This is quite the popular meme as of late, not that I’m accusing you of jumping on the bandwagon, I’m very sure you have redesigned the entire concept and have your own, idiosyncratic version all to yourself. Probably complete with self-healing nano-fibres and auto-playing, robot jazz band.
However, the criticism of philosophy is only valid insofar as people misunderstand how the enterprise should be applied. Dawkins criticism was particularly withering. He stated that no one in philosophy (I guess he means the ‘true branch’ of philosophy whatever that might mean, rather than natural philosophy which necessarily becomes biology when applied) had come up with the concept of evolution, even though it was right there in front of us, ready to be captured by the mind, clear as day, for thousands of years. All that thinking a nary a gene.
However, and if we are to stick to his narrow interpretation of philosophy as… I dunno, ‘applied thought’ or somesuch, the real value lies not in philosophy’s ability to answer questions, but in training the mind how to ask them.
I think formal logic lies at the heart of this enterprise, and when applied, it should make clear the schemas of thought that give rise to the question being asked, and specifically how to go about asking the question correctly. Probably this is the boundary of it’s efficacy, although I’ve heard and quite enjoy theories which promote the damn thing into the realm of theory of mind. ‘The hard problem’. You need a theory internal to the working of mind in order to observe it as such.
But really this gets into quasi-transcendental mumbo-jumobo and bloviating obfuscation rather quickly. Which is why I prefer the approach in zen. “We’ve talked about it enough, let’s have a cup of tea.”
I agree and enjoyed the posted material. The vocabulary is accessible. There are many writers students are called upon to read in the humanities and social sciences whose ideas are useful and, even when the ideas are more challenging, it’s often worth the added effort. Anyway … when struggling to understand ideas in an unfamiliar or challenging field, demeaning the subject matter (as bloviating, obscure, etc.) rarely helps.
Well, according to Wikipedia he made enough to cover the expenses, without having to do what could pass as quite some definitions of “real work”.
Sir, you’re inspiring!
The problem is, the philosophers themselves often misunderstand it.
What I miss in the whole endeavor is some sort of feedback mechanism that would weed out the crap. Or all you get is words, words and more words, with occassional little piece of gold hidden in but you need to crush a mountain and leach it out with cyanide.
Ages ago, some fields developed such feedback methods and split off as science, like Agilent split off HP. Said sciences then went off like a bunch of rockets and had more success with more questions in few decades than the entire philosophy field did in millenia.
True that. But there’s often the missing second half, finding the answers (and knowing when there are likely none and the whole idea is merely a time sink, only producing reams of ink-stained paper nobody will read), and - especially - validating (or invalidating) them.
That’s one of the core problems of philosophy.
Which is an excellent approach. I am in favor of that!
Plus, I like reading philosophers positioned outside unacknowledgedly mainstreamed and dominant traditions, such as the ones that my particular interests lead me to, like Charles Mills (on white ignorance and the racial contract), or George Yancy (on the effects of the white gaze), or Shannon Sullivan (on unconscious habits of privilege and good white people). Such insider/outsiders not only reveal more standard philosophy’s (ironic) positionality; they also help me think through a lot of the ways that Western societies and people in general work. Such writers can get jargony (jargonish?), but they seem to me to write more plainly and accessibly than many other philosophers or “theorists.” Maybe they have actual meatspace struggle in mind more as they write, and that keeps them more grounded?
Yes, on your question whether the vocabulary in political philosophy or sociology more “jargony” than other fields. There are writers (e.g. Martin Davis) who stand out for writing clearly on mathematics and computer science topics. For literary criticism and political philosophy, Richard Rorty’s writing is wonderfully lucid and a helpful example for writers generally.
Is bankruptcy an analog for execution? Corporations generally survive bankruptcy proceedings. And it’s generally an elected proceeding. Isn’t it different than being fined out of existence, losing the protection of limited liability or involuntary dissolution?
In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy a company ceases operations and liquidates all of it’s assets to pay off creditors. They can be involuntary, so it can metaphorically be an execution.
I’d note two thing about Burwell v. Hobby Lobby First, it was based on statutory interpretation, so it didn’t create a constitutional right (thank God!). Second, I’m partial to the argument that the problem with the decision was that SCOTUS failed to properly treat corporations as people. Normally a key part of corporate personhood is that a company is an entity separate from the shareholders that has its own rights and interests. In Hobby Lobby though the court held that in closely held companies the owners’ religious values pass through to the corporation, so government restrictions on the company’s religious behavior violate the rights of the shareholders and so kinda kills that whole separate entity thing. The majority unfortunately ignored the ABA amicus brief that argued this.
That’s a (thoughtful and interesting) stretch: It can also form part of an elective strategy to preserve gains and assets, esp. in the context of corporate debt discharge or, more often under another chapter, for reorganization. The desirability of bankruptcy remedies is one of the reasons it’s unfair to deny all access to bankruptcy remedies for student debtors.
And all of the executives are either brought into the management team of the company that assumed the losses, or given golden parachutes before being quickly hired somewhere else to repeat the process (or both). How is that an execution? It’s more like losing your house, furniture and clothing but being given a new job and/or a huge check to build all those assets back up again.
You know, I go back and forth with other grad students about this. We’re pretty much agreed that as historians, we tend to be the least “jargony” of the humanities, but I think we could still do better to reach out to the public and be part of the conversation about various issues.
This is spot on. Then people in the humanities complain when their books don’t sell to the general public, or when they are left out of conversations going on about the world. Well, write something that is approachable. It’s entirely possible to do so, and still make important points. Otherwise, doesn’t it just come down to a circle jerk?
No, I think they’ve got a point on this @miasm. Sure, people can look shit up, but do they WANT to. If you use jargon, for whatever your field, then people feel alienated from what you’re saying and they are less likely to want to discuss it with you. If the humanities want to be part of the public discussion, they need to make clear what they mean to the general public, I’d argue.
Not surprisingly here… I’m gonna disagree on the usefulness of the humanities… of course understanding human life, in all it’s contradictions and complexities is useful for human beings, as useful as the more “practical” sciences.
Hmm. I’ve already forgotten the exact context, but to my mind:
If Popular sovereignity is coherent-- generally, individuals have equal political power, which may be delegated through the process of elections. The deliberative process of legislatures is transparent, and can be understood as polititians negotiating with ordinary persons for future electoral mandates.
If Popular sovereignity is incoherent. The political needs of the ordinary individual are irrelevant. There may be the trappings of democracy, but political power rests in the hands of an elite. The deliberative process of legislatures is best understood as politicians negotiating with the elite. The political power of ordinary individuals, who may collectively represent a majoritarian view, is suppressed when it interferes with elite interests,
In fact, one of the best ways to show that one really understands a subject is to be able to explain it clearly to someone who is reasonably intelligent but not trained in that specific field.
But is that really the individual, or is that actually a group, which finds some common ground, for purposes of representation? In a democracy, how much power can an individual have, except by working with others? You only really get an individual being powerful, via what you discuss in your second point, when someone is very rich.
Isn’t the precisely the argument made by socialists for why people need to act together, rather than as individuals?
Exactly. If you can only spout back your fields jargon, well… how are you going to teach it to freshman when it’s your turn to teach 101? That, of course, is one of our most important roles, as academics. We reach out to undergrads, many of whom are not going to get a degree in our field… If you can’t make yourself understood by college freshman, what hope do you have to everyone else?
I’m gonna disagree on the usefulness of the humanities… of course understanding human life, in all it’s contradictions and complexities is useful for human beings, as useful as the more “practical” sciences.