Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#181

Post by mrkeen » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #176

anonuser123456 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name one prominent modern atheist that is clueless when it comes to the theism discussion and present one point he/she misrepresents/lacks understanding of.

The four horsemen are all woefully uninformed when they try to deal with standard arguments for theism. Although I will say I like how upfront and clear Dawkins is in his statements. Bertrand Russell at least had the intellectual honesty to admit the ontological argument is logically valid (which is now proven with a computational theorem prover), and says it is very difficult to identify the problem with the argumen…

>>> Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion.

>> Name one prominent modern atheist that is clueless when it comes to the theism discussion and present one point he/she misrepresents/lacks understanding of.

> The four horsemen are all woefully uninformed when they try to deal with standard arguments for theism.

Repetition is not a good argument.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#182

Post by nescioquid » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:00 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #129

nescioquid wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strand of suspicion towards literacy in Plato. Mainly I'm thinking of the dialog in which Socrates talks to a man about to sue his father (I'm sorry, I'm blanking on the name of the dialog); mainly the idea is that writing enfeebles the memory and intellect. > In the Phaedrus, it was predicted that writing and reading in general... would eventually encourage confused, self-indulgent thinking. We don't learn…

Plato was an elitist; he wasn't against reading and writing in general, he simply thought that proles and people who weren't "like him" shouldn't be allowed to attempt it. 2,200 years later, I find I disagree. There's much that is good in Plato, but I don't include his social opinions.

That Plato's criticism of reading and writing comes down to us through his composed dialogs (and who furthermore abandoned his aspiration to become a playwright) was the surface-level irony that caught my attention.

That Plato didn't want people to read and write in order to keep them out of philosophy because he was an elitist seems very doubtful. In fact, wouldn't the literate, educated, paying students of the sophists constitute an elite? The concept of elitism itself, I find a bit anachronistic here. I think there's something more interesting going on, and it has to do more with epistemic concerns than gate-keeping.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#183

Post by SummerlyMars » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:06 PM UTC

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #114

whimsicalism wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this article is rehashing the age-old continental vs. analytical debate, I disagree that because the debate is old, it is thus worthless. I see many defending the "perfectly clear" meaning of continental philosophers, even if they don't obviously build up a clear argument from assumptions like a "10 year old" analytic philosopher might do. Many, in my view, are forgetting just quite how obscurant many of…

> is close-to-incomprehensible to me Because it's written for an audience of people who are very familiar with structuralism, Althusser, and the general development of Marxist philosophy over a 200 year period of time. This is no different than a paper like "Attention is All You Need" expecting you to have a background in neural networks, recurrent neural networks specifically, neural-language models, and the transfo…

It's still difficult to parse. If I replace the parts that I don't understand with variables, I get

> The move from a in which is understood to structure brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of that takes as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the .

Consider all the different ideas that are being referenced in just one sentence. There are only so many ideas I can hold in my mind at once, even if I'm familiar with them. Butler's ideas might be worth considering, or they might not, but writing like this is forcing a sort of labour upon the reader, regardless of whether they're familiar with the concepts used or not.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#184

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:09 PM UTC

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #114

whimsicalism wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this article is rehashing the age-old continental vs. analytical debate, I disagree that because the debate is old, it is thus worthless. I see many defending the "perfectly clear" meaning of continental philosophers, even if they don't obviously build up a clear argument from assumptions like a "10 year old" analytic philosopher might do. Many, in my view, are forgetting just quite how obscurant many of…

> is close-to-incomprehensible to me Because it's written for an audience of people who are very familiar with structuralism, Althusser, and the general development of Marxist philosophy over a 200 year period of time. This is no different than a paper like "Attention is All You Need" expecting you to have a background in neural networks, recurrent neural networks specifically, neural-language models, and the transfo…

[deleted]

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#185

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:10 PM UTC

fenderbluesjr wrote: post #168

steveklabnik wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorite takes on this debate, from a software developer: http://byfat.xxx/chomsky (SFW even though it's on an .xxx domain) (It is "this debate" in a broader sense, not this specific debate, which I also happen to love. I both agree with you that it is amazing how everyone sees what they want to see in that debate, and also am in the "lol Chomsky got owned so hard he didn't even know what was going on" camp…

The link provided was just an elaborate way of saying 'postmodernism is good, Chomsky doesn't get it'. It doesn't tell you what the novel 'ways of thinking' are, just asserts that they are there and require 'investing serious time' to grasp. There's no defense here and I don't see how you can appreciate this take unless you are already firmly decided beforehand and just like seeing people you disagree with pilloried

Not every piece of writing is trying to convince, it's true.

FWIW, I don't see the piece as saying "postmodernism is good." And I think the final two paragraphs are good bits of advice, regardless of the topic at hand.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#186

Post by nescioquid » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:14 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #148

nescioquid wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strand of suspicion towards literacy in Plato. Mainly I'm thinking of the dialog in which Socrates talks to a man about to sue his father (I'm sorry, I'm blanking on the name of the dialog); mainly the idea is that writing enfeebles the memory and intellect. > In the Phaedrus, it was predicted that writing and reading in general... would eventually encourage confused, self-indulgent thinking. We don't learn…

Hmm, Plato didn't consider that sophistry might be easier through oration than through writing ?

Sure, there's the dialog where Socrates encounters the two brothers who teach people how to "fight with words" (Euthydemus). The dialog is really pretty funny to read, and the arguments the brothers throw around I've seen referenced as examples of eristics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic).

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#187

Post by DyslexicAtheist » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

jonathanstrange wrote: post #165

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done well by staying clear of anyone airing their thoughts about post-modernity in the past 15 years. (perhaps with the exception of some very few individuals like Zizek). This is because of the constant efforts from conservative pseudo-philosopher's like Stephen Hicks[0] (who on his YT channel hasn't shied away from inviting neo-Nazis to talk about the subject) all the way to JP[1] who do not understand the top…

I agree with you and don't understand why you're being downvoted. "Post-modernity" has become almost entirely a straw-man (for bizarre political reasons), as the debate between Zizek and JP illustrates nicely. I mean, JP tried hard, but why would a psychologist agree to participate in an online debate about a very complicated topic in philosophy about which he has read almost nothing in the first place?

reflecting on my comment I realize it could perhaps be construed as an attack on OP (specifically my dismissal of anyone with an opinion on the topic the past 15 years). But it wasn't meant like that. I am so deep in my habit of reading only old books and original thinkers, that I forget people don't share this passion. My habit makes me automatically dismiss content generated by anyone still alive or any book that is displayed as new release in a bookshop etc.

Secondly I guess it's always a gamble to mention JP no matter in what light on HN since it is considered flame-bait. However IMHO it's impossible to separate the political element from the discussion about post-modernity (whether it's PM in art _or_ philosophy - though oddly those who don't grasp the philosophy also don't get the art).

c'est la vie :)

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#188

Post by wnoise » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

monadic3 wrote: post #107

This article is pretty standard analytic bilk: demand readers use your definitions of words and complain about the decline of western civilization when they don't.

(a): The complaint is about using the same word in different ways, without marking the difference, which has the effect of hiding that the conclusions are unfounded. (b): It's a small part of the essay, one sin among many.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#189

Post by yters » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

mrkeen wrote: post #181

yters wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The four horsemen are all woefully uninformed when they try to deal with standard arguments for theism. Although I will say I like how upfront and clear Dawkins is in his statements. Bertrand Russell at least had the intellectual honesty to admit the ontological argument is logically valid (which is now proven with a computational theorem prover), and says it is very difficult to identify the problem with the argumen…

>>> Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion. >> Name one prominent modern atheist that is clueless when it comes to the theism discussion and present one point he/she misrepresents/lacks understanding of. > The four horsemen are all woefully uninformed when they try to deal with standard arguments for theism. Repetition is not a good argument.

Dawkins' argument that the presupposition of god requires then yet another explanation of god. He doesn't realize this criticism applies to any posited ultimate cause, including physicalism. In fact this very issue forms the foundation for some of the classic arguments for God. The only way the regress can terminate is with an uncaused cause, which only can be met by a godlike being. So followed to its logical conclusion Dawkins argument proves the existence of god.

Sam Harris seems to think the problem of evil disproves god, yet most philosophers now believe it does not after Alvin Plantinga's work. At any rate, at best it can disprove a good god.

Dennett doesn't seem to have an argument, and just tried to explain away everything he doesn't believe in.

Hitchens also doesn't have an argument and relies on emotional appeals, claiming god is like the north korean dictator, the irony apparently being lost on him that north korea is a forced atheist state.

So overall the most glaring problem is lack of any argument whatsoever, which is not promising for a supposedly intellectual position. When an argument is offered it would not even pass a freshman logic class.

Prior generations of atheists were not so intellectually vapid. Anthony Flew would be a good example if it were not for his conversion to theism.

Oh one more thing, all of the besides Hitchens erroneously like to rely on computer science to support their claims. Whereas if you have a background in CS you understand they don't know what they are talking about.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#190

Post by SummerlyMars » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

baron_harkonnen wrote: post #100

It's hard to believe that there are still people writing the old "post-modernist philosophers are bad for civilization!" rant. One thing that always surprises me about these posts are that they always fail to get the arrow of causality right. In general postmodernist philosophy is a descriptive philosophy, not a proscription one. That is Foucault and the many other philosophers this author wants to write off as pseud…

>It's hard to believe that there are still people writing the old "post-modernist philosophers are bad for civilization!" rant.

As someone on the outside of philosophy as a discipline, this is the only sort of description of postmodernism I see. Regardless of its prevalence or correctness, what do you think leads people to interpret postmodernism in this way?