|
Grinds my Gears: People who speak (and act) in clichés (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
I'm betting I'm learning more about Humanities reading this thread than in the class (which happens to be Humanities) I started it over. That may change but I still love you guys.
EDIT: And Vector A - A picture's worth a thousand words (hope you keep writing). :p |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I suspect the whole "Objectivist" hype is due to a poor educational system... but that's a different problem altogether.
Although I agree Sartre got a great deal more attention than some more interesting philosophers from his own tradition (no one seems to know Husserl outside academia, and Merleau-Ponty seems to have been a more competent philosopher from the little I know about him), I've got to defend Russell.
Being something of a crypto-pragmatist myself (so I'd be more prepared to criticise Rorty, yet another strangely popular name), I'm not exactly the best person to defend the 3rd Earl Russell, but:- Had it not been for Russell, Frege would've died in oblivion, and Wittgenstein wouldn't have influenced the logical empiricists and analytic philosophy just wouldn't exist the way we know it;
- I believe his penchant for logic went way overboard, but "On Denoting", as John Searle put it, became a template for philosophers in the anglophone tradition because it presented - with outstanding clarity - a problem (even if it was sort of blown out of proportion), offered a solution, and then showed why that problem could be solved by the solution he proposed. Even if Strawson arguably refuted his solution, it's still a standard for a students all over the world (including yours truly);
- Principia Mathematica is apparently one of the greatest contributions to mathematical logic of the previous century. It's unfair, as far as I know, not to give him and Whitehead some credit for that.
Same with Dawkins, on biology. As an atheist, he's a great biologist. And, as a biologist, although he didn't take part in any ground-breaking discovery, he earned his credentials with a simple yet appealling way of thinking about ideas.
Come to think of it, there just aren't enough public intellectuals nowadays. Even in linguistics, despite my methodological disagreements with Chomsky, the only person who could really teach the public about linguistics is more known as... a political thinker :p
Much of the problem, I believe, stems from (bad) science journalism or "hatewaves". I don't believe I need to talk about the former but, as an example of the latter, so many people make fun of Skrillex that even before I found out what brostep was, I already knew he existed. Within academia, Rorty is widely known outside pragmatist circles because of how much criticism his views triggered... so much so that even Sam Harris, in what seems to have been the oddest attempt to criticise a school of thought, decided to quote him (of all people!). Needless to say, he flogged a horse who happened to be long dead.
To be fair, Lucretius had a great insight, but he didn't know how to prove it. Darwin wasn't even alone in his quest - that Wallace bloke who presented the idea along with him to the Royal Society had reached a very similar conclusion. The reason why Darwin was awesome is because he painstakingly collected as much data as he could (religious zealots, take note!) in order to prove his point.
I find it more troublesome that Mendel's research went unnoticed for much long, and America's greates logician (Charles S. Peirce) died in poverty. This is among the reasons why I think it's actually kind of cute that people buy the stuff Carl Sagan used to say... but, as a scientist, I know for a fact it's not that simple. |
hahaha I knew I wouldn't be able to get away with jabbing at old Berty :p
Sartre was an extremely good writer. Being and Nothingness is outstanding, and the deeper you go into it the more you realise that its not as dumb as first readings tend to lead you to believe (speaking from personal experience as you know). IMO he's one of the best continental philosophers, certainly in certain areas he was the best (in my area of expertise (Self & Other) he was pretty great, and its interesting to note that in recent years a ton of analytic philosophers have started reading him and implenenting his ideas in their modern psychological methods (in fact doing philosophy of mind its uncanny how much a lot of analytic philosophers have unwittingly covered ground Sartre went over in amazing detail 50 years earlier)!) So, I wasn't attacking Sartre (and I take back any critique of him in the original post), nor was I really attacking Berty, but was talking about their public image, as both were, at times (and even now arguably) pinup kids for philosophy to the public, while they are generally regarded as, basically, political figures (and not important contributors) to the educated community.
I personally don't think Russell was useful except as a conduit for popularising philosophy. Things like bringing people to the attention of Frege as you mentioned. His books are ok, but they don't really offer anything exciting or new to the well-versed philosopher, and to the people in the know, reading his works is often a bit painful because of how he oversimplifies, or plainly mis-reads/represents complicated ideas in ways that will be easily absorbed for the casual reader. On Denoting, and the principle of mathematics (both written with others I believe) were important, no question, but it is hard to see them as more than entry-ways into much deeper discussions... History of Western Philosophy is a good example for my general displeasure with Russell. Its a nice read, but some of the stuff in that book is just dumb (like his 'reading' of Nietzsche). This gets complicated though because his work was political; he was trying to alter the structure of philosophical inquiry, not explain it, nor really analyse... So yeah, its hard to get into that without writing a thesis etc, but I don't see him as a particularly inovative writer, despite his high esteem during his lifetime (and to a lesser extent, since)...
Anyway, I'm not sure we really disagree... Or maybe I'm just focusing on the side issues you've raised... |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Sartre was an extremely good writer. Being and Nothingness is outstanding, and the deeper you go into it the more you realise that its not as dumb as first readings tend to lead you to believe (speaking from personal experience as you know). IMO he's one of the best continental philosophers, certainly in certain areas he was the best (in my area of expertise (Self & Other) he was pretty great, and its interesting to note that in recent years a ton of analytic philosophers have started reading him and implenenting his ideas in their modern psychological methods (in fact doing philosophy of mind its uncanny how much a lot of analytic philosophers have unwittingly covered ground Sartre went over in amazing detail 50 years earlier)!. |
Really? I had no idea. I heard of some contributions from Merleau-Ponty (reason why I thought he was more interesting), but that sounds just as interesting. I'm going to read up on it if I ever get the chance :)
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
So, I wasn't attacking Sartre (and I take back any critique of him in the original post), nor was I really attacking Berty, but was talking about their public image, as both were, at times (and even now arguably) pinup kids for philosophy to the public, while they are generally regarded as, basically, political figures (and not important contributors) to the educated community. |
Hmm... I agree: His "History of Western Philosophy" does seem to have provided him a steady income for most of his life, so it was definitely a gateway to philosophy to many laypersons.
And Sartre did have a similar impact with his novels, that's true.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
I personally don't think Russell was useful except as a conduit for popularising philosophy. Things like bringing people to the attention of Frege as you mentioned. His books are ok, but they don't really offer anything exciting or new to the well-versed philosopher, and to the people in the know, reading his works is often a bit painful because of how he oversimplifies, or plainly mis-reads/represents complicated ideas in ways that will be easily absorbed for the casual reader. On Denoting, and the principle of mathematics (both written with others I believe) were important, no question, but it is hard to see them as more than entry-ways into much deeper discussions... |
But isn't these incipient philosophical projects as important as the deeper debates?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
History of Western Philosophy is a good example for my general displeasure with Russell. Its a nice read, but some of the stuff in that book is just dumb (like his 'reading' of Nietzsche). |
I love the convo between Nietzsche and Buddha :stongue:
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
This gets complicated though because his work was political; he was trying to alter the structure of philosophical inquiry, not explain it, nor really analyse... So yeah, its hard to get into that without writing a thesis etc, but I don't see him as a particularly inovative writer, despite his high esteem during his lifetime (and to a lesser extent, since)... |
Yeah, and there's that. I wouldn't want to approach that without the proper certifications, to be honest :p
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Anyway, I'm not sure we really disagree... Or maybe I'm just focusing on the side issues you've raised... |
I'm under this impression as well :p |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Really? I had no idea. I heard of some contributions from Merleau-Ponty (reason why I thought he was more interesting), but that sounds just as interesting. I'm going to read up on it if I ever get the chance :)
Hmm... I agree: His "History of Western Philosophy" does seem to have provided him a steady income for most of his life, so it was definitely a gateway to philosophy to many laypersons.
And Sartre did have a similar impact with his novels, that's true.
But isn't these incipient philosophical projects as important as the deeper debates?
I love the convo between Nietzsche and Buddha :stongue:
Yeah, and there's that. I wouldn't want to approach that without the proper certifications, to be honest :p
I'm under this impression as well :p |
M-P is okay; Sartre is the only analytic or continental philosopher I found who actually managed to get deeeeeep into the self/other divide. He actually did better than Wittgenstein imo, which I was extremely shocked to discover! I really thought Sartre was a total retard for half last year when writing my thesis on him, until I figured out why... Anyways, maybe you should just read my thesis? hahaha
I was doing philosophy of mind and it was crazy how much Sartre had already covered (usually in a more thorough and interesting manner)... He very much saw himself as a response to Freud, so, much of Being and Nothingness is basically human psychology explained philosophically. A few of the anlaytics are starting to realise this too, and he is occasionally (though only very recently) being read by the analytics, which is great. Russell ruined any communication between continental and analytic for something like 50 years, which is another reason I really don't like him. The schools are not that different most of the time, yet analytics refuse to give any respect to continental thinkers, because Russell went so hard at claiming all continentals were "Not philosophy", or were "just literature" (basically what he said about Nietzsche, which is absurd (imo :p ))...
anyway, check this one out if you can! :)
http://philpapers.org/rec/BRELFS (let me know if you can't get access to it and i'll try hunt down a copy for you if you're keen)
Anyways, yeah; I suppose I have my political hatreds of analytic philosophy, not because I'm opposed to it, but because they make it really hard to be a non-analytic philosopher :stongue: I was actually cornered and basically screamed at for studying continental philosophers... And yeah, THAT is Russell's legacy...
ANYWAY, FUN RANTING WITH YOU LIRA, MAYBE I SHOULD STOP HIJACKING THIS THREAD!? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be dropping this guy's class as I really can't relate to this guy's assignments and it looks like it's going to my grade in this class. Apparently, I'm supposed to be challenged by the texts in the curriculum and self-disclose how my beliefs intersect with a collection of modest essays concerning globalization. Our weekly assignments consist of journals and last week he was frustrated with the journals he'd received, so far.
Quite literally, it was put to us that if we had read a story about red balls being made in India, we would write about the story we had read (e.g. Last week's reading concerned a dodge-ball manufacturer in Calcutta), indicate whether we had liked or disliked the story (e.g. I did not like the story) and then disclose why (e.g. because my sister was killed playing dodge-ball).
The base reasoning is that every belief I have about other cultures is rooted in some impression which may or may not have been created by a traumatic/positive event. Conversely, I might only love Canadians because I lost my virginity to one - hence, because I got a pity- on my sixteenth birthday, all Canadians are upright and virtuous people. Regardless, the class has been asked to "face y(our)selves and find out why it is we believe what we believe" and that the only way to do this is to relate a series of disconnected essays, with no substantive context to them, to events in our experience that shape a positive or negative evaluation of what is reported in the essays.
I've found it close to impossible to conceive of such instances that shape my world-view with such a linear causality. Furthermore, I find it more than uncomfortable that a grade is being assessed to self-disclosure. The journal assignment seems to be a superficial examination of my reasoning that when satisfactorily completed, results in a confession. While I know myself well-enough to know how my own traumatic experiences shape my outlook, I have not yet found anything in the textbooks that relates to that AND am quite reluctant to even touch on that; particularly because it is being evaluated for what is supposed to be an academic class. Even if I can find something that I relate to in the way I am apparently supposed to be relating to it, the self-disclosure required is none of this 's business.
I'm detailing all of this because I want to know if anyone has ever had such experiences in their own college classes along with how they dealt with it -AND- also see if I'm looking at this all wrong. While I haven't ruled it out, yet, there is an opportunity cost to dropping this class. Currently, my impression of this teacher is overwhelmingly negative but I dislike the notion that I've discounted him because of simply false assumptions, on my part.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
ANYWAY, FUN RANTING WITH YOU LIRA, MAYBE I SHOULD STOP HIJACKING THIS THREAD!? |
Please, continue. You two definitely aren't stepping on my toes with it. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
I just started looking at Robert A. Wilson when you first posted. I then went onto the second link (cognitive liberty) and have been reading that down to where he's talking about how Hitler misappropriated Nietzsche. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be speaking to the "Real" World paradigm, presented in the text as a sort of heavily edited, two dimensional rendering of reality. As I'm relating that to what I'm talking about with this class, my teacher's journal assignments (might) have something to do with that?
EDIT: Or are you referring to my reluctance to "gamble" on whether this guy is a kook or not? Both? More?
EDIT 2: Well, regardless, I like how he touched on a lot of what Huxley and Leary spoke to. Leary referred to the "Real" World as "game play" in the his book, The psychedelic experience. The fact that Leary is cited isn't surprising, given the content. Thanks for the tip. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I'm going to be dropping this guy's class as I really can't relate to this guy's assignments and it looks like it's going to my grade in this class. Apparently, I'm supposed to be challenged by the texts in the curriculum and self-disclose how my beliefs intersect with a collection of modest essays concerning globalization. Our weekly assignments consist of journals and last week he was frustrated with the journals he'd received, so far.
Quite literally, it was put to us that if we had read a story about red balls being made in India, we would write about the story we had read (e.g. Last week's reading concerned a dodge-ball manufacturer in Calcutta), indicate whether we had liked or disliked the story (e.g. I did not like the story) and then disclose why (e.g. because my sister was killed playing dodge-ball).
The base reasoning is that every belief I have about other cultures is rooted in some impression which may or may not have been created by a traumatic/positive event. Conversely, I might only love Canadians because I lost my virginity to one - hence, because I got a pity- on my sixteenth birthday, all Canadians are upright and virtuous people. Regardless, the class has been asked to "face y(our)selves and find out why it is we believe what we believe" and that the only way to do this is to relate a series of disconnected essays, with no substantive context to them, to events in our experience that shape a positive or negative evaluation of what is reported in the essays.
I've found it close to impossible to conceive of such instances that shape my world-view with such a linear causality. Furthermore, I find it more than uncomfortable that a grade is being assessed to self-disclosure. The journal assignment seems to be a superficial examination of my reasoning that when satisfactorily completed, results in a confession. While I know myself well-enough to know how my own traumatic experiences shape my outlook, I have not yet found anything in the textbooks that relates to that AND am quite reluctant to even touch on that; particularly because it is being evaluated for what is supposed to be an academic class. Even if I can find something that I relate to in the way I am apparently supposed to be relating to it, the self-disclosure required is none of this 's business.
I'm detailing all of this because I want to know if anyone has ever had such experiences in their own college classes along with how they dealt with it -AND- also see if I'm looking at this all wrong. While I haven't ruled it out, yet, there is an opportunity cost to dropping this class. Currently, my impression of this teacher is overwhelmingly negative but I dislike the notion that I've discounted him because of simply false assumptions, on my part.
Please, continue. You two definitely aren't stepping on my toes with it. |
Lira quit So i had to also :(
AND! Yep, had a similar thing in psych/sociology... It sounds like your subject is sociology of some kind? I've always found (having taken 4 units of it) that it is the most stupid and pointless subject ever, dressing the most obvious, common-sense facts into 'theories' that are meant to be deep. This pretentious idiocy is made clear in every subject in the field. Like your assignment. That's just retarded lol. What has your personal experience got to do with anything? It can be helpful to realise the observer's role in any study, but to base marks on YOUR SPECIFIC experiences is just lolworthy... And, as you said: To claim that its as simple as boiling down an insanely complicated causal process into one event as a 'cause' of your current emotional reaction to anything is idiotic...
I think this kind of pointless assignment is one of those first-year things though; I don't think I've ever done a first-year subject in any field that was interesting, necessary, or ever got past the most obvious folk-knowledge that exists in everybody's daily lives. Again, this goes doubly in sociology. My advice is to just power through the first year; its going to make you suicidal, but just don't think about it if possible. I tried to go too far into detail, or elaborate on the simple questions with more complicated insights, but would usually get penalised for not following the guidelines closely enough ("Interesting, but not meeting requirements" type of thing)...
Anyway; good luck! :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Lira quit So i had to also :( |
Actually, I just thought you wanted to get back to the original topic after that reply :p |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
Lira quit So i had to also :(
AND! Yep, had a similar thing in psych/sociology... It sounds like your subject is sociology of some kind? I've always found (having taken 4 units of it) that it is the most stupid and pointless subject ever, dressing the most obvious, common-sense facts into 'theories' that are meant to be deep. This pretentious idiocy is made clear in every subject in the field. Like your assignment. That's just retarded lol. What has your personal experience got to do with anything? It can be helpful to realise the observer's role in any study, but to base marks on YOUR SPECIFIC experiences is just lolworthy... And, as you said: To claim that its as simple as boiling down an insanely complicated causal process into one event as a 'cause' of your current emotional reaction to anything is idiotic...
I think this kind of pointless assignment is one of those first-year things though; I don't think I've ever done a first-year subject in any field that was interesting, necessary, or ever got past the most obvious folk-knowledge that exists in everybody's daily lives. Again, this goes doubly in sociology. My advice is to just power through the first year; its going to make you suicidal, but just don't think about it if possible. I tried to go too far into detail, or elaborate on the simple questions with more complicated insights, but would usually get penalised for not following the guidelines closely enough ("Interesting, but not meeting requirements" type of thing)...
Anyway; good luck! :p |
It's humanities. I kind of knew I was in trouble when, the first day of class, he asks if any of us had heard of Paulo Freire's "Banking Concept of Education" and then told us that he didn't teach that way; literally spelling out that he wasn't going to "spoon feed" us information to regurgitate. He then said that he was going to "drive some of you crazy."
Apparently, I'm not the only person who has had problems with him and he also gets a lot of drops. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Actually, I just thought you wanted to get back to the original topic after that reply :p |
haha well we've been given permission now; so can re-engage, or just leave it :p
I don't think there was really a disagreement there anyway hehe
Did you get a hold of that paper on Sartre? |
|
|
| meriter |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I just started looking at Robert A. Wilson when you first posted. I then went onto the second link (cognitive liberty) and have been reading that down to where he's talking about how Hitler misappropriated Nietzsche. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be speaking to the "Real" World paradigm, presented in the text as a sort of heavily edited, two dimensional rendering of reality. As I'm relating that to what I'm talking about with this class, my teacher's journal assignments (might) have something to do with that?
EDIT: Or are you referring to my reluctance to "gamble" on whether this guy is a kook or not? Both? More?
EDIT 2: Well, regardless, I like how he touched on a lot of what Huxley and Leary spoke to. Leary referred to the "Real" World as "game play" in the his book, The psychedelic experience. The fact that Leary is cited isn't surprising, given the content. Thanks for the tip. |
Well, I should've said it loosely pertains to what your prof is talking about. Just about how sometimes even single experiences color peoples reality and how we edit stuff out at the senses to fit into our pre-conceived models. I really just think you would like the guys work.. check out some of those interviews
and yeah him and leary were buddies |
|
|
|
|
