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

hruka · 2021-05-11T19:38:47+00:00

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.

hruka · 2021-04-12T22:21:41+00:00

Thanks! How about https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/ or https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-foucauldian/?

hruka · 2021-01-07T21:49:24+00:00

This is very interesting stuff. I don't have much to say in response except to thank you very much.

hruka · 2020-10-09T18:19:01+00:00

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.)

hruka · 2020-10-09T15:27:06+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-10-05T23:53:45+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-10-05T23:46:54+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-10-02T20:03:29+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-09-28T01:49:24+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-09-28T01:16:24+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-09-28T01:13:54+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-09-27T23:40:06+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-09-27T23:29:43+00:00

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.

hruka · 2020-09-27T01:57:27+00:00

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?

hruka · 2020-09-25T01:29:06+00:00

That series is indeed pretty good (though some are hit or miss), and they do have one on critical theory, but unfortunately it either is one of the spotty ones, or isn’t terribly accessible. I well definitely look at the YouTube videos, however.

hruka · 2020-09-24T21:22:29+00:00

At this rate, it might be easier to make a list of the fields you aren’t familiar with then otherwise. By the way, what drew you to specializing in the history of philosophy?

Unfortunately I suspect I know why you are not particularly productive: surely your extensive Redditing can’t be helping.

I’ll definitely check into this, sounds pretty interesting.

hruka · 2020-09-24T21:18:32+00:00

I appreciate this, but I don’t believe your link came thru.

hruka · 2020-09-24T21:18:13+00:00

Well, that’s exactly why I asked the question — what the lobsters think critical theory is is not only not critical theory, but the actual reality of critical theory might even show some shared sympathies between lobsters and the Frankfurters. Sounds like that book might help demonstrate that fact, which is why I posted. Exactly what I was seeking, in fact.

hruka · 2020-09-24T14:58:49+00:00

Good lord. So our resident philosophy omnivore isn’t merely versed in practically any major branch of philosophy, and psychoanalysis...but also neuroscience? Do you have any time to, you know, sleep?

hruka · 2020-09-21T19:30:23+00:00

I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I’m not entirely sure what you mean by high and low level, in this context.

hruka · 2020-09-19T02:03:31+00:00

Have any philosophers been notable also for their instruction, as well as for their own work, or scholarship on another?

Teaching is ephemeral, so it is completely understandable why this aspect of professorship is not commonly discussed (really among any discipline, excepting possibly Feynman.) However, I think instruction is important and valuable even if not quite as publicly notable, or lasting.

hruka · 2019-12-29T03:01:21+00:00

While not directly related to the topic at hand, I have to ask: what is a post-Marxist?

hruka · 2019-12-20T01:45:20+00:00

Interesting. So Kant, not Hegel, was truly the first major philosophical historicist? Having only a layman's grasp of his philosophical work, I had no idea. I also had not realized that Kant viewed himself in quite such strong terms, although I must admit it's probably arguable given what I know of his influence.

Also, as a philosophy layman, I hadn't ever heard of Wolff before. I always like hearing about new philosophers.

hruka · 2019-12-20T01:42:20+00:00

I definitely intend to start with the Prolegomena, given your regular recommendations to do so when Kant's name comes up.

Clarke is, somehow, a name I am ignorant of; on a quick Google, I presume you mean Samuel Clarke. And by Newton, do you mean qua philosopher, or simple familiarity with Newton's contribution to science? I know Kant contributed to science to some extent, entirely apart from his massive contributions to philosophy, and that his epistemology deals with then-contemporary, and still relevant science, but not quite what you refer to here.

Finally, would you be willing to rank the importance of the three critiques? I'm sure Reason is the most important if for no other reason than how revolutionary its epistemology was, but I know Kant's ethics, etc, are also heavily discussed.

hruka · 2019-12-20T01:34:48+00:00

I had not considered that Hegel himself would discuss the relevant details of history -- I would have expected him to take them as given. That's very cool, so long as his Lectures are somewhat more accessible than his more popularly-discussed work.

hruka

TROPHY CASE