender in radicalizing the mind/body duality
I will occasionally joke "my brain serves my balls, not the other way around"
Important to note that this is not the same as saying that all ways of 'constructing' reality are equally valid--one can still hold that some ways of 'constructing' reality are better than other ways (e.g. one might hold that 'construction' using the scientific method is more practical than other methods of 'construction'). So it's also unfair to say that postmodern philosophy/linguistics is a form of naive relativism, as is often charged. (Though of course there are, as with every academic tradition, hacks who do go down the path of absolute relativism)
It's also not so inconsistent with more scientific views--Paul Cilliers wrote a book called 'Complexity and Postmodernism' which persuasively argues that the logic of, for example, Derrida's linguistics is consistent with that of the connectionist principles used to understand things like neural nets.
Just ew.
We'll have to wait a little longer for posrtmodenists like Deleuze and Derrida to get their turn, but it is already beginning to happen. Heidegger ,Gadamer, Lyotard , Foucault and postmodernism in general are being made use of in 4ea(enactive, embedded, embodied affective) approaches in cognitive science.(See Jan Slaby, Shaun Gallagher and Matthew Ratcliffe, and the journal Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences).
One of the first counter voices I came across to PM was the magazine Lingua Franca, a great little trade magazine that among other things was involved in the Sokol Hoax. If you've never heard of it, or want to revisit a dead friend, here is the link to some of its issues. archive.
The cultural relativism at the heart of post-modernism gives rise to an internal inconsistency that is a clear sign of intellectual vacuity for philosophy. If cultural value is relative, the the statement that cultural value is relative is also relative... Plato knocked this on the head in the Protagoras and philosophy, like science, builds on its achievements. Literary theorists are still arguing about what literary theory is.
I always prefer simpler, more direct language over obscurantist opaque language--something that a lot of contemporary, post-modern, deconstructionist, or whatever-the-hell-it-is, is very guilty of. (Not that they invented opaque language. There are English texts from the past--way before our modernism, that are quite difficult to follow. I'm not referencing Middle English; I'm talking about some Victorians. Other writers, like Boswell (18th century) are very easy to read and comprehend. So is the 17th Samual Pepys, probably because he was just writing for himself, informally.
I would be flabbergasted if I ever witnessed someone demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of Nietzsche. I've actually seen many people attempt to discuss him for maybe ten minutes before admitting that they haven't read more than a few of his sentences.
I continually see his name in reference to "post-modernist thinking", yet throughout the course of his own written words he continually chastises both those who argue against him and those who emulate him as having misinterpreted his position.
That anyone would find inspiration in his words toward nihilism or social revolution or any of what I've come to recognize as "post-modernism" is the epitome of irony.
I think it should be obvious that his work openly mocks the very people who pay it homage and opposes the very people who believe they've found value in its contents. How can someone lack awareness to such an extent that they take his criticism, sarcasm and cynicism literally and out of context in order to generate their own positions from it that so deeply contradict his overall tone and message?
In response to the title of the thread, I haven't bothered much with some of the other names you've listed as "post-modernist" thinkers, but with Nietzsche in particular, there is a mirror being held to the face of philosophy, and it is urged to examine its own ugliness.
He was also a language and literature specialist and has had some of his works, chiefly those written prior to his mental breakdown, deemed some of the most eloquently written words in the German language. I don't intend to imply agreement or disagreement with this claim. I don't read German. What I'm saying is that his work might be given credit more for its style and effect than for any philosophical interpretation of its contents.
Insofar as "postmodernism" is used in relation to philosophers, there is a reason Nietzsche is counted. The critcism of "postmodernism" isn't directed at what a philosopher says (none of them are nihilsts or reject objective truths). It's a vauge response to denying the application of some kind of tradition narrative.
The "postmodernist" philosopher is misunderstood to be a nihilist or rejecting objective turth on account of abandoning a traditional narrative which is understood to be a source of meaning.
For gender studies, for example, the movement away from the tradition of what a man must be and a women must be, is understood to be destroying the tradition that gives meaning to life.
Hence they are "nihilists" and "subjectvists", since they are understood to be abandoning the only objective truth. (the fact they are making objective arguments about people and their relations doesn't matter to these critics).
Nietzsche is counted because he is an arch-anti traditionalist. He attacks our religious, philosophical and moral traditions without quarter. Indeed, he utterly refutes the idea traditions are accounts or our existence or the reason for our living. For Nietzsche, no-one lacks value and needs to have it granted by a tradition. He utterly undermines what the traditionalist understands to be objectivity. He makes us all worldly and our accounts of ourselves a question of what states of the world do.
Some of these people use obscurantist language (Baudrillard), some of them don't (Foucault, despite his giant sentences, is not that bad). The worst 'postmodernists' do tend towards absolute relativism. But this shouldn't be an excuse to dismiss the great range of thinkers who are shunted under the 'postmodern' label, which is basically what happens when one says postmodernism per se is bad writing and absolute relativism.
In response to the thread title: 'postmodern' thinking (by which I mean a hodgepodge of poststructuralist linguistics, 'continental' philosophy, Marxism (Frankfurt School, structuralist, and more orthodox variants), cultural studies, postcolonial studies, and so on) has become big in English Literature departments as a reaction against what was dominant before, which was even worse than the current so-called 'postmodern' paradigm. Before texts were treated as autonomous, self-referential objects which had little relation to the mechanics of society. At least under the current paradigm academics think about texts as things whose meanings are dependent upon social factors.
Personally I do think the current paradigm could do with a lot more scientific method, and I think the future of English literature probably lies in machine learning/computational linguistics combined with social systems/complex systems theory. But there is much of value to be mined from so-called 'postmodernism'.
Lol. no, I don't think that's accurate. Some Lit academics and Phil of Lit people think that's interesting, but it's highly unlikely that the entirety of the field will focus on just machine learning and systems theory. That's just not how the people in that discipline think.
It's hard to read more than a few pages of what amounts to a list of aphorisms.
"When, however, ye have an enemy, then return him not good for evil: for that would abash him. But prove that he hath done something good to you.
And rather be angry than abash any one! And when ye are cursed, it pleaseth me not that ye should then desire to bless. Rather curse a little also!
And should a great injustice befall you, then do quickly five small ones besides. Hideous to behold is he on whom injustice presseth alone.
Did ye ever know this? Shared injustice is half justice. And he who can bear it, shall take the injustice upon himself!"
And so on, and so on. It gets tiresome.
He doesn't attack without quarter though, he continually points to redeeming qualities in traditional values amid his seething rants but then proposes such qualities can later be found in the absence of tradition. He admits that abandonment of traditional valuation is foreboding beyond comprehension and condemns the nihilist for doing what it is bound to do.
He also holds to objective (subjective) truths even while contesting them.
The nihilist cherry-picks phrases and takes passages out of context in an attempt to fill its emptiness with the words of its enemy, to fill its mind with the ambitions and intentions of its alleged oppressor, which is ironically how people often treat heroes.
The association between the "post-modernist" title and its recipients makes no sense to me, and it's impossible to evaluate the corresponding "humanities" rhetoric because it's such senseless drivel that it brings on a headache. Gender studies is inventing conflict to gratify an addiction and promoting victimhood for the sake of political leverage--it's not destroying tradition, it's validating it, placing it on a pedestal. Meanwhile, it despises the very people it pats itself on the back for defending. It's a snake so busy eating its own tail that it can't reach all the other tails it's trying to eat.
To isolate Nietzsche's work to a few aphorisms is impatient and short sighted. If only reading was so easy as finishing one sentence before throwing the book into a bonfire with all the others.
Except, the ENTIRE book is that way. So yeah, to the bonfire it goes.
(Trust me, I read it. I hate it, but I read it.)
For these traditionalists, Nietzsche is the ultimate enemy. He denies the terms of their tradition. He puts meaning is us (regardless of our tradition! ) and the world, denying it's a specific tradition (e.g. God, Christianity, maleness, femaleness, etc.) gives us meaning. Nietzsche sees value in tradtion, but he refutes what matter these traditionalist, that we are meaningless unless we follow a specific tradition.
With respect to similarities between Nietzsche and other "postmodernists", it in that both worldly focused. In describing and analysing social situations, they describe what people are doing in society. They describe relationships of power between people and how this forms their social situations. Neither accept people and society formed on the basis of these traditional narratives in question.
I think there is a lot of work going on in that direction, especially in the postmodern parts of Lit departments. People are getting more and more interesting in issues about transhumanism in regard to technology as well.
I'm all for becoming an android when the time comes (immortality and superpowers, woot!), but I'm a bit skeptical of the application of such theories on Shakespeare and Whitman ;)
Mega corpus of criticism/writing about Shakespeare since tudor times + systems theoretical understanding of society + computational linguistics = detailed picture of how the concepts used in interpreting Shakespeare have changed since tudor times and the social mechanisms which relate to these changes = detailed picture of how the meaning of Shakespeare's texts themselves have changed since what this meaning is is simply the sum of its interpretations (perhaps throw in some ML analysis of a Shakespeare corpus too).
And perhaps those who embrace something called "scientific method' could do with a bit of postmodern
clarification of the conditions of possibility of empiricism. I highly recommend Joseph Rouse's work on philosophy of science.
Not liking and not getting are two different things. Just FYI.
To what end?
So for Nietzsche the fundamental questions would consist of what he has to say about the relation between truth and values, the notion of self, ego, volition, and freedom of the will, etc.
There is, of course, an entire field of philosophy devoted to the very question of what it means to understand a text. Theories about the death of the author, birth of the reader, intentionalists versus anti-intentionalists, the author function, the author as a modern construct, ecriture, etc etc. So we could debate endlessly what it means to "really" understand Nietzsche.
I'm content to have read some of his body of work, have found it contradictory, have found that he revels in contradiction, and that it's therefore not my cup of tea. As have most professional contemporary philosophers.
Daniel Dennett respects Nietzsche, as does Rorty, Heidegger, Alva Noe, Evan Thompson, Deleuze, Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Jean-Luc Nancy, Lyotard, Freud, most constructivists and constructionists , postmodernists and postructuralists, many pragmatists and hermeneuticists, enactivist approaches in cogntive science and philosophy of mind, and recent theories of perception .
That seems to cover a lot of ground in recent philosophy.
So when you say most professional contemporary philosophers are not admirers of his approach, you mean Modernists, Realists, Kantians and Neo-Kantians. In other words , everyone on the more conservative side of a political divide. Not to mention the conservative side of a divide within philosophy of science, anthropology , theories of consciousness and philosophy of mind.Given the recent explosion of interest in enactive approaches in consciousness studies, I think the trends are favoring Nietzsche.
Which book? I'm currently reading The Gay Science, and it's dense and addresses complex issues in an absence of one- or two-liner aphorisms. I get what you're saying about the aphorisms, but they're a small portion of a very well-written legacy and have only lost value due to misinterpretation, ever-changing bias and the commoditization of existence. Much of the material you're referring to was extracted from his personal journals by his sister and other family after his death, and I'm sure they didn't know quite what to do with it.
He also wasn't a conventional philosopher by any means. He appeared more often as a common man in contrast to the self-aggrandizing and pedantic rhetoric of his contemporaries.
And I do realize the irony in my saying that others were self-aggrandizing--but Nietzsche was psychologically undressed in a way that others around him were not.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I realize Nietzsche is your personal pet philosopher. I don't think there's much I could say to sway you from your PPP, and there's not much you could say to convince me that he's much good at all.
No,is certainly not conventional. He espoused a "philosophy of contradiction" that is absurd, or, at best, just illogical. I don't see any reason to follow him down that rabbit hole. And maybe you're one to promote the "value of contradiction," which is also, IMHO, just absurd.
As I said before, there's just way too much good, logical, coherent philosophy in the world for me, or anyone, to be wasting time with someone who is opaque and contradictory. We all have only so much time on this planet, and if you really want to make a case for the relevance of some philosopher, it really has to be on more solid ground than "if you read all his work then you'll understand" and especially more solid ground than: Quoting Joshs
If I have to read a whole host of secondary literature to understand Nietzsche, that's just proof that he's no good at all. (It's also epistemologically suspect, in that if you need to read Heidegger to understand Nietzche, I wonder whom Heidegger read to understand him?)
Long story short: Ain't nobody got time for that.
It would be inherently illogical to argue against logic in general, for it has clearly proven it's usefulness in too many tasks to begin to list.
It's not at all illogical to use logic to explore the boundaries of what logic may be able to accomplish.
Quoting NKBJ
There is no law of nature which requires all of reality to make sense. It's entirely possible that we are only able to see the components of reality which make sense to US, a tiny half insane semi-suicidal creature on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc.
A dog would describe the Internet as a square shiny thing covered with blinking lights. A pretty good description from the perspective of a dog's observation, but also a thoroughly inept explanation of a level of abstraction which is simply beyond the ability of even the very smartest dog.
We might be wary of any attempt to impose our own severe limitations upon all of reality, a realm we currently can't confidently define in even the most basic manner.
Indeed. Because once one is in the establishment one has something to lose, and thus can't take the risks that are often necessary. You know, if I'm a philosophy professor with 3 kids about to enter college, I don't have much choice but to color pretty carefully within the lines of the academic group consensus.
In my view, trying to turn activities like philosophy and religion in to a business is generally not such a great plan.
What could be our grounds for positing that there are things, or that there could be a "nature" to some things, that don't make sense to us, though? How could we know this?
Knowing this is a tall order that I can't deliver on.
However, it's entirely reasonable to note that every species ever born on this planet has had a limited ability to see beyond it's niche. To argue that we live outside of this very long established all pervasive pattern is basically wild (self serving) speculation in my view.
Are we smarter than other species? Yes, proven.
Are we smart enough to grasp everything in all of reality? A completely different issue.
If we cannot understand those parts of reality, it makes no sense to try and talk about them. Or, to quote Wittgenstein:
"What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent."
Ah, but we can explore the ways in which we are ignorant, insane and otherwise limited, and we can talk about that.
I'd definitely say that it's possible that there are things (and/or that things have a nature) that we can't really understand.
I don't see how we could ever plausibly posit such things, though, or claim to know such things.
It's also possible that there is nothing that we can't really understand.
In that vein, we can only speak of those things, of which we are knowledgeable enough to recognize our ignorance, and only to that extent.
As for the insane bit: if we allow for insanity, it's all just a jumbled mess and there's no point to any of it.
Thought operates by dividing the single unified reality in to conceptual parts. This is an extremely useful power for it allows us to rearrange reality in our minds, to be creative. But it is this same process of division which makes us insane, because it creates the experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", a perception that gives rise to fear, and thus most human problems.
Logic is just a tool, not a god.
Yeah, but it's THE tool. You literally can't make sense without it.
We have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat, an ever present self extinction threat which we typically find too boring to discuss. I'm unable to offer you a better example of insanity.
I show up at your house for the philosophy club meeting. I have a loaded gun in my mouth. You are very concerned, but I roll my eyes and blow off your "hysteria" and continually change the subject to all kinds of trivial topics.
I am insane. Looney tunes. Ready for the psyche ward. I am humanity.
No, it's not THE tool. It's a tool. A useful tool without question. You seem to be assuming that making sense is the only valid operation. So you should watch this excellent (very entertaining!) video called....
Stop Making Sense
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzFfV-02-Ts
Yes, possible. Not very likely in my view, but this is clearly debatable.
Nietzsche and Heidegger post-modernists?
_ _ _
Literary departments don't study philosophy, they use the views and methods of philosophers. In Philosophy departments one studies philosophy and the writing of philosophers.
It's a huge difference.
As I said (was it here or on another thread), this makes the viewpoint totally different and especially the students may have only a superficial understanding of the philosophy and especially lack the ability to put one philosopher or school in an broader context. Of course one obvious reason for postmodernism to thrive in the literary departments is the close relationship of postmodernist thinking to literary studies. If we talk about Heidegger or Nietzsche, their philosophy goes far beyond just these studies.
You can go down that rabbit hole if you choose to. I have no interest in it. That which is nonsensible is simply not of interest to me. But don't say I didn't warn you if you get lost or stuck or just plain bored on your fantastical spelunking adventure.
I'm of the view that there's no way to determine likelihood for these sorts of things.
I think what people are usually referring to by "likelihood" is just how close something is to what they already believe.
Every single one of the millions of species which have existed on Earth for millions of years have been of limited ability.
This doesn't conclusively prove anything, agreed. But it does give some weight to one side of the question.
As personal choice I have no complaint. I'm objecting only to any effort to turn a personal choice in to a universal maxim.
Quoting NKBJ
Thought is the source of boredom. These are the kinds of things one may never learn if one turns thought in to god.
And you're not trying to turn your worldview into a universal maxim? You certainly sound like you're making universal claims about reality and human nature and the role of logic.
We should happily use logic where it has been proven useful, and proceed with caution where no such proof is available. This is logic. Pretty good logic. Better logic than trying to make logic in to a god.
:rofl: :lol: :snicker:
Yup, I agree. Except, there is no realm where not using logic is useful.
Limited ability to understand things, though? How do we know what, if anything, other species are understanding?
Or more precisely, you personally don't know of any realm where not using logic is useful, and you're trying to inflate your personal limitations in to a universal maxim describing all human experience. That is, you're trying to turn logic in to a "one true way" religion.
So, ok, go ahead and do that.
Sorry, but your assertions seem to amount to little more than faith. You keep waving at some unknown unknowable realm that can't be seen or heard or reasoned that I'm just supposed to believe in. I'm just supposed to blindly trust some illogical, insane, mystical force that could serve as a way to explore these fantastical worlds that somehow elude us otherwise.
That's the real "religious dogma" here.
For me, the funny part is that you're so quick and happy to accept my worldview as "just an opinion" but you're so insistent on having some grand, sage-like insight into the world, while at the same time contending it to be incomprehensible.
But all y'all postmodernists are alike.
And this assertion sounds like little more than atheist dogma chanting. Sorry, have no personal beef with you, just reporting what I hear.
Quoting NKBJ
First, I'm not asking you to believe in anything. In case you haven't already read this elsewhere, I'm not a theist.
I do apologize for not making my posts more tangible to you. Have you ever meditated? If not, useful experience outside of thought is available to be explored at any time you might wish to do so. There's no need to believe anything. Try it if you want, come to your own relationship with it. Maybe it's not for you personally, I have no idea.
I'm only saying, your notion that logic is the only process which can deliver value is simply incorrect. That said, I have no objection if you wish to cling to an incorrect view for awhile longer. Rome was not built in a day etc.
I'm 67 and have been considering such topics for at least 50 years. If you are of a quite different age that may explain why we aren't connecting. If true, we can continue trying if it interests you, or just let it go, agreeable either way.
Now you just went from illogical to beyond ridiculous.
Yes, it's religious dogma if I have to do some voodoo carp like meditation to ascertain some illogical, mystical truths/untruths/halftruths/beyond truths. You're right, it's not for me. I really do think it's baloney and a total waste of the precious hours we have on this planet.
Your age-difference justification is just... Reaching? Ageist? Totally bonkers? A sad attempt to save face? There are 10 year old monks who meditate and believe the same dogma you do, and 90 year old philosophers who on their deathbeds still hold my view. My age is immaterial to the discussion, as is yours. But, if you put a little more effort into logic and coherence, you would know that.
That's not how meditation actually works, though it's surely understandable that you might think that. Lots of people meditate and then present some explanation, which is of course reasonable questioned just as you would like to do.
Explanations are not meditation. Explanations are explanations, thoughts, the opposite of meditation.
At no point have I suggested you should meditate so that you will then believe XYZ. I haven't even suggested that you should meditate. I'm only pointing out that thought/reason/logic is not the only process which can deliver value.
Quoting NKBJ
Ok, so let me ask you this young man. Do you plan learning anything as you proceed through life? Or is it your expectation that your level of insight and understanding will always remain the same?
Do you perhaps see how effortlessly I am slamming your snotty comments back down your throat? That's not because I'm smarter than you, which is probably not true. It's only because I've been playing this game since before you were born, maybe since before your parents were born.
Perhaps we can talk again some time when you've had a chance to calm down and let go of some of this teenager atheist ideologue snottiness. Sadly, becoming 67 does not automatically liberate one from impatience with noisy children. :smile:
I actually don't think it's my supposed "snottiness" that's getting to you. I think you just have nothing to counter and you're irritated that you can't make a good, strong case for your mysticism. You're lashing out at me with the only thing you think (because, note, you have no idea how old I actually am) you have on me.
Well, I'm not much interested in arguing with someone who can get to be 67 years old and still be so childish. Grow up.
In other words, you have no expectation of learning anything as you proceed through life, which perhaps raises the question of why you would bother to do philosophy.
Your inability to use logic is showing here.
I'm not taking offense, I'm just very bored by such poses because they are so VERY common on philosophy forums. And I have the personal weakness of often getting grouchy when I'm bored, so I'm putting some effort in to trying to overcome that. I'll likely run out of such effort before much longer.
Quoting NKBJ
I'm irritated at myself (not at you) for yet again getting sucked in to trying to talk reason with atheist Jehovah's Witnesses who are probably just barely old enough to vote. You know, I'm looking my old self who should surely know better by now in the mirror and asking, "Dude, why don't I get a life you moron???" Sorry to report, aging doesn't solve everything.
Let's leave it here and preserve the opportunity to chat again sometime.
If you don't expect that you, or anyone, will learn as they proceed through life then your claim that age is irrelevant is reasonable.
If you do expect to learn as you proceed through life, then your claim that age is irrelevant is nonsense.
I just think it's too funny that you think you can deduce my age from the fact that I simply do not agree with you. I mean, that's just the epitome of religious dogma right there.
Quoting Jake
I didn't say I wouldn't learn. I AM saying that just because I will learn (and so will you, because, let's face it, 67 is the new 50, if you care enough to take care of your body and mind), it does not follow that I will ever agree with you. Proof of that are all the octogenarians who precisely do not believe what you do, and never have, and never will.
Additionally, age is immaterial, because either an argument is good or bad in and of itself. Claiming that my or your personal circumstances somehow affect the truth of an argument is just a blatant ad hominem.
If you're not a twenty something, that's even sadder. See? My impatience wearing thin. Food fight coming. Is that what you seek? How about this, I would be willing to add you to my ignore list if that will help liberate you from my nonsense. You could add me to yours as well if you wish. Problem solved. An option to consider...
Quoting NKBJ
But the ability to understand an argument is not a universally shared condition.
You don't even know what my argument might be. You haven't the slightest idea. You're just making up stuff to yell about, rejecting for the experience of rejection, a process which you call "logic".
Ok, no more food fight. You win ok. If you keep coming at me I'll solve that with the new ignore feature. Your call.
Go ahead and ignore me then if you can't keep your cool. To quote some actual young'uns: "you started it!"
You may be stuck in a 67 year old body, but you sure sound about 13 or 15 at heart. :joke:
Actually, Heidegger and Derrida are my personal pet philosophers. Nietzsche is of only secondary interest to me.
.Quoting NKBJ
In defending Nietzsche here, what I really want to do is defend a direction that both cognitive science and philosophy of mind seem to be going in, consisting of the abandonment of representationalist models of mental functioning and the embrace of enactive approaches.
I'm more interested in the efficacy of theories of autism, schizophrenia, development of empathy and affectivity than i am in Nietzsche per se. But it's hard to ignore him when notable neuroscientists like Antonio Damasio incorporate his ideas into their work. But perhaps there's not much I could say to convince you that Damasio's award winning research is much good at all.
Just out of curiousity, if a thinker who you greatly admired turned out to be a big fan of Nietzsche, would that al all change your opinion of Nietzsche? My hunch is there is no one on your list of admired philosophers(maybe you could name some) who, as far as you know, endorse Nietzsche's ideas. So it's not just Nietzsche, but a whole community influenced by him that you don't think are "that much good at all."
Quoting Joshs
That does actually sound interesting.
Quoting Joshs
I'm not aware of his work, and so cannot comment on how he employs Nietzche. I will say that if it's similar to how most non-philosophers tend to use these types of theories, I think I would spot not just a few errors in his writing. It doesn't look like any of his awards are actually in philosophy.
I never recommend reading secondary literature before attempting the original work of an author first. But in situations where I have difficulty in interpreting someone's ideas(whether because of challenging style, lack of familiarity with the historical -cultural context of their writing, or translation issues), it is often helpful to begin with a bit of background orientation. I wouldn't recommend Heidegger's or Deleuze's account of Nietzsche to you, but I would suggest Walter Kaufmann. He doesn't write from a postmodern vantage, so avoids the associated jargon. When I find myself having to make use of secondary literature in order to understand a philosopher's work, sometimes it can mean that writer's ideas are 'no good', but it usually means(for instance in the case of Spinoza, Leibnitz and Kant), that their approach is highly complex and subtle, and their writing style idosyncratic.
I think the odds are the other way around, actually. It's more likely that an opaque piece is garbage than that it is useful.
The difference between Kant and Nietzsche is that Kant is dense and complex, but for the most part sensible/logical (except the noumena business, which is just religiosity slipping in), while Nietzsche remains contradictory even after explication.
What makes it a "rabbit hole", please explain that term for me. I have read and understand Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I don't see how it directly applies here. Nietzsche is one of the most influential voices in human history.
Cause you follow it into a magical land where everything is confused and unreal.
Quoting whollyrolling
Definitely overstating the case here. He is AN influential voice, but not one of the MOST. Besides which, level of influence does not necessarily equal thoughtfulness, coherence, depth, or truth. The Bible is the most influential text of the western hemisphere, maybe the world, and that's just gobbledygook.
I'm not saying it affects the validity of his claims or conceals the annoyance of his contradictions. All I'm saying is that, much like the Bible, it's at least an interesting read. And the problem with putting something down due to contradiction is that 100% of existence is saturated with contradiction. In his case especially, he's trying to convey something that runs contrary to everything we know and feel, and for this reason many people scoff or express contempt even at the sound of his name without ever having read a word. Also, despite the tone of his work and the contradiction, it is very eloquently written for the most part.
People read Shakespeare and the Bible, ancient mythology in general and overtly false documentation of history, it seems strange to avoid something just on principle or a hunch. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but it seems to be common practice.
To clarify what I mean by false history, for one example Caligula, who's documented as a horrible wretch of a human being and historians take this at face value while fully aware that every written record about the emperor was composed by powerful men who had seething hatred and contempt for him. Or Jesus, another example, whose life was documented by religious fanatics who were willing to die, and perhaps to kill--as was documented concerning the Garden of Gethsemane--on behalf of the mention of his name.
Anyway, let me stop trying to convince anyone to read things.
You're forgetting one part: I have read it. And based on that, I scoff.
If you've read all of his work, then there's certainly no reason to subject yourself to it again.
What's an example of that?
You want me to briefly summarize all organic life from the beginning of time? Life began as a contradiction, began at war with itself. There are two things that drive organic life--reproduction, which is a conflict against death, and conquest, which is a conflict against life.
An example. Just one would be fine. A "conflict" isn't the same thing as a contradiction, is it?
One contradiction is that, from the simplest to the most complex organism, all species are living and dying in simultaneous conflict against both life and death.
"Contradiction" has a few definitions, two of them being "opposing factor" and "logical incongruity". Yes, conflict represents contradiction--how can members of the same species kill each other with intent without representing a contradiction?
What I consider a contradiction is a non-equivocated instance of P & not-P (although I'd not require that a real contradiction is a literal proposition, but we should at least be able to state is as a proposition, as a non-equivocated instance of P & not-P, so we have to be both affirming and denying the same thing, in the same respect, at the same time, etc.)
So why would you then say, given the dictionary definition in addition to the description you've provided, that the word "contradiction" shouldn't be used to represent "opposing factors" such as behaviours within a species? Why would you limit it to representing "opposing factors" such as concepts within a paragraph?
You’re right - ‘contradiction’ means literally ‘opposed speaking’ (‘diction’) - so applies to propositions. Conflicts (and paradoxes!) occur in nature, contradictions only occur in speech.
Because "contradiction" is useful, especially in philosophy, as a very specific idea. Making the usage more vague doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
It's the dictionary definition. It's not vague, it's rather precise.
Are "vague" and "more vague" the same thing?
No. It is possible to be vague by degrees, for example by being vague about certain details while clear about others within the context of a broad statement, or being vague in one's communication of the entire statement. How does this relate to anything?
The broader senses of "contradiction" that you're referring to are more vague than the very specific sense that I mentioned.
They're not broader though, they're narrower variations within a broader definition. Why are we arguing semantics?