11–20 of 242 posts
I wonder if this an attempt to validate philosophy as a science in itself now that other sciences have invalidated many philosophical positions as being valid. My primary feeling about most philosophy is that it is a historical science instead of a systematic science, where the ideas of a certain philosopher are placed in the context of history. It also seems to me that the philosophers are more important than their…
I wonder if this an attempt to validate philosophy as a science in itself now that other sciences have invalidated many philosophical positions as being valid. My primary feeling about most philosophy is that it is a historical science instead of a systematic science, where the ideas of a certain philosopher are placed in the context of history. It also seems to me that the philosophers are more important than their…
There is an old joke that goes like this: It is well know that the Math department is the second cheapest department at a university. The people there only need a pencil, paper, and rubbish bin. But which is the cheapest department? The Philosophy department. There you don't need the bin.
Pure philosophical shade, in the exact "aura of scholarly profundity" that he is supposedly criticizing.
In the Phaedrus, it was predicted that writing and reading in general (let alone specific examples such as pseudophilosophy) would eventually encourage confused, self-indulgent thinking. > You offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, s…
This sort of thing is always by turns boring and frustrating to read, because there are good and interesting philosophical criticisms to be made of Foucault's epistemology, but the idea that for him facticity itself is questionable isn't one of them. Foucault is never really in doubt about what constitutes, e.g., an event, occurrence, or fact - actually his entire corpus very self-consciously relies on having a commo…
(If you happen to be on the latter team, it's a meme format: https://foucaultnews.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/foucault-20...)
This sort of thing is always by turns boring and frustrating to read, because there are good and interesting philosophical criticisms to be made of Foucault's epistemology, but the idea that for him facticity itself is questionable isn't one of them. Foucault is never really in doubt about what constitutes, e.g., an event, occurrence, or fact - actually his entire corpus very self-consciously relies on having a commo…
I like how he criticizes specifically people who reference hegel, jung, marx, etc. but then does not proceed to analyze hegel, et al or anyone that references them. Pure philosophical shade, in the exact "aura of scholarly profundity" that he is supposedly criticizing.
