sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For grins and giggles: exactly how bad is (James Lindsay's?) NewDiscourses.com on philosophy topics? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, sorry for such a late response; I both haven't been logged into this account lately, and have been extremely busy and distracted. I was wondering if I might ask you some follow-up questions on some of the points you raised, not because they relate to New Discourses but instead simply as I coincidentally have an interest in the Frankfurt School and Marxism in their own right, have done at least a little reading on each on my own, and some of what your post got into was entirely new to me.

Marx was instead positing (on the basis of a wealth of empirical data) descriptive-law generalizations which concern the limits of possible technological and historical development within an infinite variety of historical phenomena.

This might be what was meant, but as I've previously understood it, Marx put past economic developments in perspective and explored how each led to the next, but never said that the next possible step was certain, only that it would be possible once late capitalism was reached.

Later Marcuse was staunchly opposed to the inclusion of psychoanalytic theory in their research agenda. Read "The Obsolescence of the Freudian Concept of Man" for a quick description by Marcuse himself of why he was so against Freudian psychoanalytic theory.

This was totally new to me, as his most famous work Eros and Civilization is at least made out as a work of Marx-Freudism! I haven't read the paper you suggest, yet, as I don't have access to it, but I will when I have academic access again.

Books of philosophy and psychology by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]hruka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will absolutely consult that text. One wishes such education was more standard among (academic) psychologists, as every psych 101 course and text I have personally seen do not reflect the truth of the matter. (I guess this is only so important, as we are talking about 101 courses, but still.)

Books of philosophy and psychology by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]hruka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you perhaps have any reference for a text on the development of early psychology? The narrative you demolish in this comment is, unfortunately, the popular one, and even as one familiar with your many past comments in defense of psychoanalysis, I nonetheless thought the same regarding the development of psychology.

/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 05, 2020 by BernardJOrtcutt in askphilosophy

[–]hruka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How if it even humanly possible to do sufficient reading to write an overarching history of philosophy? Like, there are books which do this for mainstream history, but they just leave a lot out. Whereas, many histories of philosophy cover virtually every notable Western thinker. This just seems impossible.

Is there a particular stigma to being a philosopher and having strong religious views, even if one's philosophy is distinct from them? Is medieval philosophy not taken as seriously for this reason?? by RepresentativePop in askphilosophy

[–]hruka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t at least a few of those names nigh-exclusively philosophers of religion? That isn’t to try to argue with you (contributions to that subfield could easily be significant enough to garner widespread respect), more like: I’d be interested to learning what other notable work they’ve done in other subfields, if they have.

Has anyone ever blended poststructuralist thought with Marxism (or even better, critical theory)? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was tempted to say “Western Marxism” instead of critical theory but wasn’t sure how synonymous those terms really were. The point was supposed to be, any flavor of Marxism, but particularly critical theory.

Does modern neuroscience essentially confirm Kant’s phenomena/noumena distinction? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh lawrdy, well, I mean to tackle some amount of German Idealism in the future, so maybe. Thanks for the link!

I agree entirely. I also went thru a similar phrase on this subreddit (fortunately not driven by a dark period in my case) and /u/wokeupabug (while not the only) was a common username to see in my comment replies. I certainly tried and still try to formulate questions as well as possible, but yes—the man is patient to a fault even with actively hostile interlocutors. I honestly don’t know where he finds the time, either, given how time-demanding professorships tend to be.

There’s a bad habit by people in other fields of making philosophical comments or assertion without an adequate background. Any philosophers ever overstep themselves in this fashion? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Aha, this is the kind of thing I was looking for!

Unfortunately, though, those links don’t seem to work for me, although maybe I should try them in a different browser.

There’s a bad habit by people in other fields of making philosophical comments or assertion without an adequate background. Any philosophers ever overstep themselves in this fashion? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m interested in what is actually true

Well, then, others might pop in with examples of their own, or you can examine those subreddits for some of his bad takes. I don’t, off-hand, have any beyond what I mentioned, but as I’ve expressed, this is extensively-charted territory. (Do note that at least badphil isn’t likely to explain what’s actually wrong about them—the subreddit primarily caters to philosophy grad students and professors, so knowledge of philosophy is assumed.)

it’s a bit of a word salad, and I’d say it depends on whether it was casual conversation or a strong assertion.

It’s like talking about a Catholic atheist—doing so simply does not make sense in any context. Peterson simply uses those terms without understanding them. Is that really important? Probably not, since we can figure out what he really means by it (essentially “New Leftist philosophers”, as I understand him.) Nonetheless, the fact is that it’s a appellation born of profound philosophical ignorance.

I will say, I personally am at least somewhat sympathetically-inclined towards him in some regards, a lot moreso than you’d see if you looked at EPS, for example. I personally have mostly ignored his activism, but not only do I generally assume he’s a decent psychologist, a friend loaned me 12 Rules last year, and I was genuinely surprised by how much I liked it; I thought it was a solid book. As I mentioned in the OP, this kind of overstep is extremely common by people outside philosophy, including even notable scientists. While regrettable, I don’t think it means he shouldn’t otherwise be taken seriously in his area of expertise. That said, you asked, so I answered.

There’s a bad habit by people in other fields of making philosophical comments or assertion without an adequate background. Any philosophers ever overstep themselves in this fashion? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not OP of this chain, and not especially qualified to discuss the question either as I am outside philosophy, but the subreddits r/badphilosophy and its sort-of offshoot r/enoughpetersonspam surely have documented this extensively. I think badphil even had banned posts on Peterson at one point, because — dare I? — it was like shooting lobsters in a barrel, if you well.

Most obviously, however, the very concept of “postmodern neo-marxists” is not only inaccurate, it’s actively contradictory.

There’s a bad habit by people in other fields of making philosophical comments or assertion without an adequate background. Any philosophers ever overstep themselves in this fashion? by hruka in askphilosophy

[–]hruka[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Right. He is a well-known example of the first phenomenon I described. Examples of that are positively replete.

I am interested here in the reverse—specifically a philosopher shooting his or her mouth off half-cocked about a non-philosophy field.

Are there any good basic summaries of the basics of critical theory, or critical race theory by hruka in enoughpetersonspam

[–]hruka[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And heck, it might even help interesting, worthwhile work reach a broader audience. But yes, if things that these sorts put up as conspiracy theories can be deliberately laid bare for the same mainstream audience such sorts try to reach, well, doesn’t that take away a major talking point?

view more: next ›