Most/least favorite philosophers...

[RandFan]

Aristotle is my least favorite, not for anything he specifically said or did, but because his philosophical works were used by others as an authority to surpress genuinely progressive work in the field of science. Aristotle's physics was accepted as fact much longer than it should have been.

Interesting. To the extent that this is true it wasn't necessarily Aristotle's fault. Do you think any negative consequences are mitigated by his contributions to logic including and particularly syllogisms and dialectics?

Perhaps my notions of Aristotle are romantic but I'm fascinated by his body of work considering his time. I'll concede that such sentiment could be ignorance on my part and giving too much credit to Aristotle.

 

[Thomas]

Let's focus on this for a moment. I'm just not clear at this point as to what your argument is, then. I've been reading your posts as saying that all philosophical inquiry beyond that which can be investigated empirically (i.e., science) is a waste of time. I thought this was justified by your initial post:

Yes. You misunderstood it quite a bit.

Now you seem to be suggesting that that's not what you're saying. Although I've asked several times already for you to clarify any apparent misunderstandings of your comments under which I seem to be operating, let me ask once again, and specifically with regard to this question: what exactly is your argument here, if not that all non-empirical philosophy is a waste of time?

That's non sequitur: "Most philosophers is a waste of time to me" doesn't mean: "The empirical tradition can stand on its own". But I do embrace the empirical tradition above the classic rationalistic tradition. But from there it is non sequitur again that I should somehow denounce the rationalistic approach entirely.

 

[JamesDillon]

Yes. You misunderstood it quite a bit.


That's non sequitur: "Most philosophers is a waste of time to me" doesn't mean: "The empirical tradition can stand on its own". But I do embrace the empirical tradition above the classic rationalistic tradition. But from there it is non sequitur that I should somehow denounce the rationalistic approach entirely.

Then I'm really not sure what this whole discussion we've been having has been about. It seems reasonable to me to interpret the statement "X is a waste of time" as meaning "X has no value" or "People should not undertake X" or something like that. Certainly that's what I would intend if I were to say something like, "Astrology is a waste of time."

What, exactly, was your initial post in this thread supposed to mean, then?

 

[Thomas]

Then I'm really not sure what this whole discussion we've been having has been about.

It seems reasonable to me to interpret the statement "X is a waste of time" as meaning "X has no value" or "People should not undertake X" or something like that. Certainly that's what I would intend if I were to say something like, "Astrology is a waste of time."

Strawman. I never said "X is a waste of time", but if you want to use that analogy, then I said "Most of X is a waste of time" (besides from a historical point of view, which in my world, is also a waste of time these days)".

What, exactly, was your initial post in this thread supposed to mean, then?

That tons of philosophy merely is interesting from a historical point of view. And that solid natural philosophy became science.

 

[Upchurch]

Interesting. To the extent that this is true it wasn't necessarily Aristotle's fault. Do you think any negative consequences are mitigated by his contributions to logic including and particularly syllogisms and dialectics?

Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying that Aristotle's philosophy and specifically the world mechanics he developed is my least favorite. In my opinion, the bad aspects of how his philosophy impacted the world far outweighs the good.

I guess this all based on an assumption of mine that all true ideas will necessarily be discovered by somebody at some point, but a false one may never.

 

[JamesDillon]

Strawman.

First, "straw man" is two words. Second, would you please make an effort at having a cooperative conversation here instead of screaming "fallacy!" every time you think I'm misunderstanding something you've said?

I never said "X is a waste of time", but if you want to use that analogy, then I said "Most of X is a waste of time" (besides from a historical point of view, which in my world, is also a waste of time these days)".

What you said was:

Most philosophers are a waste of time to me, and I have studied philosophy at four different schools in my youth, including the unversity.

I note that your focus on the word "most" rather evades the point of my question, which was what the phrase "waste of time" is supposed to mean, other than "X has no value" or "People should not undertake X." I hereby concede to all the world that you did indeed qualify that statement with the word "most." Now, would you please answer the question?

That tons of philosophy merely is interesting from a historical point of view.

What parts of philosophy are only interested from a historical point of view? I'm inclined to think that you mean all of it except for the scientific kind, but heavens forbid I should try to put words in your mouth. So please elaborate.

And that solid natural philosophy became science.

What you actually said was that Einstein and Darwin were your favorite philosophers. I would still say that, while acknowledging the origins of empirical science in earlier philosophical inquiry, what Einstein and Darwin were doing really just can't be compared to the line of work characterized by, for example, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Popper and Nagel. This is clear in the case of contemporaries-- Galileo and Descartes, for example, were operating in qualitatively different fields of study, even in the nascent days of modern science and modern philosophy.

 

[Thomas]

First, "straw man" is two words.

Second, would you please make an effort at having a cooperative conversation here instead of screaming "fallacy!" every time you think I'm misunderstanding something you've said?

The first rule of having a "cooperative conversation" is to not spew out one fallacy after the other. Should I just ignore that you make straw-men and non sequitur arguments out of my posts?

I note that your focus on the word "most" rather evades the point of my question, which was what the phrase "waste of time" is supposed to mean, other than "X has no value" or "People should not undertake X." I hereby concede to all the world that you did indeed qualify that statement with the word "most." Now, would you please answer the question?

I already did several times. Most philosophy is a waste of time because it's obsolete and/or based heavily on semantics.

What parts of philosophy are only interested from a historical point of view? I'm inclined to think that you mean all of it except for the scientific kind, but heavens forbid I should try to put words in your mouth. So please elaborate.

I'll give you some examples, because it's a long story. But take the metaphysics of Aristotle, they were once very interesting, but now most of the questions are answered by physics, biology, chemistry etc.. The same could be said about Thales, Anaximenes, Descartes, Locke etc. Once good questions and ideas, but now largely settled by science.

What you actually said was that Einstein and Darwin were your favorite philosophers. I would still say that, while acknowledging the origins of empirical science in earlier philosophical inquiry, what Einstein and Darwin were doing really just can't be compared to the line of work characterized by, for example, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Popper and Nagel.

I'm gonna have to call you on another straw man, because what I said was in fact quite clearly that:

"To me, good philosophers are those who really accomplish something, and sadly they are not always counted as philosophers. I speak of thinkers like Einstein, Newton, Darwin etc."

And no, I'm not gonna refrain from calling you on logical fallacies. Play by the rules, please. And by that I mean, read the entire post.

This is clear in the case of contemporaries-- Galileo and Descartes, for example, were operating in qualitatively different fields of study, even in the nascent days of modern science and modern philosophy.

The point of this statement is irrelevant in the light of the above straw man, despite the fact that there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[JamesDillon]

The first rule of having a "cooperative conversation" is to not spew out one fallacy after the other. Should I just ignore that you make straw-men and non sequitur arguments out of my posts?

I believe that we have probably passed the point of having a productive conversation, but let me say at least this. Every one of my responses to you have been based on my good-faith interpretations of your arguments, incorporating the principle of charity in which it is assumed that an author intends the most plausible meaning that can reasonably be ascribed to his words. Having done so, the burden then shifts to you to correct any misinterpretations of your arguments that I may make by clarifying your position. Despite my repeated requests that you do just that, you have instead accused me of dishonesty in every response, and sought to impugn my credentials, as if that has any bearing on the validity of my criticisms of your position. My job here is not to guess at what's in your head, only to have you scream "Fallacy!" every time I (supposedly) get it wrong, yet refuse to actually clarify your position.

I already did several times. Most philosophy is a waste of time because it's obsolete and/or based heavily on semantics.

By "semantics," do you mean what you said a couple of posts ago, that philosophers spend a lot of time arguing over definitions of terms? I would agree that that's a fair criticism of some contemporary philosophy, but I don't think you'll see much of it in the classic and enduring works. Part of the problem, I think, is that philosophical inquiry just isn't as bold as it used to be; if all of philosophy is footnotes to Plato, then most twentieth-century philosophy is just footnotes to the Enlightenment (with some notable exceptions). We're not so much forging new ground as retracing the steps taken by those before. But I don't think that the fact that philosophy has (arguably, in some fields) experienced a bit of a creative lull over the past century or so means... whatever you seem to think it means, which I'm still not clear on.

I'll give you some examples, because it's a long story. But take the metaphysics of Aristotle, they were once very interesting, but now most of the questions are answered by physics, biology, chemistry etc.. The same could be said about Thales, Anaximenes, Descartes, Locke etc. Once good questions, but now largely settled by science.

Yes, as I think has been pretty firmly established at this point, much of the old metaphysics gave rise to empirical science. But, again, I fail to see the significance of this to whatever argument or criticism you're trying to make.

EDIT: I'm not sure I'd include Descartes in that group, though, if you're referring to his arguments about the existence of self and the reality of the external world. I tend to think that those fall into the class of questions that cannot be resolved by empirical means, but that's rather tangential to the main point of our discussion.

I'm gonna have to call you on another straw man, because what I said was in fact quite clearly that:

"To me, good philosophers are those who really accomplish something, and sadly they are not always counted as philosophers. I speak of thinkers like Einstein, Newton, Darwin etc."

And no, I'm not gonna refrain from calling you on logical fallacies. Play by the rules, please. And by that I mean, read the entire post.

I did read your entire post, and I fail to see the relevance here. You did say clearly that Darwin and Einstein are not generally regarded as philosophers, but you also called them your favorites, which suggests pretty clearly that, in Thomas-land, they do in fact fall into that category. So can you please enlighten me as to why my arguments as to why they should not be so regarded are irrelevant, or whatever it is you think they are?

And, for the third time, can you please explain what "waste of time" means, if not "lacking in value"? Your last post said why you think some philosophy is a "waste of time," but since you appeared to suggest (based on my best interpretation of words you have yet to clarify) in your discussion of the rationalist/empiricist distinction that being a "waste of time" does not necessarily mean that rationalist philosophy is devoid of merit, I'm more than a little confused as to what it does mean.

Edit, again:

And no, I'm not gonna refrain from calling you on logical fallacies.

Miscomprehending (again, charitably assuming that that's actually what I'm doing) your vague arguments, particularly when you steadfastly refuse my requests to clarify them, is not a logical fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps I should have been more specific in saying that Aristotle's philosophy and specifically the world mechanics he developed is my least favorite. In my opinion, the bad aspects of how his philosophy impacted the world far outweighs the good.

I guess this all based on an assumption of mine that all true ideas will necessarily be discovered by somebody at some point, but a false one may never.

Thanks.

 

[Robin]

Favourite: Hume
Least Favourite: Derrida

NB, I am assuming that I am saying nothing controversial when I say that the reason that Derrida's writing sounds like gibberish is because Derrida's writing really is gibberish.

 

[JamesDillon]

NB, I am assuming that I am saying nothing controversial when I say that the reason that Derrida's writing sounds like gibberish is because Derrida's writing really is gibberish.

I've never actually read Derrida, but going back to an earlier post, I suspect that an argument could be made that the deconstructivist/existentialist angst of the twentieth century was at least in part a reaction to Hume's attack on induction in the eighteenth, and the lack of an adequate response to it.

Of course, that would be once source among many; the metaphysical dilemmas unleashed by Darwin certainly contributed as well.

 

[Thomas]

I believe that we have probably passed the point of having a productive conversation, but let me say at least this. Every one of my responses to you have been based on my good-faith interpretations of your arguments, incorporating the principle of charity in which it is assumed that an author intends the most plausible meaning that can reasonably be ascribed to his words.

Enough of the banter then, and allow me to make it quite brief, because one of the reasons I turned my back on philosophy is that I hate endless clarifications for people who can't think for themselves (and that doesn't necessarily mean you, although we're about to reach that point):

I don't make popcorns for the 1933 stock motion version of King Kong either. Why? Because: Once a good idea, and even well pulled off, interesting from a film historical perspective, but not really anything worthwhile today. And mind you, King Kong doesn't even use semantics when he gets emotional.

Feel free to study history of philosophy all you want, and I'm sure it would do many people good, but to me, it's really a been-there-done-that (and too many years wasted on nonsense and ancient baloney).

 

[Robin]

I've never actually read Derrida, but going back to an earlier post, I suspect that an argument could be made that the deconstructivist/existentialist angst of the twentieth century was at least in part a reaction to Hume's attack on induction in the eighteenth, and the lack of an adequate response to it.

Of course, that would be once source among many; the metaphysical dilemmas unleashed by Darwin certainly contributed as well.

You have probably misunderstood when I say gibberish. I don't mean that Derrida has made some flawed analysis or incorrect point or that his logic is imperfect.

I mean that it is literally gibberish. A bunch of words with no possible meaning and no attempt even at a meaning.

I mean that his surreptitious conjunction of post-relativist signifiers generating on the one hand endemic immanence and on the other hand what Sartre referred to as the "insouciance of latency" is both oblate and tendentious (in the true Foucaltian sense rather than the generic Marxist collation).

 

[nescafe]

I mean that his surreptitious conjunction of post-relativist signifiers generating on the one hand endemic immanence and on the other hand what Sartre referred to as the "insouciance of latency" is both oblate and tendentious (in the true Foucaltian sense rather than the generic Marxist collation).

.... written in the style of Derrida, right?

 

[Robin]

.... written in the style of Derrida, right?

As best as I can do it. Derrida appears to have this talent of almost seeming to mean something and then dashing that hope at the end of a sentence.

 

[RandFan]

As best as I can do it. Derrida appears to have this talent of almost seeming to mean something and then dashing that hope at the end of a sentence.

Sounds like my Humanities Core Course professor. He would go on for the entire class spewing a stream of consciousness. I remember once he started a thought about the common misconceptions that Europeans had of Native Americans that ended with an anecdote about Hannibal Barca. I remember because I later asked his assistance to clarify the connection and she told me not to worry that it wouldn't be on the test. NOTHING that this man ever said was on the test. Thank Ed and Thank Ed he was hardly ever there.

 

[bigred]

Guess I could've answered my own question.


Fav:
Descartes
Sarte
Socrates


Least fav:
Rousseau
Nietzsche
Kant
Marx

 

[JamesDillon]

Guess I could've answered my own question.


Fav:
Descartes
Sarte
Socrates


Least fav:
Rousseau
Nietzsche
Kant
Marx

I can't quite figure out any consistent theme among those groups. Care to elaborate on why you like and dislike each one?

 

[bigred]

I can't quite figure out any consistent theme among those groups.

There isn't one. At least no intentional ones. Just as I do with politicians, I take them each on their own merits. Further, to me this isn't so much "I agree with them" as it is "I think their analyses/conclusions are logical." Course agreeing w/them factors in there too.

Care to elaborate on why you like and dislike each one?

Eventually - don't really have the time nor to be honest the inclination to engage my brain that much presently. In fact I haven't even read most of the replies yet. Glad to see this generated some discussion though.

 

[bigred]

I believe that we have probably passed the point of having a productive conversation, but let me say at least this. Every one of my responses to you have been based on my good-faith interpretations of your arguments, incorporating the principle of charity in which it is assumed that an author intends the most plausible meaning that can reasonably be ascribed to his words. Having done so, the burden then shifts to you to correct any misinterpretations of your arguments that I may make by clarifying your position. Despite my repeated requests that you do just that, you have instead accused me of dishonesty in every response, and sought to impugn my credentials, as if that has any bearing on the validity of my criticisms of your position. My job here is not to guess at what's in your head, only to have you scream "Fallacy!" every time I (supposedly) get it wrong, yet refuse to actually clarify your position.

Welcome to JREF.

PS I have a hard time believing you haven't already figured this out, but FYI if, during a discussion/debate, someone starts repeating the same JREF pet phrase (eg "straw man," "ad hom" etc) over and over in a given thread, that's a clear warning sign that it's probably best to cut your losses and move on, as the person in question isn't likely interested in any real discussion, but rather is much more interested in "putting you in your place." However, I applaud your patience and efforts.