Re: Philosophy general debate

[Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Yes I do think it sensible to read these post-modern writers with a pinch of
salt (and what a savoury read it makes!) It is all to easy to divide the
statements of post-modern philosophy into falsehoods, trivialities and nonsense.
However, I believe it is perfectly consistent for something to have these three
properties and be good literature (Alice in Wonderland for example has all
three), but inconsistent to have them and be good philosophy.

Whether post-modern philosophy makes good literature is another question,
needless to say I certainly couldn't comment as I don't 'get it'. But if its all
fiction or self consciously false/nonsense why does it make the pretence of
being 'true'. Why does it deal with issues beyond that of pure literature?

I have other reasons to be sceptical of post-modern philosophy (I assume
everyone has heard of the 'Sokal Affair'?) but nothing can really beat reading
some and finding out for yourself.

Andrew B


> >
> >   It's nothing to do with analyticity; this is another point entirely.
> > > Feel free to choose an example that does not involve analyticity. What I am
> > > saying is that when faced with the contradictory statements "no tree is a
> > > plant" and "this thing (demonstrates) is a tree, it is also a plant," it is
> > > not a legitimate thing to say that of the two statements we can keep
> > > whichever we want. We are obliged to keep the second and deny the first. The
> > > person who says "oh, so it cannot have been a tree if it is a plant" is
> > > doing the opposite. Why are we obliged to deny the first statement and keep
> > > the second? Quite simply because empirical evidence supports the second and
> > > this denies the second. (By "empirical evidence" I mean evidence about how
> > > we talk. I.e. we really do call this a tree and we really do call this a
> > > plant).
> > >
> > > Sure, you could deny that the empirical evidence supports the claim that
> > > if we think X is a tree then we will tend to think X is a plant. However,
> > > were you to do so then you would be incorrect. Similarly you cannot deny
> > > that some philosophy is not saddening because you will find many things that
> > > are philosophy/philosophical activity/whatever that are not saddening. The
> > > counter-claim that these things are not therefore philosophy is just
> > > manifestly false. We just do call these things "philosophy" and we just do
> > > think of these things as "philosophy."
> > >
> > > Were you to respond that "sure, we *call* them philosophy but that
> > > doesn't *make* them philosophy" I am afraid that I have lost you. What
> > > are trees other than those things that we call a "tree" and what is a
> > > philosophical activity other than those things that we call a "philosophical
> > > activity"? Since we do call non-saddening things "philosophical
> > > activities" (and therefore there are non-saddening things that are
> > > philosophy activities, which is the same thing) Deleuze is wrong.
> > >
> > > I do take Andrew B's point that such writings are often to be taken with
> > > a pinch of salt (as the author perhaps intends), and if Deleuze's intention
> > > is not to categorically claim that all philosophy *really* , *actually*,
> > > is saddening then maybe we are wasting our time to some degree. Nevertheless
> > > once we do take such writing with a pinch of salt we don't really have
> > > anything hard to grasp onto in terms of what the author is trying to say.
> > > Perhaps the author is therefore failing to say anything. Perhaps I am a
> > > chauvinist, but any philosopher (or anyone writing on philosophical topics)
> > > should avoid any language that is poetic, flowery, metaphorical or requires
> > > taking with a pinch of salt since I have yet to see a single example where
> > > this actually helps elucidate something rather than add another veil of
> > > confusion behind which the author can hide from actually dealing with the
> > > subject at hand.*
> > >
> > > M.
> > >
> > > *Yes I know I have criticised someone for using a metaphor by using a
> > > metaphor. But it's OK because I'm not philosophising but ranting.
> > >
> >

-- 
Andrew Bacon
Lady Margaret Hall
07830048336
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lady1900



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml