My claim is that philosophers have to do better than mere subjectivity, otherwise their entire program turns to dust. — JerseyFlight

Then why are you insisting that your own subjectivity has any philosophical value? Objectively you know you cannot make a blanket statement that analytic philosophy is harmful to society. You have no statistics, no control and variable that has been tested. There is nothing objective in this thread. Your definitions are moot, because the entire premise of this argument from the beginning is a subjective opinion.

And that has been my entire point. You are the one who is continuing this. JerseyFlight, you got a lot going for you, but you seem completely unaware that this criticism you keep levying at others is the very thing you are doing. Many posters have tried to tell you this, and you keep focusing on the way they've crafted the message, instead of the message itself. Granted, it could be crafted better, but people expect you to be BETTER than a hypocrite, and often get mad that you would continue to insist on being one.

At this point, I have enough respect for your intelligence that I am going to assume that you must see this. It is your call what you do from this point. I would hope you take the path of someone who accepts they have made mistakes in the pursuit of their ideals and moves on to the next problem, and not the path of an intellectual narcissist.

Then why are you insisting that your own subjectivity has any philosophical value? — Philosophim

This is not my argument.

I am going to assume that you must see this. — Philosophim

I do not subscribe to your characterization of this conversation.

What was wrong with the definitions I provided? (I have little interest in how you see the situation, my interest is in your reason).

Someone else mentioned up thread, in a way better than I can recount from memory, how one of the founding principles of analytic philosophy was the rejection of system-building — Pfhorrest

Interesting - I've never heard that explicitly said or taught, but come to think of it it does make sense to me intuitively.

So politically, I'm a socialist because I'm a libertarian, and I'm a libertarian because of my deontological normative ethics (something like the non-aggression principle that you're probably familiar with), and my deontological ethics hinges on there being things that are objectively right or wrong (if it's not actually wrong to aggress upon people, but just "unpopular" or "illegal" or something, then the whole politics falls apart), and that account of things being objectively right or wrong can't be explained without explaining what "right" and "wrong" (etc) even mean, which is an account of moral semantics, which of mine hinges on the concept of speech-acts, but in any case all moral semantics, being semantics, hinge on some linguistic concepts or other. — Pfhorrest

Yes, I'm very familiar with NAP. It's very popular among right-libertarians as well. Personally, it's not what I follow and I've actually debated some right libertarians or anarcho-capitalists on the NAP a few years back. Since I reject NAP - or any deontologic/principles-based grounding for my libertarian-leaning beliefs I don't consider myself a full-blooded libertarian. I prefer to describe myself as libertarian-leaning more due to the values that libertarianism encompasses, and I suppose these values come from reflecting on my own way of being and conception of truth in society. I feel strongly about encouraging entrepreneurship and investing and that goes beyond me.

Russell, of course. The vast part of his life was spent on social issues.


https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/456809

Grand systems, by their very nature, are wrong; and I mean both in terms of truth and morality. — Banno

Explain?

Come on - Who are the socially active philosophers? who are we talking about?

Don't concern yourself with if they are positive or negative; we can look at that after, if need be. Who are they?

One has to wonder about the complicity of this middle-management demand for 'value'. You should not play this vapid game @Banno.

Via Ray Brassier: "Philosophy should be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. ... Thinking has interests that do not coincide with those of living; indeed, they can and have been pitted against the latter".

I have been talking about philosophy, specifically philosophical form and method, what you have raised is a red herring or an equivocation, but even so we can ask relevant questions. Was Russell wise to forsake Analytical Philosophy to engage in political activity? Clearly he thought this activity had value -- in contrast to what, mere theory? Do these examples rebuke the Analytical Philosophers on this forum or validate their program? (Please keep in mind my objection is not that Analytical Philosophers are arm chair theorists, but that their philosophical emphasis is lacking in value).

In Marx a split occurred, philosophy was brought back down to earth, rescued from the games and error of the supernatural idealists. There have been lots of philosophers who labor in the realm of relevant theory, as opposed to abstract idealism. — JerseyFlight

Supposing I grant that the theory you have in mind is more "relevant".

Clearly he (( Russell )) thought this activity had value -- in contrast to what, mere theory? — JerseyFlight

What about Critical Theory: are you sure it's more than mere theory?

I can be convinced, but you have to point to something more than the subject matter.

I did my time as a Marxist, read lots of his writing, picked up Gramsci along the way and the cultural stuff. Spent a fair amount of time later in Foucault-Deleuze land, which is not Marxist but far from anti-Marxist, and I think aspired to be what we could call "materialist" in a Marxist sense.

I never did the Frankfurt school though, so that's a big gap for me, and your particular area.

But we're still by and large just talking about people's reading habits. Does Critical Theory make sure people are fed and housed and given the resources to flourish? Or is it mere theory?

Would it make the world a better place if I went back to reading Marx and talked about him all the time? I suppose if I really took your criticism to heart, it might assuage my guilty conscience; I could now claim to be focusing on my energy on things that really matter. But would that be true? There's plenty of reason to think Marxism is primarily a theoretical, and, to a substantial degree, academic, pursuit.

If you wanted to tell me every minute I spend talking about stuff on the internet is a minute I could have spent helping people -- that would just be true, I guess. But I'm not sure why it matters what I'm talking about on the internet. Would I be excused if I were talking about Adorno? Shouldn't I still shut up and go help people?

Whatever Analytic Philosophy is it is not concerned with politics and never pretended to be. — Janus


Popper sure seemed concerned with the political implications of his philosophy of science and etymology. — Pfhorrest

Sure, but Popper is both a philosopher of science and a political philosopher, and would not usually be considered an analytic philosopher since his main concern was not with language, semantics and logic.
Also, I think you meant 'epistemology' not "etymology".

The other points are that bioethics is nowadays considered to be a part of the philosophy of science, and that whatever a philosopher, insofar as she might be identified as a particular kind of philosopher, is interested in does not necessarily reflect what the kind of philosophy she might be identified with is concerned with.

All these categories are not rigid and essential but loose and somewhat arbitrary.

I have a very different view of philosophy, knowing it to be thought. But to answer you from the basis of your own premise: then what does philosophy tell you about Analytical Philosophy? Here you have already affirmed a distinction of value. — JerseyFlight

I don't know what you mean by "knowing it to be thought". Philosophy doesn't "tell me anything" it is ideology that would "tell me things". There is no essence of philosophy, and generally philosophers come to different conclusions about what is important to them.

Wisdom is not some eternal dogmatic standard, but something that may be arrived at by an individual, and that wisdom is proper to them and to them alone (apart from other individuals who may be so moved by their works as to adopt it, of course).

There is no universal standard in other words; philosophy is the most singular of pursuits. Having said that it might be thought that of all philosophies AP has the most universal standard on account of its concern with logic.

It's been reported to me that @JerseyFlight has been harassing other posters with PMs. If you've been on the receiving end of one of these, kindly let me know.

Sure, but Popper is both a philosopher of science and a political philosopher, and would not usually be considered an analytic philosopher since his main concern was not with language, semantics and logic. — Janus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Popper is socio-historically located within the stream of analytic philosophers. I know this has been a topic of contention in this thread, but as I understand the term "analytic philosophy", it is not the philosophy narrowly concerned with language, semantics, and logic as topics, but the philosophy that approaches any of its topics, including things like political philosophy, in the manner pioneered by the Vienna Circle et al, with logical rigor, breaking things down into pieces analytically, hence the name.

Also, I think you meant 'epistemology' not "etymology". — Janus

Correct, I must've clicked the wrong autocomplete button on my phone.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Popper is socio-historically located within the stream of analytic philosophers. I know this has been a topic of contention in this thread, but as I understand the term "analytic philosophy", it is not the philosophy narrowly concerned with language, semantics, and logic as topics, but the philosophy that approaches any of its topics, including things like political philosophy, in the manner pioneered by the Vienna Circle et al, with logical rigor, breaking things down into pieces analytically, hence the name. — Pfhorrest

I take "AP" to refer to philosophy which is predominately concerned with logic, language and semantics. I think "logical rigour', however that has been conceived historically, has been a common concern to almost all philosophy.

The Logical Positivists were predominantly concerned with epistemology as far as I am aware. Both Popper and Wittgenstein were associated with the Vienna School, and both for different reasons distanced themselves from logical positivism.

As far as I remember Popper did so because he rejected the LP criterion of verifiability, and Wittgenstein did so because he rejected the LP idea that any talk which does not consist in empirically verifiable propositions is without value (he may have agreed that such talk is without sense, but not that it is without value). (Someone who knows more about this history may want to correct me on this).

You should not play this vapid game Banno. — StreetlightX

No one should. But there it is.

The whole exercise is a response to a post from , to which I did not reply.

Apparently not replying has its own complications, as @MSC demonstrated.

Does Noam Chomsky count as an analytic philosopher? Or as politically active?

an analytic philosopher — Pfhorrest

I'm not just looking for analytics. Anyone who is socially active. He is often cited as a philosopher, so no debate from me.

It's been reported to me that JerseyFlight has been harassing other posters with PMs. If you've been on the receiving end of one of these, kindly let me know. — StreetlightX

I like to keep these kind of things private, only because they don't belong on the threads, but you have accused me here in public, no doubt, because you could not make your case and are exceedingly annoyed that I got the best of Banno, so much so that you deleted our exchange and threatened to ban me if I posted on the Davidson thread again. Is this what philosophical objectivity looks like? Is this what psychological maturity looks like? This is what dogmatism and elitism look like, it is the way of tyranny to censor. And it is exactly what happens when you challenge the people who claim to be "the adults in the room." Strange, all you Analytical advocates stand here denying the very elitism in which your community exists, and by which you proceed.

By "harassment" you are referring to my my letter to Philosophim, here it is in its entirety:

I have not quite figured out how to deal with your own special brand of moral authoritarianism. I give you credit in that it's exceedingly effective, but out of all the people I have discoursed with on this thread you are to me the most loathsome and underhanded. You do not seek to make progress through reason, but through negative characterizations, your ad hominems (and that's what they are) are so subtly put together that they come across as a form of intelligence, and yet they are totally lacking in rational engagement. It is good for me to [be] subjected to them, though I do not like them, because it forces me to figure out how to deal with them. I have met many theists whose entire polemical program is exactly what you repeatedly practice on this thread. I find it contemptible and believe I will figure it out. There is only power in being a one-trick-pony if the trick continues to work.

I think I know what lies behind it, I could be wrong, but I have a theory. Do you like pornography?

If I had posted this on the threads I think it would have been out of line, but as a private conversation I don't see how it can be called harassment? (And keep in mind we are having the conversation here because you attempted to slander me to this entire community). If Philosophim had asked me to stop contacting him and I had ignored his request, this would no doubt be a form of harassment. Further, I am specifically talking about his ad hominem style and am telling him that I will figure out how to rationally counter his underhanded fallacies. The reason I asked him if he likes pornography, which I am quite fond of, is because I suspect him to very much be a moralist. In other words, he is so threatened by liberal culture that he even considers the question of pornography to be a form of harassment. As far as not liking him, I am entitled to it, but I don't let this interject into the argument. Where he is a moralist you may consider me the very opposite: I like to moralize against the moralizers. I'm not sure that there is a type in our species that is more dangerous.

I think what the appropriate thing to do would have been for Philosophim to contact me himself and express his concerns, but he did not do this, because like you, he's after censorship. His way is underhanded it is not direct. Some people are far too emotive to be involved in moderation, in their hands it becomes a form of tyranny.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

I think it would be worth the time to have a listen: In Defense of the Polemicist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsvKyCvCBi8

Grand systems, by their very nature, are wrong — Banno

What a nice grand system you got there...

.. one person got the joke...!

Who are the socially active philosophers? who are we talking about? — Banno

Err, Heidegger was politically engaged in the 30s and 40s...

I almost listed him... but went instead for his former lover, finding her more readable, more interesting and more palatable.

In theory, all philosophy is political. Philosophers speak from somewhere, they have political inclinations like everybody else, and they often act on them, including in their writing.

I think that the formal political engagement of philosophers is interesting to study because it says a lot about where they come from and what their theory means to them in practice. But I don’t think philosophers make good politicians. They tend to lack what’s called (I think) street smarts. And beside the politics of the authors, what’s interesting is also the politics of their writings. I.e. how are these interpreted and quoted and used politically, what’s the impact of their ideas on political discourse and action.

Like, for better or worse, Marx changed the course of history.

Like, for better or worse, Marx changed the course of history. — Olivier5

That's basically the thesis of Popper's "Open Society": philosophers since antiquity have taken side. He starts with Aristotle, teacher of Alexandre at the Macedonian court. One should not expect Aristotle's political philosophy to be pro-democratic. That doesn't invalidate other parts of his philosophy though and I think Popper lays it a bit thick on Aristotle. But that's only the mandatory liminar remarks about antiquity. What Popper is really after is German political philosophy in the 19th century, which according to him gave rise to both Communism (via of course Marx) and Fascism (via Hegel). Popper analyses their philosophy to show how it is "Historicist" i.e. based on the idea that history has laws like physics.

In other words, Popper is not dong motive questioning or label shaming: he is not saying "Booh booh Marx was a communist, how dare he". He is instead comparing Marx and Hegel's historical theories with practice, using his criteria of falsifiability, and showing it's pure BS. Those guys essentialize history as some grand necessary trajectory that has nothing to see with reality.

In doing so Popper explains why Nazism emerged in Germany, one of the most philosophy-oriented culture on earth at the time: it was not in spite of all their smart philosophers that the Germans descended into the abyss. On the contrary, some German philosophers led them to the abyss.

In other words, Popper is not dong motive questioning: he is not saying "Booh booh Marx was a communist, how dare he". He is instead comparing Marx and Hegel's historical theories with practice, using his criteria of falsifiability, and showing it's pure BS. Those guys essentialize history as some grand necessary trajectory that has nothing to see with reality. — Olivier5

He¨s not throwing them aside as BS. What he says is that capitalism can be controlled, with institutions in a nation, limiting the possibilities for the market to ursurp the citizens, with laws and regulations. He specifically mention social democraties in western Europe to be successful examples.

And to call Marx totally "German" is not totally correct. Hegel had his adepts in the UK, and Marx did base many of his studies, as Popper mentions, on the conditions for workers in English industrial towns, which were awful. He also spent like half his life as a Bourgeoise Londoner. Also, at the time when Marx developed most of his ideas there were no such place as Germany. Just a mishmash of areas earlier conquered by Napoleon.

Now, The Open society was written half a century ago, things have changed a lot since then. The markets are global, automatization has been developed further, work resources can be bought cheap from any country. Things are more messy now.

He¨s not throwing them aside as BS. What he says is that capitalism can be controlled, with institutions in a nation, limiting the possibilities for the market to ursurp the citizens, with laws and regulations. He specifically mention social democraties in western Europe to be successful examples. — Ansiktsburk

He does refute historicism. But yes, Popper was always a socialist, in fact a theorist of social democracy and advocate of social enginering.

I feel bad sometimes for studying philosophy. Other fields are focusing on actual problems like how to stop COVID or how to help countries with serious economic problems while philosophers shut them selves off from the outside world to go play in their own heads or provide extensive commentary on a long dead philosopher that no one cares to read and often requires a second language to fully understand. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, this is true for a lot of academic disciplines, both in humanities and in physical sciences.

One has to wonder about the complicity of this middle-management demand for 'value'. — StreetlightX

Exactly. This demand for (whatever) philosophy to justify itself in terms of its measurable value to society ought to be resisted.

Exactly. This demand for (whatever) philosophy to justify itself in terms of its measurable value to society ought to be resisted.

I'm not sure we should avoid the question of whether it has value to society, after all tuition and tax money goes into educational programs and the issue will inevitably pop up, spending money on something when it could be used for something else needs to be justified.

That doesn't mean that I think we should crush the value of learning into easily quantified units, but I do think we should explain to people about the history of ideas. My take is there are plenty of incidences of how abstract ideas with seemingly no practical applications but it turned out they did (Hardy's Apology for Number Theory for instance turned out to have applications in combinatorics) But we should explain to people that the only way this kind of progress happens is if we allow people to learn for learning‘s sake.

What should be valued is "comprehensiveness" how it brings progress into domains of thought, and the practical applications should be trusted to follow, even if it takes decades or even centuries. I don't know your take on this, but this also goes into the question of whether String Theory should continue on or whether it takes up academic resources.

I almost listed him... but went instead for his former lover, finding her more readable, more interesting and more palatable — Banno

His political engagements were with other Jews, and of another kind entirely, of course. Though I suppose he could be said to have screwed them as well.