General Questions About Continental Philosophy

[Hare_Geist]

Entheogenic and I have taken several threads off topic, him through baiting, and me through being a fool and taking the bait. So instead of ruining anymore threads, I have decided to make a single thread for all and any inquiries about continental philosophy in general. Anyone can pose a question, and anyone can try and give an answer.

P.S. don't expect me personally to debate the prose style of postmodernism, I have debated that enough in my life.

I'd actually like to know your background, if you're willing to share. You seem to have given these issues a lot of thought--have you studied them formally, or is it just a hobby?

Also, I'm sorry if it seems like I've been baiting; at least on the Hegel thread I do feel like it is relevant to the discussion (after all, the OP started by asking "Does Hegel ever make sense?").

If you don't want to get into the personal stuff, I understand


Entheogenic

ABC Radio's program The Philosopher's Zone recently broadcast a program about the philosophical implications of translating words between languages. Part of the program deals with the Continental/Analytic distinction. Snip:

The programme looks at these issues beyond the case of single words, asking whether some sorts of thinking are a product of the language, which possibly allows for concepts to be dealt with in a different manner.


One of the most striking differences lies between analytic philosophy, largely produced by native English speakers that entails legal or scientific style reasoning as applied to concepts, and continental philosophy, which often deals with criticising the concepts of language itself and relies much more on rhetoric and analogy.


The most famous continental philosopher are French (Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze etc), so this provides a useful starting point for discussing whether the different approaches to philosophy are just the result of culture, or stem from the tools of language itself.

Thought some people might find this interesting.

Linky.

Entheogenic

[ilbastardoh]

I was introduced to phenomenology, or at least the phenomenological method while studying psychology, as a supplement to the concepts I was learning.

It's the only philosophy I went in depth to, the rest is behavioral psychology, neuroscience, and biology.

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by Entheogenic

I'd actually like to know your background, if you're willing to share. You seem to have given these issues a lot of thought--have you studied them formally, or is it just a hobby?

I do not consider my interest in philosophy a hobby, because that word seems to suggest that whatever be the interest, it is not taken seriously, when I take philosophy very seriously. But I was not educated at a university or anything like that. Rather, I bought myself books on formal logic and sought out the philosophers whose thought attracted me for whatever reason. My interests lie primarily in German Idealism, but I have some interest in structuralism, phenomenology, Derrida, and J.L. Austin's speech act theories.

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

J.L. Austin's speech act theories.

I assume you've read Searle's Speech Acts also? One of my own projects is developing the "direction of fit" notion introduced by Austin into a naturalistic account of how meaning is produced; I think speech act theory is fascinating as well. At least we've got that one in common


Entheogenic

[KikoSanchez]

What are people's thoughts on Baudrillard? I've skimmed some of his texts with passing interest and picked up on his larger points, but recently a friend of mine bought "Simulacra and Simulation," and lended it to me so I could try it out first. I'm about to dive in...but I was wondering if any of you have an opinion on him. Is he simply an obscurantist or does he have genuine, powerful ideas to communicate?


Btw, his 'larger points' that I currently grasp...well, I understand them, but I fail to see how important they really are. That is, it seems to me that he inflates the pragmatic importance of them.

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by KikoSanchez

What are people's thoughts on Baudrillard? I've skimmed some of his texts with passing interest and picked up on his larger points, but recently a friend of mine bought "Simulacra and Simulation," and lended it to me so I could try it out first. I'm about to dive in...but I was wondering if any of you have an opinion on him. Is he simply an obscurantist or does he have genuine, powerful ideas to communicate?

I am interested in Baudrillard, but have only read excerpts from “Simulacra and Simulation”. I think that most people’s interest in Baudrillard lies primarily in this book, however, what really interests me are his first three books. They make up a critique of Marxist economics, attempt to apply semiotics, a field I am very interested in, to economics, and from what I have skimmed through, seem to be straightforward in their exposition, unlike “Simulacra and Simulation”.

Originally Posted by KikoSanchez

Btw, his 'larger points' that I currently grasp...well, I understand them, but I fail to see how important they really are. That is, it seems to me that he inflates the pragmatic importance of them.

I hear that that is a common criticism of Baudrillard, that he exaggerates his theories, so they go from being tenable to tenuous.

[ilbastardoh]

Why doesn't anyone discuss the philosophical value of politics? Because there is none, politics is a coloring book version of life, and it never deals with real issues. They do not concern survival and prosperity, they concern making people look a certain way, politics is a neurolinguistic trick to distort what actually matters.

Economics is also worthless, because a large part of economics is customer preference, and as of yet no one can predict such a "variable."

What is the point of transmitting powerful ideas? What makes them powerful? Is it the cadence and delivery, the skill in arranging the syntax, it's simplicity, it's complexity, it's bewilderment quotient? To me it seems like philosophy is the act of stating ridiculous claims and defending them with all sorts of hypothetical and metaphyiscal arguments.

I respect phenomenology only to the extent that it is a continuous means, not a philosophy to be concluded, but to observe and describe what we come in contact with as it happens continuously. There are no pre-formed ideas, as Husserl stated, and was elucidated by Merlau-Ponty, there is no "science of the lived". To attempt such a feat would require the same skill as geometer creating an axiomatic definition for a term like "jagged".

It seems to me that our affinity for particular philosophies stems from reading some stupid claim, and in our habitual expectancy to have some modicum of certainty in life, we agree because we have thought something equally moronic. Then we decide such a thing must be true, and inevitably become slaves to an idea; which in itself is nothing but a partial representative of reality during that instance. The job of philosophy is never over, and to act as if some prime reduction, or some ultimate conclusion can be reached is non-sense. Unless you're completely ignorant of the process of your life, you will see that it does not conclude, but rather it continues to unfold.

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by ilbastardoh

Why doesn't anyone discuss the philosophical value of politics? Because there is none, politics is a coloring book version of life, and it never deals with real issues. They do not concern survival and prosperity, they concern making people look a certain way, politics is a neurolinguistic trick to distort what actually matters.

Economics is also worthless, because a large part of economics is customer preference, and as of yet no one can predict such a "variable."

What is the point of transmitting powerful ideas? What makes them powerful? Is it the cadence and delivery, the skill in arranging the syntax, it's simplicity, it's complexity, it's bewilderment quotient? To me it seems like philosophy is the act of stating ridiculous claims and defending them with all sorts of hypothetical and metaphyiscal arguments.

I respect phenomenology only to the extent that it is a continuous means, not a philosophy to be concluded, but to observe and describe what we come in contact with as it happens continuously. There are no pre-formed ideas, as Husserl stated, and was elucidated by Merlau-Ponty, there is no "science of the lived". To attempt such a feat would require the same skill as geometer creating an axiomatic definition for a term like "jagged".

It seems to me that our affinity for particular philosophies stems from reading some stupid claim, and in our habitual expectancy to have some modicum of certainty in life, we agree because we have thought something equally moronic. Then we decide such a thing must be true, and inevitably become slaves to an idea; which in itself is nothing but a partial representative of reality during that instance. The job of philosophy is never over, and to act as if some prime reduction, or some ultimate conclusion can be reached is non-sense. Unless you're completely ignorant of the process of your life, you will see that it does not conclude, but rather it continues to unfold.

That is fucking beautiful.

Originally Posted by ilbastardoh

Why doesn't anyone discuss the philosophical value of politics? Because there is none, politics is a coloring book version of life, and it never deals with real issues. They do not concern survival and prosperity, they concern making people look a certain way, politics is a neurolinguistic trick to distort what actually matters.

They do. It's called "Political Philosophy."

Originally Posted by ilbastardoh

Economics is also worthless, because a large part of economics is customer preference, and as of yet no one can predict such a "variable."

I think this is a criticism that could be applied to all social sciences, and I'm not certain it's valid. While we don't have any reliable way to predict human behavior yet, that doesn't mean it won't come. Who knows.

Originally Posted by ilbastardoh

What is the point of transmitting powerful ideas? What makes them powerful? Is it the cadence and delivery, the skill in arranging the syntax, it's simplicity, it's complexity, it's bewilderment quotient? To me it seems like philosophy is the act of stating ridiculous claims and defending them with all sorts of hypothetical and metaphyiscal arguments.

Humans naturally have a desire to seek the truth about the world around them--I suspect it's an unavoidable consequence of the fact that we're conscious in a fairly unusual way. What makes an idea power for me, then, is just that: it's truth.

I think you accurately characterize many philosophers (both Continental and Analytic), but I (and others) don't believe that this is what philosophy should be. Philosophy, as a discipline, is concerned with getting at the truth of the world, and this process naturally starts with claims that aren't a priori ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ilbastardoh

I respect phenomenology only to the extent that it is a continuous means, not a philosophy to be concluded, but to observe and describe what we come in contact with as it happens continuously.

As long as you don't mean 'Phenomenology' (with a capital 'P'), then I agree with you. It's certainly a fact that we're in contact with reality continuously (and this fact is important), but Phenomenology certainly has elements of the "ridiculous claims defended by all sorts of hypothetical and metaphysical arguments."

Originally Posted by ilbastardoh

It seems to me that our affinity for particular philosophies stems from reading some stupid claim, and in our habitual expectancy to have some modicum of certainty in life, we agree because we have thought something equally moronic. Then we decide such a thing must be true, and inevitably become slaves to an idea; which in itself is nothing but a partial representative of reality during that instance. The job of philosophy is never over, and to act as if some prime reduction, or some ultimate conclusion can be reached is non-sense.

I agree with you in a sense. While it's true that I (for instance) am not going to find total and complete truth during my lifetime, that doesn't mean that there isn't a "total and complete truth" out there. I think it's important to recognize that while it may not be practically possible to know everything about the universe, it is at least logically possible. That is, there is an independent reality and is, in principle, completely knowable.



Entheogenic

[ilbastardoh]

Originally Posted by Entheogenic

I agree with you in a sense. While it's true that I (for instance) am not going to find total and complete truth during my lifetime, that doesn't mean that there isn't a "total and complete truth" out there. I think it's important to recognize that while it may not be practically possible to know everything about the universe, it is at least logically possible. That is, there is an independent reality and is, in principle, completely knowable.
Entheogenic

You are finding total and complete truth in every regenerative transient instance of life. Truth is not something you seek, truth is in front of your face all the time, what we seek is to understand the truth, how we relate to it. The nature of the relationship, the truth, is not something you are separate from, you are one with it to the extent that you "feel" it.

You might crucify me for using a semantic trick, but think of an idea, any idea, including this one, as a square hole. While maintaining that this idea is true, you in essence are attempting to force reality to become a square peg, and reject any aspect of it that does not fit.

Now then I ask you, is reality a square hole to be filled with square pegs? Or do we have the freedom to variate the mold so that other shapes will fit(in other words being open minded)?

Why then, when confronted with the desire to mold reality to a square hole(ie when you believe you have to be a certain way); do we cling to such an ideal? Considering when another shape could be far more efficient at allowing one to understand the nature of one's relationship to reality?

If the answer is fear, then to overcome fear we come full circle to the same dillema, perhaps it's not reality we fear, but rather our idea, our square hole, that is at the root of that fear. However, to say fear is a bad thing is also a square hole. When the indeterminacy of the universe becomes reflected in your being in your mind without polarizing it into desirable and undesirable, then you begin to create, you begin to change along with the universe. One no longer becomes held down by specific beliefs, but rather is forced to live in the uncertainty of the moment. In such a state of being can there be understanding, but such a state is not reached through effort, it exists in all of us now, we have but to use it. Try it, look at things, really look, understand why you feel a certain way about something, try some food you've never tried because it doesn't look appetizing, see if after trying it you feel different. If you don't at least now you know for sure.

Truth is relative.

[fallinghouse]

relative to what?

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by fallinghouse

relative to what?

Individuals?

How many lives has Continental Philosophy saved?

[Zay]

I'm glad I broke out of the cycle of trying to label my thoughts. Post-modern what?

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

How many lives has Continental Philosophy saved?

Philosophy doesn't save lives; it saves minds. But you could consider it as saving lives; the enlightenment brought about many positive changes that eventually led to things like the Constitution, the freeing of slaves, and the relinquishing of colonies.

Hey Zay, they're called linguists .

Originally Posted by Entheogenic

I think this is a criticism that could be applied to all social sciences, and I'm not certain it's valid. While we don't have any reliable way to predict human behavior yet, that doesn't mean it won't come. Who knows.

Actually I think behaviour can be predicted fairly accurately, just not on an individual basis. In a riot, you can predict what the crowd will do, but not what a single person will do.


That's one thing wrong with ilbastardoh' first post. I don't really want to go through the other one, his writing style annoys me. I just saw a misused semi colon and reference to reality as a square peg then a square hole.

And I don't really understand the point about politics in the first post. Are you saying there is no political philosophy? Or that it's a waste of time? Or is all politics a waste of time? If you meant any of these things, I disagree.

Originally Posted by sirholkms

Truth is relative.

Real truth is not relative.

To say it is correct but to then say it is not is against the law of non contradiction. How can it be factually true if it is also factually false.

A mind saved IS a life saved. From what exactly im not sure

[nshanin]

Originally Posted by Aeroue

To say it is correct but to then say it is not is against the law of non contradiction. How can it be factually true if it is also factually false?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

[yango wango]

Originally Posted by sirholkms

Truth is relative.

I feel, all perspectives are relative interpretations of truth (individuals interpreting being a part of the whole truth).