|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 07 2010 18:07 Kishkumen wrote:
Also, are there any other Levinas fans here? He's a very underrated Continental philosopher with very interesting ideas. I really liked learning about his work. Very good stuff about ethics and our obligation to people around us.
yay levinas.
the observation that continental philosophy is like literature is exactly right. continental philosphers' creativity with language allows for more expression by the original philosopher, but there is the side effect of making that philosophy less conducive to analysis. this is not only because of the fact that new words are being coined, i do think the complaint of "inbreeding" has at least a grain of truth.
once a philosopher reaches a certain level of notoriety, then she will have a bank of "key words" that are taken as primitive almost. continental types seem to find the exercise of divining what the master meant very interesting, analytic types want to break the master's words down into their elementary particles, and in the process digest the master completely. now, the way analytics keep a tight lit on what words are used when is not because they are boring. it's because having a standard of precision allows for better critical analysis, especially the incremental refinement that makes up the bulk of what analytic philosophy does.
this makes reading continental philosophy perhaps more interesting, but personally i prefer that they all write in the analytic style but keep saying what they want to say.
|
I've studied Philosophy but not enough to ever touch upon this discussion(unless my memory betrays me).
Perhaps it's not enough to compare Sartre and Wittgenstein but they're the ones I know the best from both "sides" of it.
I ended up continental, my reasoning behind it is the same thought that made me end my philosophy studies in favor of Anthropology.
-Nihilism is in my eyes a truth beyond reasonable doubt unless there's a "deception God" who created our world with absolute values and made our minds capable of such questioning, 1+1=2/3 etc.
But when it all comes around we are doomed to believe and give value, as with Nihilism many many philosophy discussions deal with ideas we impossibly can implement on human life.
Nihilism might be true but no human being can believe, since the theory goes against itself, when depending on belief.
Existentialism is where I've ended up as a idealist, humanist, my logic enjoys philosophy which can be applied on a human mind and used in life and lead somewhere.
To me the difference which philosophical path we'd choose here is within our search for "truth above all" vs a idealistic perhaps more harmonic life where u give value through belief, culture is always gonna throw us up and down in that area. At least those were the options to me since going half way with analytical philosophy wasn't an option to my overanalytical mind.
After depressions, life's twists and turns and relating too much to Wittgensteins life (only feeling alive when close to death) my logic slowly turned, I CBT'd my way from it.
If life is more rewarding when being harmonic, happy, rather than wittgensteins everlasting questioning, analyzing then Sartres philosophy is also mine.
So continental is my choice but I'd gladly hear your motivations for analytical philosophy since my mind seems to be closed to it!
|
[Kishkumen wrote:
Also, are there any other Levinas fans here? He's a very underrated Continental philosopher with very interesting ideas. I really liked learning about his work. Very good stuff about ethics and our obligation to people around us. [/B]
yay levinas.
the observation that continental philosophy is like literature is exactly right. continental philosphers' creativity with language allows for more expression by the original philosopher, but there is the side effect of making that philosophy less conducive to analysis. this is not only because of the fact that new words are being coined, i do think the complaint of "inbreeding" has at least a grain of truth.
once a philosopher reaches a certain level of notoriety, then she will have a bank of "key words" that are taken as primitive almost. continental types seem to find the exercise of divining what the master meant very interesting, analytic types want to break the master's words down into their elementary particles, and in the process digest the master completely. now, the way analytics keep a tight lit on what words are used when is not because they are boring. it's because having a standard of precision allows for better critical analysis, especially the incremental refinement that makes up the bulk of what analytic philosophy does.
this makes reading continental philosophy perhaps more interesting, but personally i prefer that they all write in the analytic style but keep saying what they want to say.
I completely agree!
But it being a philosophy thread makes it inevidable for me not to add my thoughts .
I think creating and using difficult terms not only has a "for the science" worth. there's a boring shallow subconscious reason behind them.
They are the diamonds, status symboled clothing but for intellectuals,
The swedish universities try to push the social science writing towards simplicity and easy wording, I agree with it since the function of it all ought to be understanding for all.
Even though I'm one of the shallow ones and I still use as difficult wording as possible, as it brings higher grades, is a funny part of the writing.
|
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
Very interesting indeed, there is truth in what you say, but there is much more to this as well.
What more would you consider there is in relation to the practical societal implications of philosophy?
You say later "Contemporary philosophy is more focused on government and human affairs", but I haven't seen the application.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
I will say that I don't think metaphysics is necessarily the primary aim of philosophy.
I considered that ultimately philosophy's purpose would be for understanding the metaphysical; but this may be completely wrong and I'm most likely missing something else. I certainly agree that it is not currently the primary aim, but still a primary aim.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
However you seem to be suggesting that A-philosopher have problems about how they view truth that Continentals do not. Yet there are some people who would be considered analytic that espouse relativism with respect to knowledge. And there are continental philosophers who believe in objective, absolute, and obtainable knowledge like Hegel. Maybe I am confused about your point though.
I think I was attempting to state my view that, scientifically, it may be impossible for an A-philosopher to find 'truth' because there are implications of relativism in cognition for logical answers relative to the person trying to find them. For C-philosophers, I thought the logic of science would not even come into play.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
For example, I wrote a paper on the self and autobiographical memory, appealing to a case study of a woman with a more-or-less super autobiographical memory and people who were suffering from retrograde and anterograde amnesia. Philosophers have become increasingly interested in naturalistic, or "science-sensitive," approaches in nearly all schools. They don't all have their heads in the clouds.
This seems more on the verge of psychology to me. But I guess that view in itself would be a philosophy.
On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
The irony of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is that analytic philosophers use it. In many ways it is a psuedo-distinction, like trying to decide whether a pile of straw is big enough to be a heap or not. There is no single set of features that will always set apart the C-philosopher from the A. Commonly, the analytic philosopher is known for valuing clarity and precision as the highest virtue in philosophical discourse. I got a BS in philosophy in a very "analytic" school. And I am proud of this, because in my view, genius is wasted without clarity of thought. There are so many smart people capable of great abstract thinking, but the thoughts of those individuals are too often just a big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments. They never have the opportunity to tap the gold mine and share it with everyone else. But I digress. Even this virtue I mentioned varies from one A-philosopher to another. An analytic philosopher can be anyone; it just depends on who he/she is being compared to. The same goes for continental philosophers. Now I don't disregard these two terms as meaningless. It's just that they have no set objective features that set them apart from one another. The distinctions are really made strictly from personal sentiment and perceived correlations, and that even goes for myself.
In relation to truth, I agree with you on what you said about those who are skilled in abstract thought. However I think that C-philosophers often share thoughts through art (subjective) or other forms of culture (ethics, morals and understandings of functionalism); hence why I would consider an architect ultimately subservient to an artist.
The reason I would say they can't communicate it to others with language, is because language is restricting. I would think that anyone who speaks multiple languages would agree; the more words which you have at your disposal to form a literal sentence facilitates understanding from both sides. It's difficult to communicate great concepts to an audience who aren't yet able to understand them, especially when there is no language to support it. (hence art)
|
On December 08 2010 19:26 WhiteDog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2010 14:52 [Ryuzaki] wrote:
I think if you measure philosophy by its practical uses for society, it yields a more immediate answer.
Analytical philosophy seems to me to be conducted by those who like undergoing a form of logical arithmetic, or intra-cerebral exercise. Merely another way of ensuring the brain doesn't atrophy.
I'd consider the primary reason that analytical psychology is less useful at the moment is because of problems relating to divergence of cognition.
This means a right answer may only be correct to a single person because it's logical correctness is only relative to that person perception of it and it will usually be flawed in that it won't take into account the variables which caused that perception in the first place. Just like a holistic view.
Continental philosophy tends to have more practical implications because of it's belief value and how belief affects judgement and the psyche. People will understand action and reaction and merely form their beliefs around that.
However I'm cynical that it will ever result in understanding the metaphysical, which, if I'm correct is a primary aim in philosophy. However in saying this, I doubt analytical philosophy will yield anything more than an aid in understanding neuroscience and a list of possibilities for scientists to test.
Either way I find both interesting.
These are opinions based on a limited knowledge; tell me what you think. ♪♪
Now my opinion on the distinction: The irony of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is that analytic philosophers use it. In many ways it is a psuedo-distinction, like trying to decide whether a pile of straw is big enough to be a heap or not. There is no single set of features that will always set apart the C-philosopher from the A. Commonly, the analytic philosopher is known for valuing clarity and precision as the highest virtue in philosophical discourse. I got a BS in philosophy in a very "analytic" school. And I am proud of this, because in my view, genius is wasted without clarity of thought. There are so many smart people capable of great abstract thinking, but the thoughts of those individuals are too often just a big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments. They never have the opportunity to tap the gold mine and share it with everyone else. But I digress. Even this virtue I mentioned varies from one A-philosopher to another. An analytic philosopher can be anyone; it just depends on who he/she is being compared to. The same goes for continental philosophers. Now I don't disregard these two terms as meaningless. It's just that they have no set objective features that set them apart from one another. The distinctions are really made strictly from personal sentiment and perceived correlations, and that even goes for myself. But this "big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments" is sometimes (not always) a great source of creativity. Nietzsche using aphorism & poetry is an exemple by itself : his writing style is also a way to build his philosophy. I'm not sure that "analytic = clarity" and "continental = blur of concepts", but I think that philosophy need both people who can express their idea to anyone with indiscutable logic and people who are difficult to understand: even the interpretation and the interaction between the two type is a source of creativity by itself. Searching the better between the two is a mystake; both are needed so that human knowledge rise.
You misinterpret my point. I never said that this lack of clarity was the plague of all continental philosophers. That would render moot my point that the distinction is unfounded. Analytic is correlated with clarity. Continental has its own virtues, but not being an avid reader of "this group of people" I can't really tell you what it is. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers mostly for his psychological view of philosophy. And I don't think his writing is very unclear either. The "big blur of concepts" refers to the undisciplined phase in the life of a brilliant mind, prior to undergoing any philosophical training. It has little to do with continental philosophy.
Someone mentioned earlier (oneofthem I think) that analytic philosophy can be mind-numbingly difficult to understand, especially in higher level material, where the text presupposes that the reader already has a wealth of concepts necessary to make sense of all the 30 word - 250 character sentences (not an exaggeration). So that just goes to show further that the line between the two isn't so distinct after all.
On December 08 2010 22:52 [Ryuzaki] wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
Very interesting indeed, there is truth in what you say, but there is much more to this as well.
What more would you consider there is in relation to the practical societal implications of philosophy? You say later "Contemporary philosophy is more focused on government and human affairs", but I haven't seen the application.
You know Marx and Engels were philosophers, right? Nietzsche had a big hand in society and still does. Vladimir Lenin ruled a nation for a short time. Go back further, and we can thank philosophers like John Locke for helping make America. Is this not what you mean by practical societal implications? Metaphysics tends not to swing people as well as political theory.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
However you seem to be suggesting that A-philosopher have problems about how they view truth that Continentals do not. Yet there are some people who would be considered analytic that espouse relativism with respect to knowledge. And there are continental philosophers who believe in objective, absolute, and obtainable knowledge like Hegel. Maybe I am confused about your point though.
I think I was attempting to state my view that, scientifically, it may be impossible for an A-philosopher to find 'truth' because there are implications of relativism in cognition for logical answers relative to the person trying to find them. For C-philosophers, I thought the logic of science would not even come into play.
Oh, I don't think this is a real difference between continental and analytic.If what you say is true, that there are implications of relativism in cognition, both would suffer. Continental philosophers don't follow the creed "ignore science and logic."
+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
For example, I wrote a paper on the self and autobiographical memory, appealing to a case study of a woman with a more-or-less super autobiographical memory and people who were suffering from retrograde and anterograde amnesia. Philosophers have become increasingly interested in naturalistic, or "science-sensitive," approaches in nearly all schools. They don't all have their heads in the clouds.
This seems more on the verge of psychology to me. But I guess that view in itself would be a philosophy.
Bear in mind, where there is a philosophy of X, X can be just about anything. And philosophers who are interested in the problem of other minds, the problem of self, and "personhood" can and are addressed with both psychology and neuroscience. I can honestly say there is a branch in my philosophy department that will go to MRI scans for answers to life's deepest questions.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 08 2010 17:30 freezeframe wrote:
The irony of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is that analytic philosophers use it. In many ways it is a psuedo-distinction, like trying to decide whether a pile of straw is big enough to be a heap or not. There is no single set of features that will always set apart the C-philosopher from the A. Commonly, the analytic philosopher is known for valuing clarity and precision as the highest virtue in philosophical discourse. I got a BS in philosophy in a very "analytic" school. And I am proud of this, because in my view, genius is wasted without clarity of thought. There are so many smart people capable of great abstract thinking, but the thoughts of those individuals are too often just a big nebulous blur of concepts and sentiments. They never have the opportunity to tap the gold mine and share it with everyone else. But I digress. Even this virtue I mentioned varies from one A-philosopher to another. An analytic philosopher can be anyone; it just depends on who he/she is being compared to. The same goes for continental philosophers. Now I don't disregard these two terms as meaningless. It's just that they have no set objective features that set them apart from one another. The distinctions are really made strictly from personal sentiment and perceived correlations, and that even goes for myself.
In relation to truth, I agree with you on what you said about those who are skilled in abstract thought. However I think that C-philosophers often share thoughts through art (subjective) or other forms of culture (ethics, morals and understandings of functionalism); hence why I would consider an architect ultimately subservient to an artist. The reason I would say they can't communicate it to others with language, is because language is restricting. I would think that anyone who speaks multiple languages would agree; the more words which you have at your disposal to form a literal sentence facilitates understanding from both sides. It's difficult to communicate great concepts to an audience who aren't yet able to understand them, especially when there is no language to support it. (hence art)
True, language is restricting. But when you have something very specific you are trying to convey, art and poetry are not the answer. In the analytic tradition, precise communication is aided by creating more words. Hence why a lot of the literature is filled with big words that don't mean anything to the casual reader. Analytic philosophers create new words all the time. Usually this desire for precision DOES sacrifice audience, like you said. But if you want to speak philosophy purely as an artist, you will sacrifice precision for something else. For example, proverbs sacrifice precision to stimulate thought. Proverbs aren't and in most cases don't need to be precise. So formulating them in little phrases like food for thought makes people want to think about them, because they're so implicitly interesting. The forms of expression in philosophy all have their places, but imho if you want to be clear and precise, writing a boring analytic book is the way to go.
|
On December 08 2010 11:54 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 10:49 allecto wrote:On December 07 2010 17:39 pfods wrote:
I cannot take the greeks serious when they delve into any sort of philosophy regarding man or his existence. it's so bogged down in huge assertions about physics and theology that it cannot be taken serious. What does any of Plato have to do with assertions about physics and theology? Are you serious? Plato talks extensively about the soul and the cosmos. Not to mention the theory of forms, one of his most well known ideas. almost everything the greeks talked about had to do with physics or theology
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by physics. Metaphysics, certainly. But, the actual physical functioning of the universe, I would say Plato didn't bother with too much seriously.
On the other hand, theology and Plato don't go together very well except in a very abstracted use of the word, theology. I don't see any very serious mentioning/interrogation on the theory of gods in the dialogues.
On the original point about defining "Being," you can't do it in a "scientific" way but you certainly can use logic. Equivocating logic to science is not correct.
|
On December 09 2010 09:18 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2010 11:54 pfods wrote:On December 08 2010 10:49 allecto wrote:On December 07 2010 17:39 pfods wrote:
I cannot take the greeks serious when they delve into any sort of philosophy regarding man or his existence. it's so bogged down in huge assertions about physics and theology that it cannot be taken serious. What does any of Plato have to do with assertions about physics and theology? Are you serious? Plato talks extensively about the soul and the cosmos. Not to mention the theory of forms, one of his most well known ideas. almost everything the greeks talked about had to do with physics or theology Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by physics. Metaphysics, certainly. But, the actual physical functioning of the universe, I would say Plato didn't bother with too much seriously. On the other hand, theology and Plato don't go together very well except in a very abstracted use of the word, theology. I don't see any very serious mentioning/interrogation on the theory of gods in the dialogues. On the original point about defining "Being," you can't do it in a "scientific" way but you certainly can use logic. Equivocating logic to science is not correct.
You're being extremely narrow in both of your definitions of physics and theology.
Physics, as in the make up of the world, laws of nature, etc. Plato did talk extensively on this. theory of forms, matter, etc.
theology, as in discussion of gods/creators/etc. Plato also talked extensively on this. Have you never heard of Platos demiurge?
On the original point about defining "Being," you can't do it in a "scientific" way but you certainly can use logic. Equivocating logic to science is not correct.
Who equated logic to science?
And please, make a logical proof defining Being. And I mean actually using logic, not just some sort of argumentative method(the two are widely different, ask a logician)
|
If you're talking about the demiurge from Timaeus, then yes Plato does talk about theology, but only so in his much later dialogues, and thus barely at all. I don't know how Plato's "theology" could prevent you from reading the more important/influential works of Plato.
As I said, I merely misunderstood what you meant by physics. I agree with you regarding his theory of forms--he did focus largely on what he saw as metaphusis. Extensively on matter? I would not say so.
Perhaps, I saw the "logic needs to be in a scientific way" somewhere else. And, I meant to write that you can use logic to attempt to define Being. It has been done before, see Descartes and many others.
|
Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
|
On December 09 2010 22:34 allecto wrote:
If you're talking about the demiurge from Timaeus, then yes Plato does talk about theology, but only so in his much later dialogues, and thus barely at all. I don't know how Plato's "theology" could prevent you from reading the more important/influential works of Plato.
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
As I said, I merely misunderstood what you meant by physics. I agree with you regarding his theory of forms--he did focus largely on what he saw as metaphusis. Extensively on matter? I would not say so.
There was no distinction between metaphysics and physics then. Don't use the book "Metaphysics" as an example either, as that is a name made up for it about 1500 years after it was created.
And i'll say it for the third time, Platos theory of forms was directly related to what does and does not exist in a physical sense, etc. While he may have not been an atomist(and therefor more closely related to what we would call modern day physics) he still talked extensively on what was considered physics in his time.
Perhaps, I saw the "logic needs to be in a scientific way" somewhere else. And, I meant to write that you can use logic to attempt to define Being. It has been done before, see Descartes and many others.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
|
On December 09 2010 23:02 Dystisis wrote:
Traditional philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology) are based on relatively consistent misuses of language. The assertions in reality make as much sense as this poem:
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
And we come up with such deep questions as "why are the borogoves all mimsy?" They seem deep, because they can not be answered, because they have no answers, because they are misuses of language.
I chose analytic philosophy, because that contains language philosophy and logic, legitimate studies.
I can't believe you just dismiss epistemology as "misuses of language" and say it isn't legitimate. It's probably the oldest continuous field of philosophy with countless world famous philosophers discussing it as a serious topic.
|
On December 10 2010 04:49 pfods wrote:
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not
disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere.
|
On December 10 2010 05:55 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 04:49 pfods wrote:
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly. Show nested quote +
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere.
Plato discusses the theory of forms in the republic, not just the dialogues.
And through his cogito argument, he shows that he physically exists, as in he is a real person, not under the trickery of a demon(which is what his meditations set out to prove). He does not assert himself like the ubermensch or say "I exist!" in an existential way.
|
On December 10 2010 06:05 pfods wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 05:55 allecto wrote:On December 10 2010 04:49 pfods wrote:
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere. Plato discusses the theory of forms in the republic, not just the dialogues. And through his cogito argument, he shows that he physically exists, as in he is a real person, not under the trickery of a demon(which is what his meditations set out to prove). He does not assert himself like the ubermensch or say "I exist!" in an existential way.
The Republic is a dialogue, and was written later on in Plato's career. Though I can see what your point is given that the Republic is such a recognized and pivotal work for Plato. Discussing the merit of the Forms is probably not suited for this thread as it would drag on for a while.
Seeing as Descartes was a continental philosopher, discussing him is on topic.
I would have to disagree that his cogito argument regards his physical existence, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying by that statement. I don't think that consciousness is concerned with, above all, physical existence.
|
On December 10 2010 06:29 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2010 06:05 pfods wrote:On December 10 2010 05:55 allecto wrote:On December 10 2010 04:49 pfods wrote:
Because it clouds most of what he discusses? It's like asking why I can't take the politics of the pope serious just because I disagree with his religious views.
I disagree with this point; if it only gets brought up in his later works, this could be attributed to the fact that he didn't put thought to it until much later in his life, and thus it wouldn't have clouded his judgement on other matters. In fact, the development of his theory on Forms doesn't come until the later dialogues as well. Like I said before, I misunderstood what you meant by physics, and I'm not disputing that Plato did not talk about physics in that sense. Many scholars on Plato would agree that he overstepped his bounds when trying to formulate his theories in such a concrete way, but they would not, because of this, dismiss all of Plato's work so quickly.
Descartes does not define Being, he simply proves he exists using his cogito argument, and then discusses knowledge and justification for it based off that being an example of true, justified belief.
Perhaps, you have a much stricter idea in mind about the definition of Being, but I believe that making that statement and supporting it in the way he does, Descartes asserts that cogitare = essere. Plato discusses the theory of forms in the republic, not just the dialogues. And through his cogito argument, he shows that he physically exists, as in he is a real person, not under the trickery of a demon(which is what his meditations set out to prove). He does not assert himself like the ubermensch or say "I exist!" in an existential way. The Republic is a dialogue, and was written later on in Plato's career. Though I can see what your point is given that the Republic is such a recognized and pivotal work for Plato. Discussing the merit of the Forms is probably not suited for this thread as it would drag on for a while. Seeing as Descartes was a continental philosopher, discussing him is on topic. I would have to disagree that his cogito argument regards his physical existence, unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying by that statement. I don't think that consciousness is concerned with, above all, physical existence.
Just because he's a continental philosopher does not mean he discusses Being like the later continental philosophers.
You are misconstruing being and Being. You'd have to be. The cogito argument is an epistemological argument, on the justification on knowledge and if we can truly know anything.
dubito ergo cogito ergo sum, I doubt, therefor, I think, therefor I am. He used this to show an example of something that you could know, a self-justified belief. The very fact that he doubts, means he thinks, the fact that he thinks, means he exists. It was a response to skeptics who posited that you couldn't know even if you were real, because you couldn't prove it. Or you could be under the trickery of a demon, or brain-in-a-vat(the later name for it). His cogito argument proved the first bit, that you can know you exist, simply by questioning your existance. Epistemic, not existential.
He did not set out to prove Being. He set out to prove his knowledge of being.
|
I never said that he discusses anything like the later continental philosophers, just that he was one.
First off, there is no "dubito" in the statement, it is just "ego cogito ergo sum." Secondly, if we want to look at this argument in just the context of Descartes' beliefs, we could just take up the fact that he supported dualism and thus believed in a mind/body division with the act of cogitare coming from the mind something that just not physically exist but is (capital B--would be easier to explain in Italian, sorry if I'm not getting my point across as well as I would like). Thus, he seeks to prove his own Being. The argument may have started epistemic in nature but it grew into an argument for Being itself.
Again, I may be confusing what you mean by being and Being--the first thing that comes to my mind is l'essere dell'ente and l'ente, and I may be translating these incorrectly into the proper terminology in English.
Edit: I think I see what you are saying now. You are saying that he didn't argue about what Being itself is in general, instead focusing on the knowledge that he exists. Although I agree that this was the beginning of his theory, it flowered into more. To support this point requires an interesting argument--that is very linguistic, however, focusing around what "cogitare" actually means. I would have a hard time talking about it in English.
|
On December 11 2010 02:35 allecto wrote:
I never said that he discusses anything like the later continental philosophers, just that he was one.
You said since he's a continental philosopher, it is fitting to assume he discusses the same things as later continental philosophers.
First off, there is no "dubito" in the statement, it is just "ego cogito ergo sum."
Depends on the translations if you really want to be pedantic about it.
Secondly, if we want to look at this argument in just the context of Descartes' beliefs, we could just take up the fact that he supported dualism and thus believed in a mind/body division with the act of cogitare coming from the mind something that just not physically exist but is (capital B--would be easier to explain in Italian, sorry if I'm not getting my point across as well as I would like). Thus, he seeks to prove his own Being. The argument may have started epistemic in nature but it grew into an argument for Being itself.
How are you even arguing this? The entirety of meditations is accepted as one of the key works in semi-modern epistemological philosophy. It has nothing to do with him trying to prove or show anything about Being. It was an example of showing a true, justified, belief. The rest of meditations is his attempt at proving god exists. You cannot possibly argue otherwise since you'd be arguing against almost every single philosophical scholar since Descartes died.
Again, I may be confusing what you mean by being and Being--the first thing that comes to my mind is l'essere dell'ente and l'ente, and I may be translating these incorrectly into the proper terminology in English.
Edit: I think I see what you are saying now. You are saying that he didn't argue about what Being itself is in general, instead focusing on the knowledge that he exists. Although I agree that this was the beginning of his theory, it flowered into more. To support this point requires an interesting argument--that is very linguistic, however, focusing around what "cogitare" actually means. I would have a hard time talking about it in English.
Being is a very specific term about a human and it's existence and it's relation to the world(in a nut shell). being is a generic term about a person physically existing (He's being silly, or X is being put over there).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
analytic philosophy only started in the late 19th/early 20th century. to say descartes is a "continental philosopher" is just silly.
|
On December 11 2010 10:23 oneofthem wrote:
analytic philosophy only started in the late 19th/early 20th century. to say descartes is a "continental philosopher" is just silly.
Exactly, the continental/analytic divide only begins to gain any weight when you start talking about Anglo American thinkers (and immgirants to these countries) who were heavily influenced by Frege.
|
I'm not trying to argue that the meditations doesn't revolve around epistemology...all I was trying to point out was that it forms the basis for the rest of his attempt to prove god exists which naturally regards Being...
At this point, I feel that I'm talking about something different regarding Being, because I'm taking it to mean the Being of things that aren't people as well. Using the wax example, Descartes argues that he knows the wax is (B) still wax despite its appearance, and such, changing. Being, as I was taking it, is that which is not observable by the senses, the essence of the thing.
My point about Descartes being a continental philosopher is pretty useless.
Edit: Like I said I feel like I'm arguing something that isn't mutually exclusive, as I agree with the majority of the points made. It is most likely due to the different environment/style of philosophy that I have been learning and a lack of proper understanding of the terminology being used in English.
Nevertheless, I don't want to derail the thread with something off-topic. The analytic vs. continental debate has nothing really to do with this, and it had been pretty interesting so far, so perhaps this should be left for another time and another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
