Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 242 posts

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#21

Post by rvense »

adrianN wrote: post #4
fjfaase wrote: post #2

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.

This is mistaken, actually: philosophers do use bins, they just don't put their own writings in them.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#22

Post by coldtea »

>Often, it’s due to simple misunderstandings (such as confusing truth with belief or knowledge), but sometimes it’s due rather to wilful obscurity

Sorry, but the pseudophilosopher here is the author of the article.

He can't disambiguate between truth as some property of the universe/time-space/actual historical occurence, and truth as it matters to us, and thinks that just because Foucault doesn't spell the distinction out, as if he spoke to 10 year olds, he himself confuses the too.

For those actually reading continental philosophy, Foucault's meaning is perfectly clear, and no, he doesn't mean truth in the sense of "this table is wooden" or "the sun is hot". Foucault doesn't do philosophy of truth in the way some analytical philosopher would.

It's the century plus old distinction between analytical and continental philosophy, and this is a tired, trite, post.

As for the quote from Foucault he gives as an exercize to the reader, it's trivial to parse. Here's my take, with extra examples to make it even clearer:

"The definition of what is true (and thus what is not) is based on power relations. We're speaking about social and political truths, here, dummy author, the kind people actually disagree about, not whether fire is hot or Australia exists.

Truth, contrary to myth (whose workings will be worth it to examine some other time), is not some higher ideal that you achieve when you free your spirit, or something that you arrive at in quiet contemplation in solitude, or a privilege of those free from social constraints.

It's something that is manufactured in this world, and it is produced following many different constraints. (e.g. truth in the medieval world followed religious constraints)."

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#24

Post by Bodell »

rvense wrote: post #18
ostrophonics wrote: post #10

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 didn't read the linked article yet, but to me, Foucault really is one of the most interesting intellectuals of the 20th century (or longer) - if only because of how differently people perceive him. There's that old debate between him and Chomsky, and it's incredible how different people will score that debate. Some see obscurantist posturing versus Chomsky's towering, rigourous intellect, where others see Chomsky o…

Can you share a link? The only videos I’ve ever seen are either a short clip or not translated. Maybe a written transcript would be best.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#25

Post by 082349872349872 »

Veen wrote: post #19
ostrophonics wrote: post #10

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…

There would be little problem if his methods were confined to examining questions such as the truth of phrenology, the ideological presumptions that made it an appealing set of beliefs, and power relations that motivated them. Unfortunately, his followers (and Foucault himself) cast a far wider net than that, to the point at which power-knowledge becomes the predominant or even the only acceptable analytical framewor…

So what is power-knowledge? Any suggested introductions?

After a quick skim of https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/#HistPris I think I can relate the idea of power-knowledge to something with which I am much more familiar: closed loop control theory.

Under that model, it makes sense that one's ability to control would be dependent not only upon how good one's effectors may be ("power"?) but also upon how good one's sensors may be ("knowledge"?). (let alone questions of system identification!)

But that could easily be me using the wrong prism ("observability/controllability") for analysis.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#26

Post by dgllghr »

The thing about Foucault that makes his work meaningful to me is how he hit the nail on the head about how power is changing and continuing to change in society. It has become diffuse and self-perpetuating. It lacks a direct, physical force but still coerces. It is no longer socially acceptable or legal for men to withhold food from their wives, but women suffer from eating disorders in large numbers. Slavery is no longer legal in the US, but a large % of black people are incarcerated and forced to do free labor. The internet has given us access to an enormous amount of information, and yet we are addicted to social media and controlled by algorithms.

I think the same can be said about Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche. A lot of their work does not hold up, but within their work are gems of insight that have stood the test of time. Just because they do not adhere to the methodologies of analytical philosophy does not mean that they haven't produced important thought.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#27

Post by yakubin »

andybak wrote: post #6
fjfaase wrote: post #2

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…

The article isn't trying to "validate philosophy as a science". To some degree science relies on certain philosophical assumptions to be viable and philosophy aims to make those assumptions explicit and to allow one to understand the choices one has made in accepting them. I agree that certain philosophical positions have been encroached upon by science but that is not a process that can continue indefinitely. The re…

> The realm of enquiry that science can operate on is by neccesity smaller than that which philosophy can act upon.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that philosophy can talk about anything that science can. And of course, it can, in the sense that there will be uni positions for talking about just about anything in philosophy department, but I'd say that for a long time now when science is able to treat a subject, philosophical investigation of it becomes meaningless pursuit of words, disconnected from reality. And just like religion used to answer some questions about how the world works, but over centuries was in perpetual withdrawal up to the point where it's not its domain at all anymore, philosophy in areas of empirical reality is expected to be superseded by science and as such seems to be as worthwhile as ancient talks about arche and medieval religious talks about creation of the world. What understanding did we gain from arguing over whether the world is made of fire, of water, of ether/whatever? Whether it's deterministic or not? None.

It seems it would be a better use of everyone's time if philosophy withdrew from areas of current and future scientific inquiry.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#28

Post by asimpletune »

082349872349872 wrote: post #8

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…

I haven’t read phaedrus in a while, but I think that interpretation is taken a little out of context. It’s better to say reading and writing, alone, would encourage these things.

There’s this theme in Plato that power isn’t the end all be all. By that same logic, reading/writing were a technology that gave you power. Specifically the ability to record/recall things. Plato/Socrates argue that power alone gives you as much ability to achieve bad as it does good. Then they go on to argue that it’s wisdom that allows one to know what is good bad, thus wisdom is critical in all things. So, that’s why it’s says that in phaedrus, probably haha. It’s not that controversial actually, and not the sky is falling kind of thing. Socrates was just really particular about the pursuit of truth being sort of like the singular focus to achieving good, and the rest were important but had to follow from there.

Parenthetically, I’ll add, he also seemed to believe that working out your body was just as important and necessary to being a philosopher.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#29

Post by Veen »

coldtea wrote: post #22

> Often, it’s due to simple misunderstandings (such as confusing truth with belief or knowledge), but sometimes it’s due rather to wilful obscurity Sorry, but the pseudophilosopher here is the author of the article. He can't disambiguate between truth as some property of the universe/time-space/actual historical occurence, and truth as it matters to us, and thinks that just because Foucault doesn't spell the distinct…

> It's the century plus old distinction between analytical and continental philosophy

The article's claim is not that this distinction doesn't exist or that it is not a useful distinction, but that "pseudophilosphers" tend to equivocate between "truth as some property of the universe" and "truth as it matters to us". That seems to me to be an interesting position that is worth considering.

(btw. the claim that "The definition of what is true (and thus what is not) is based on power relations" is untrue even in the "what matters to us" sense, if you take it to mean power is the only or main determinant of what is true. That's the problem with Foucault and his followers—the monomaniacal focus on power as the primary determiner of truth and human relations. It just ain't so.)

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#30

Post by rvense »

Bodell wrote: post #24
rvense wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read the linked article yet, but to me, Foucault really is one of the most interesting intellectuals of the 20th century (or longer) - if only because of how differently people perceive him. There's that old debate between him and Chomsky, and it's incredible how different people will score that debate. Some see obscurantist posturing versus Chomsky's towering, rigourous intellect, where others see Chomsky o…

Can you share a link? The only videos I’ve ever seen are either a short clip or not translated. Maybe a written transcript would be best.

I think the longest version that exists is just over one hour with some narration in between. I've watched it recently on Youtube, but I didn't save the link.
Post reply on HN