Aufklärung ([info]avralavral) rakstīja,
@ 2018-03-07 08:56:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
No komentāriem:
D.Ottlinger seems happily oblivious to the global irrelevance of American philosophy. While analytic philosophers were debating the "deep" questions, like "what makes white white and a pile a pile," deconstruction was redefining the fields of lit crit, anthropology, architecture, sociology, etc. God knows how much BS was churned out by the PoMo-ists, but the problem with English-speaking philosophy is that it obsessed (and still does) over problems no one has cared about since Aquinas. So throughout Europe, bookstores will have entire shelves stacked with post-modern philosophy, while good luck finding Nagel or Searle anywhere in a noncampus bookstore. American philosophy is globally irrelevant.
What I find baffling is analytic philosophers' disdain of history in general and philosophical history in particular. My philosophical colleagues are crassly, and apparently proudly, ignorant of 19th c German philosophy. Is there any other field of scholarship that disdains history so much?
Dennett has admitted that he knows nothing about phenomenology; and yet he writes a whole book on consciousness. That's professional malpractice.
And I'd like to hear the argument why philosophy is better off ignoring all that happened before the Vienna Circle.


(Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]kants
2018-03-07 10:16 (saite)
:d +100500

(Atbildēt uz šo)


(Anonīms)
2018-03-08 01:18 (saite)
dažbrīd, pat salīdzinot ar tehniskāko sholastiku, analītiskais meinstrīms ir vienkārši nelasāms.
ja t un p ir c, p2 ir qR4.
ja vēl tas būtu dziļi, ja vēl no tā būtu kāds instrumentāls pienesums, bet tas pat neko nedod, neko neskaidrina.
analītiskie sākās tik viegli un skaidri, bet redz līdz kam noveda.

(Atbildēt uz šo)


Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?