Spun off from the 'art' thread... I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate a bit on this. I do agree that a great deal of shenanigans go on as far as postmodernism and philosophy are concerned. However, in the works of the 'canonical' postmodern philosophers I've read, mainly Derrida, Baudrillard, and Foucault (although I understand Foucault never referred to himself as such), I have generally found a fair bit of insight, even if the writing was sometimes incomprehensible. As a response to charges of incomprehensibility, I would say that it's very difficult to write about the world in any other way. I also have heard it said that postmodern philosophy is often slipshod in its application of logic, but I have always felt that the idea of a perfectly rational philosophy is itself irrational. I would be interested to hear your views on this, as well as those of anyone else wanting to chime in.professor ganson wrote: Good postmodern artwork-- I'll concede that point. I'm a philosophy professor, so I was thinking about the nonsensical philosophical writings that I've read.
To Prof. Ganson
To Prof. Ganson
Last edited by it290 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
I went to a talk by Bas van Fraassen tonight. He pretty well exemplifies how philosophy ought to be done, imo, even if I disagree with most of what he says. I've had a few too many drinks since then, so I'll keep this short. I'm more sympathetic with philosophy from the Continent than most who have a similar training to mine. Husserl, Merleau Ponty, Heidegger, and Sartre are all rather interesting to me. More recent Continental philosophy seems to be more akin to literature than traditional philosophy, so I'm not sure that I see much overlap of goals or interests.
The following critique of postmodernism is really fun. It was written by a *reallly* smart guy I was able to teach with at Yale in 1999, Keith De Rose. I recommend this piece and anything else he has written:
http://fleetwood.baylor.edu/certain_doubts/?p=453
The following critique of postmodernism is really fun. It was written by a *reallly* smart guy I was able to teach with at Yale in 1999, Keith De Rose. I recommend this piece and anything else he has written:
http://fleetwood.baylor.edu/certain_doubts/?p=453
Excellent -- I will be sure to check that out, thanks. Just wanted to comment on your comparison of recent Continental philosophy to literature: I suppose that's an aspect of it I rather like. I recently read a quote by Borges in which he says, essentially, that philosophers are poets with more imagination than usual, an idea I'm also quite fond of.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
-
doodude
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Living in the dreaded USA & lovin' it!
- Contact:
Recently, the University of Virginia philosopher Richard Rorty made the stunning declaration that nobody has "the foggiest idea" what postmodernism means. "It would be nice to get rid of it," he said. "It isn't exactly an idea; it's a word that pretends to stand for an idea."
This shocking admission that there is no such thing as postmodernism has produced a firestorm of protest around the country. Thousands of authors, critics and graduate students who'd considered themselves postmodernists are outraged at the betrayalzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
This shocking admission that there is no such thing as postmodernism has produced a firestorm of protest around the country. Thousands of authors, critics and graduate students who'd considered themselves postmodernists are outraged at the betrayalzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Truth, is in the Mind of the Beholder...
Ok.. I've read the De Rose essay. I did find it interesting, although it seems to me that he misses the mark somewhat in using the social construction of reality as the primary focus of his critique. Although this is an important idea, and indeed one of the foundations of much postmodern thought, it seems to me that it is also an idea which is not so staggering in and of itself. Indeed, De Rose mentions that as long as this idea is applied conditionally, it is really rather boring and conventional, and I agree. The notion of socially constructed reality, in my view, is not supposed to be an earth-shattering revelation, but rather should be applied as a tool which can help with the construction of further observation about the nature of the world as we perceive it. For example, my reading of Baudrillard suggests that he doesn't in fact believe that the virtual has superceded the real objectively, but only that it has done so in our own consciousness - an idea which is more interesting and relevant than its alternative.
It also seems to me that De Rose undermines himself somewhat with this admission:
Finally, on the subject of whether we are in fact on the verge of a new epoch, or have already entered into it, I have no opinion, other than to say that most of the thinkers in question probably would have admitted that technological and social changes have vastly influenced their thought, and would not have claimed the reverse.
It also seems to me that De Rose undermines himself somewhat with this admission:
It's good of him to admit it, but undoubtedly we could find just as much, if not more, nonsense in the works of Kant, Descartes, Hume, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, or whoever. Especially given your own comparison of Postmodern philosophy to literature (which seems to me justified), I think a more holistic view is often needed to grasp the message. That's not analytic philosophy, of course, but neither does it make Postmodernism complete nonsense.I should quickly admit that I haven’t read anything by most of these French writers except for what made it into Fashionable Nonsense — and that, of course, in English translation
Finally, on the subject of whether we are in fact on the verge of a new epoch, or have already entered into it, I have no opinion, other than to say that most of the thinkers in question probably would have admitted that technological and social changes have vastly influenced their thought, and would not have claimed the reverse.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
On Dada: A bit of discussion about how I view art through Duchamp's readymades (so the period about the 1920s), if you please. If you don't, you will want to skip this post.
I've done a bit of reading about Duchamp, but I'm reading very freely into his reasoning and even likely inventing a little. I have always imagined that Duchamp was a bit purposefully mysterious at times in his explanations, which (if I'm dead wrong) should explain the overall thrust of this short piece, but even so I don't think there is anything inimical to the correct spirit of art in this interpretation of the lessons I take from him.
Duchamp's readymades present an argument against institutionalized art and against the power of institutions to determine what is or is not art.
I feel that there was more to it than that - Duchamp was not interested in the inherent artistic qualities of a bicycle wheel or a porcelain urinal, at least not immediately as he could have found or created better objects exemplifying art than those. He sought a critical reaction in his audience, and in this process a new art is formed - an art that asks the audience to look within to find what they have of value beyond what the artist can give.
He ironically denies the importance of the artist in creating art by presenting a urinal. He says to the audience 'do not trust too much the artistic sensibilities of us artists.'
The average artist of installations (from gigantic sculptures to fastidiously arranged collections of miniscule detrius) seeks to blunt the edge of this message by pushing out items that tend to be neutral and then asks the viewer to play a game of finding the perspectives that best suit them. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is an ironic heritage for Duchamp who seemed to be moving towards denying the utility of the artist altogether. Taking Duchamp's message to its logical extreme, what is there in one's daily surroundings that might not stand in place of the urinal?
The artist may find it suitable (and profitable) to pretend they hold the keys to art. Indeed, the artist should know more than their audience about how to manipulate forms to create an artistic sensibility. However, at the very least Duchamp shows that without a viewer there is nothing artistic at all - and so the great amount of emotional investment by the viewer which leads to well-meaning but ultimately blind rages against artists whose perspective the viewer does not understand or, worse, denounces.
Unfortunately, I think that the modern take on Duchamp's instillations simply blunts the message, and unfortunately reinforces the elitist notion that art is something one must be trained to perceive, instead of being a product of the viewer's imagination. The average person (as I imagine them, anyway) does not want to be confronted by images of ugliness.
I've done a bit of reading about Duchamp, but I'm reading very freely into his reasoning and even likely inventing a little. I have always imagined that Duchamp was a bit purposefully mysterious at times in his explanations, which (if I'm dead wrong) should explain the overall thrust of this short piece, but even so I don't think there is anything inimical to the correct spirit of art in this interpretation of the lessons I take from him.
Duchamp's readymades present an argument against institutionalized art and against the power of institutions to determine what is or is not art.
I feel that there was more to it than that - Duchamp was not interested in the inherent artistic qualities of a bicycle wheel or a porcelain urinal, at least not immediately as he could have found or created better objects exemplifying art than those. He sought a critical reaction in his audience, and in this process a new art is formed - an art that asks the audience to look within to find what they have of value beyond what the artist can give.
He ironically denies the importance of the artist in creating art by presenting a urinal. He says to the audience 'do not trust too much the artistic sensibilities of us artists.'
The average artist of installations (from gigantic sculptures to fastidiously arranged collections of miniscule detrius) seeks to blunt the edge of this message by pushing out items that tend to be neutral and then asks the viewer to play a game of finding the perspectives that best suit them. There is nothing wrong with this, but it is an ironic heritage for Duchamp who seemed to be moving towards denying the utility of the artist altogether. Taking Duchamp's message to its logical extreme, what is there in one's daily surroundings that might not stand in place of the urinal?
The artist may find it suitable (and profitable) to pretend they hold the keys to art. Indeed, the artist should know more than their audience about how to manipulate forms to create an artistic sensibility. However, at the very least Duchamp shows that without a viewer there is nothing artistic at all - and so the great amount of emotional investment by the viewer which leads to well-meaning but ultimately blind rages against artists whose perspective the viewer does not understand or, worse, denounces.
Unfortunately, I think that the modern take on Duchamp's instillations simply blunts the message, and unfortunately reinforces the elitist notion that art is something one must be trained to perceive, instead of being a product of the viewer's imagination. The average person (as I imagine them, anyway) does not want to be confronted by images of ugliness.
Ed Oscuro,
Nice post. I would prefer to keep this discussion geared towards postmodern philosophy rather than postmodern art, however, and although Duchamp might be called the grandaddy of postmodernism, he isn't generally placed in the category. That said, although I generally agree with what you've stated, there are three points I disagree on:
-Duchamp was, in fact, very much interested in the aesthetic value of his readymades. In fact, he kept the bicycle wheel around for months in his studio before showing it anywhere, because he liked the way it looked, and also specifically made reference to the aesthetics of Fountain in his defense of the piece, stating (albeit in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner) that plumbing equipment was at that time the finest product of American art.
-He didn't seek to deny the importance of the artist. The political statement contained in Fountain was directed towards the art establishment, and indeed reinforces the importance of the artist, since it heralded the advent of conceptual art and its triumph over what Duchamp called 'retinal' art.
-This is just my personal view: the 'average viewer' and what they want or don't want is generally irrelevant as far as most art is concerned. It's too late to do anything that's not targeted towards a specific audience, and yes, they are the final piece of the puzzle. Check out Komar and Melamid sometime if you want to see what the 'average viewer' desires.
Anyway, if you want to start up a thread about Duchamp &/or art in general I'd be happy to participate. I wouldn't mind discussing his Bride Stripped Bare as to me it is much more interesting than Fountain.
Nice post. I would prefer to keep this discussion geared towards postmodern philosophy rather than postmodern art, however, and although Duchamp might be called the grandaddy of postmodernism, he isn't generally placed in the category. That said, although I generally agree with what you've stated, there are three points I disagree on:
-Duchamp was, in fact, very much interested in the aesthetic value of his readymades. In fact, he kept the bicycle wheel around for months in his studio before showing it anywhere, because he liked the way it looked, and also specifically made reference to the aesthetics of Fountain in his defense of the piece, stating (albeit in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner) that plumbing equipment was at that time the finest product of American art.
-He didn't seek to deny the importance of the artist. The political statement contained in Fountain was directed towards the art establishment, and indeed reinforces the importance of the artist, since it heralded the advent of conceptual art and its triumph over what Duchamp called 'retinal' art.
-This is just my personal view: the 'average viewer' and what they want or don't want is generally irrelevant as far as most art is concerned. It's too late to do anything that's not targeted towards a specific audience, and yes, they are the final piece of the puzzle. Check out Komar and Melamid sometime if you want to see what the 'average viewer' desires.
Anyway, if you want to start up a thread about Duchamp &/or art in general I'd be happy to participate. I wouldn't mind discussing his Bride Stripped Bare as to me it is much more interesting than Fountain.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
Now a short bit about postmodernism - from Elizabeth Anderson's article on postmodernism:
Anyhow, I want to say - but cannot quite - that this confounds physical and political scientists alike.
Reading this as a critique of the scientific method or of the political scientist's creed to not make arguments without historical evidence would be ironic at best. It takes us right back to the simplest question of epistemology, but applied to the wrong field.
It might be clearer to say that it delegitimizes ideas that claim transcendence. For example, the artist who claims that art should attempt to beautify reality. If we believe that a mindset is the product of a body and its interaction with the environment, it is justified: there is an endless number of possibilities for creating a person's artistic sensibility.
I think that on the whole this movement has spurred (at least it has sought to) the Klimts of the art world to leave alone their obsessions for a moment and to broaden their perspective.
This actually goes as evidence for my previous post.Politically, the postmodernist emphasis on revealing the situatedness and contestability of any particular claim or system of thought is supposed to serve both critical and liberatory functions. It delegitimizes ideas that dominate and exclude by undermining their claims to transcendent justification. And it opens up space for imagining alternative possibilities that were obscured by those claims.
Anyhow, I want to say - but cannot quite - that this confounds physical and political scientists alike.
Reading this as a critique of the scientific method or of the political scientist's creed to not make arguments without historical evidence would be ironic at best. It takes us right back to the simplest question of epistemology, but applied to the wrong field.
It might be clearer to say that it delegitimizes ideas that claim transcendence. For example, the artist who claims that art should attempt to beautify reality. If we believe that a mindset is the product of a body and its interaction with the environment, it is justified: there is an endless number of possibilities for creating a person's artistic sensibility.
I think that on the whole this movement has spurred (at least it has sought to) the Klimts of the art world to leave alone their obsessions for a moment and to broaden their perspective.
Postmodernism has given the word 'bullshit' a bad name (guess who said this?)
"The only desire the Culture could not satisfy from within itself was one common to both the descendants of its original human stock and the machines [...]: the urge not to feel useless."
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
Haha! True, but still, artistic intellectuals of the time were up against an establishment. Postmodernism doesn't seem incredibly relevant anymore, but it's served its purpose.Randorama wrote:Postmodernism has given the word 'bullshit' a bad name (guess who said this?)
By the way, Richard Dawkins' site (visited there recently) has a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on the idea HERE. Have to read what he says with interest since I already hinted at the obvious split between postmodernism and science.
it290: Thanks for the notes, and apologies for the off-topic post. I'll come back to Duchamp whenever I've done my reading about him. For my part, I guess I covered my butt by saying that it was essentially the lessons I take away from his artworks (although the critique of establishment art is pretty clear).
I'm going to have to look at current postmodernism to see if I should extend any of the same courtesy to it that I had to Duchamp...
haha this is great
absolutely astoundingThe feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter treatment by Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a 'rape manual') Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a 'sexed equation'. Why? Because 'it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us' (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an in-word).
What I find sad is that most of those guys never poked into modern (formal) treatments of Language. I think they could have produced absolute masterpieces, given that stuff like Discourse Representation Theory or Minimalism have much more potential for mangling than obsolete (i.e. 19th century-like notions) theories like Structuralism (i.e. more formal notation, more fancy notations, you get the drill).
Hmmm, I should feed some post-modernist with bits and pieces of those topics...
Hmmm, I should feed some post-modernist with bits and pieces of those topics...
"The only desire the Culture could not satisfy from within itself was one common to both the descendants of its original human stock and the machines [...]: the urge not to feel useless."
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
Guys, you've taken a big risk. Icycalm will be showing up to police this thread in no-time at all.
Don't you know freedom of speech is under strict scrutiny here?
Don't you know freedom of speech is under strict scrutiny here?
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die
ChurchOfSolipsism wrote: ALso, this is how SKykid usually posts
Besides, we aren't talking about him, now are we? We're tackling postmodernism. View my last post in the Shmups as Art thread as a carrot under his nose if you must. Don't be scurredSkykid wrote:Guys, you've taken a big risk. Icycalm will be showing up to police this thread in no-time at all.
Man, I like Modernist writings and art.
Am I the only one who thinks that the aim of philosophy is really the spurring of further thought, and not the solution of problems? I mean, Nietzsche was more of a wingnut than any of the postmodernists, yet his influence on the 20th century was immense (and mostly bad, granted). His role in the pantheon of philosophy is (relatively) minor, but in terms of history he is more important than most. If you want to argue that a lost of postmodern thought is bad juju, I won't disagree, I just don't think it's fair to critique it solely on grounds of rationality.
More potential for mangling? Hmm... sounds interesting.more potential for mangling than obsolete (i.e. 19th century-like notions) theories like Structuralism (i.e. more formal notation, more fancy notations, you get the drill).
I am a fan of punk-Modernism (ie. dada) and, to a lesser extent, utopian-Modernism (Bauhaus etc.). Not such a big fan of fascist-Modernism.Man, I like Modernist writings and art.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
[quote="it290"]Not such a big fan of fascist-Modernism. ;)[/quote
Why not? I love it when Italians go on insane rampages against "bourgeoisie" words in order to restore the glories of the ancient Roman empire. And then there's Ezra Pound, one of the great poets of his time, in bed with them. Ahh, the fun never ends :D
I'm also not fully in line as to how Nietzsche gets a bad rap (he was essentially very cynical from my understanding) for his influence on modern philosophy while postmodernism gets a free ride.
Why not? I love it when Italians go on insane rampages against "bourgeoisie" words in order to restore the glories of the ancient Roman empire. And then there's Ezra Pound, one of the great poets of his time, in bed with them. Ahh, the fun never ends :D
I'm also not fully in line as to how Nietzsche gets a bad rap (he was essentially very cynical from my understanding) for his influence on modern philosophy while postmodernism gets a free ride.
-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
@it290: I'm not too worried about whether DeRose has misunderstood or failed to appreciate the point of claims made by prominent postmodernists. (It would be surprising if he hasn't!) What is useful about the DeRose piece is how nicely it brings out a deep flaw in postmodernist methodology. The postmodernist rule seems to be something like (and here I'm being unfair, I realize): Be maximally obscure in your claims and in your defense of your claims. On my view, this is pretty well the worst way to engage in philosophical problems. In most cases problems of philosophy are problems of philosophy (and not problems of any empirical science) precisely because there are not enough widely accepted results on the subject matter-- the problems are *that* hard. When the problems are so hard, it makes sense (to my mind) to try to be as clear and rigorous as possible. We don't want to make things even more difficult by being obscure and sloppy. But then, as I said before, it's not even clear to me that postmodernists are really interested in the same problems that I'm interested in. Perhaps they are doing something else entirely. Your own response to DeRose is reasonably clear and much more in line with DeRose's own methods than the ones he is opposing.
No way! I couldn't disagree more. Though I think Hume's writings do contain a bit more nonsense than those of Thomas Reid, who is also an 18th century Scottish philosopher. (At the same time I will concede that Hume's writings contain more insight-- it's hard to think of a philosopher more insightful than Hume.)it290 wrote:undoubtedly we could find just as much, if not more, nonsense in the works of... Hume... or whoever.
Just tossing Hume out there; I'm a fan as well.
I do think that some postmodernists could be charged with being willfully obscure at times, however I would also say that oftentimes they are writing about subject matter which is complex to the point of being very difficult (if not impossible) to discuss in a clear, straightforward manner. Translation doesn't help matters, either.
I think you and I may differ on our ideas about what the goal of philosophy should be. Would you say that philosophy is primarily about solving problems, or attempting to solve them? For me it's more about posing questions -- in other words, creating problems -- and finding solutions is secondary (although still very important).
I'm not sure if you are saying that I'm implying that postmodernism gets a free ride or just that you think it does. I certainly don't think it should, although I can't think offhand of any extremely negative effects it may have had (others might disagree).
I do think that some postmodernists could be charged with being willfully obscure at times, however I would also say that oftentimes they are writing about subject matter which is complex to the point of being very difficult (if not impossible) to discuss in a clear, straightforward manner. Translation doesn't help matters, either.
I think you and I may differ on our ideas about what the goal of philosophy should be. Would you say that philosophy is primarily about solving problems, or attempting to solve them? For me it's more about posing questions -- in other words, creating problems -- and finding solutions is secondary (although still very important).
Heh heh... well, I do have a soft spot for Futurism, I'll admit.Why not? I love it when Italians go on insane rampages against "bourgeoisie" words in order to restore the glories of the ancient Roman empire. And then there's Ezra Pound, one of the great poets of his time, in bed with them. Ahh, the fun never ends
I'm also not fully in line as to how Nietzsche gets a bad rap (he was essentially very cynical from my understanding) for his influence on modern philosophy while postmodernism gets a free ride.
I'm not sure if you are saying that I'm implying that postmodernism gets a free ride or just that you think it does. I certainly don't think it should, although I can't think offhand of any extremely negative effects it may have had (others might disagree).
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
The Dawkins article I linked goes into some of that.it290 wrote:I certainly don't think it should, although I can't think offhand of any extremely negative effects it may have had (others might disagree).
Futurism was mired in chauvinist thinking from the time, but I think modernism in Italy was co-opted by Mussolini and Co., rather than being a movement whose natural end was in fascism. Certainly elsewhere in the world modernism didn't result in fascist regimes, and in Japan modernism ended up being at odds with the fascists.
On the other hand, here we are in the free world, and people are running around spouting complete nonsense - with tenure - at some of the most respected universities, and it's rather shameful.
-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
I guess I'm thinking that finding answers had better be at least as important. If the answers don't matter, then why do the questions matter? At the same time, I think there is a way that philosophy, perhaps more so than any other discipline, is great for realizing just how puzzling/perplexing/deep the world is, and puzzlement here can itself be an aim. I do think it's worthwhile and valuable to realize just how puzzling the world is. At the same time, philosophical problems are typically ones that really matter to us as humans, so the answers are far from irrelevant.it290 wrote:I think you and I may differ on our ideas about what the goal of philosophy should be. Would you say that philosophy is primarily about solving problems, or attempting to solve them? For me it's more about posing questions -- in other words, creating problems -- and finding solutions is secondary (although still very important).
If you add "natural" to philosophy (in the canonical sense of the word) and remove the Quine's "let's be mystics from the neck up!" nonsense, I do agree.professor ganson wrote:I think there is a way that philosophy, perhaps more so than any other discipline, is great for realizing just how puzzling/perplexing/deep the world is, and puzzlement here can itself be an aim.
There is the whole intro (part 1? Up to page 70 or something) of "Vision" by David Marr (1982) that shows a fascinating approach to "philosophical" problems and why they matter (How Vision works in a given way? Why not in others? How to analize it?).
I keep wondering if there are some douchebags that bothered to read it and misrepresent it in their post-modern rants, given some of the most peculiar aspects of the theory he pioneered (let alone all the research that spawned in the subsequent 26 years).
But again, at some point or another I will write some post-modern masterpiece on Discourse Representation Theory and its fluidility of rules of construal for the anaphoricity of meaning. Be warned!
"The only desire the Culture could not satisfy from within itself was one common to both the descendants of its original human stock and the machines [...]: the urge not to feel useless."
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
A charge repeated throughout the history of the university, undoubtedly. I'm not defending anyone specifically, but if you look at Dawkin's kind of universe - completely rational and mechanistic - you'll find that viewpoint has gotten us into a fair bit of trouble as well. Mind you, I'd rise to the defense of such a universe faster than any other.On the other hand, here we are in the free world, and people are running around spouting complete nonsense - with tenure - at some of the most respected universities, and it's rather shameful.
I wouldn't say that they are at all irrelevant, but at the same time some of the classic problems of philosophy -- free will being the big one -- are just not really meant to be solved. This doesn't imply that talking about them is futile, however.I guess I'm thinking that finding answers had better be at least as important. If the answers don't matter, then why do the questions matter? At the same time, I think there is a way that philosophy, perhaps more so than any other discipline, is great for realizing just how puzzling/perplexing/deep the world is, and puzzlement here can itself be an aim. I do think it's worthwhile and valuable to realize just how puzzling the world is. At the same time, philosophical problems are typically ones that really matter to us as humans, so the answers are far from irrelevant.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said recently that the "social Darwinists" committed the is/ought fallacy. At the end of the day I feel that competition for resources tends to provoke the sort of genocidal, eugenic overreaction that we saw in the early 20th century; social "Darwinism" just made it easier for people to imagine this was the natural order of things (of course, the complexity of relationships in nature - symbiotic relationships, and the idea of the "gay uncle" - seem to me evidence that this doesn't hold true.it290 wrote:[...] if you look at Dawkin's kind of universe - completely rational and mechanistic - you'll find that viewpoint has gotten us into a fair bit of trouble as well.
Agreed completely. I had meant to refer to a more general tendency to value logic above all else; it may be more reliable, but it's still easy to be convinced that one is correct when this is not the case, and it doesn't make us treat each other any better, unfortunately. I can see now that my last post does tend to evoke social Darwinism, however.Ed Oscuro wrote: I believe it was Richard Dawkins who said recently that the "social Darwinists" committed the is/ought fallacy. At the end of the day I feel that competition for resources tends to provoke the sort of genocidal, eugenic overreaction that we saw in the early 20th century; social "Darwinism" just made it easier for people to imagine this was the natural order of things (of course, the complexity of relationships in nature - symbiotic relationships, and the idea of the "gay uncle" - seem to me evidence that this doesn't hold true.
We here shall not rest until we have made a drawing-room of your shaft, and if you do not all finally go down to your doom in patent-leather shoes, then you shall not go at all.
That's basically wrong, but the blame is mostly on Dawkins. "The selfish gene" had an underlying "closet behaviorist" theme, but Dawkins didn't have clear ideas at the time. In a nutshell: genes can't see bullshit out of the body but try to find bedfellows, at a top level it looks like we are driven by them.it290 wrote: A charge repeated throughout the history of the university, undoubtedly. I'm not defending anyone specifically, but if you look at Dawkin's kind of universe - completely rational and mechanistic - you'll find that viewpoint has gotten us into a fair bit of trouble as well. Mind you, I'd rise to the defense of such a universe faster than any other.
In "the blind watchmaker" he corrects the aim and tries say: "wait, I meant that genes try to find bedfellows, but they can't see stuff, so in the end life is a pure lottery". Everyone is stuck at 1976 (i.e. the selfish gene), so everyone thinks he is a 19th century douchebag (including dumbass D.Dennett), which is quite useful if you want to hoarde morons in useless "cultural battles" (the prize is the fabled tenure!!!).
He is not particularly smart, at any case, since he:
1) Talks rubbish about memes (break plz, define them and check if they work, otherwise it's mistyque);
2) He keeps thinking about the "5% percent of a wing" as a serious argument (or: 5% of n, n member of N);
But this is beside the point: Dawkins' viewpoint is his, and what one makes of his life is a different matter. Nobody told you to follow him and go into trouble, no? Among other things, science (the one I make now, in the 21st century) is about constantly correcting the "viewpoint", given that obviously we know little about what the world is like, to our senses, etc. etc. etc.
As long as one wants to solve a problem without tools, there's not much hope (i.e. continental philosophy). Solving the problem with the wrong tools doesn't help either ("analytical" philosophy): spending time raving on the armchair still doesn't cut it. But...I wouldn't say that they are at all irrelevant, but at the same time some of the classic problems of philosophy -- free will being the big one -- are just not really meant to be solved. This doesn't imply that talking about them is futile, however.
Raving rubbish about the above points is quite irrational and, to quote uncle Noam (Chomsky)*, a pre-requisite for higher positions of power in Academia (the more educated=the more irrational).
If your goal is to get tenure at Harvard, you thus need at least to claim for the rapist attitude of photons against photins. Don't forget! The golden goal of tenure (and countless Joe budweiser with an Ivy League degree as dittoheads!) demands no less!
*He of course points out that he ended up being somehow self-taught. I agree to some extent.
"The only desire the Culture could not satisfy from within itself was one common to both the descendants of its original human stock and the machines [...]: the urge not to feel useless."
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).
I.M. Banks, "Consider Phlebas" (1988: 43).