|
Dank (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
The idea that poststructuralism takes psychoanalysis and structuralism as "undisputed facts" is just not true, there's a long and varied history between these disciplines. Just as an example, Deleuze wrote a whole book ting on psychoanalysis and the complex relationship to structuralism should be obvious just from the name. More importantly, when you take concepts from a more emperic realm into the philosphical realm, it doesn't matter if they become empirically debunked, for example even though it came from linguistics, in much of poststructuralism the signifier/signified dystinction is obviously much more of an epistemological and metaphysical statement. Much of premodern philosophy is built on empiric, scientific and religious assumptions that are completely laughable by modern standards, that doesn't mean that it's bunk. Roger Scruton wrote a whole bunk scrutinizing poststructuralists for "bad science" completely missing the point that a) it's not claiming to be an empiric science and b) philosophy has a long history of borrowing and abusing concepts taken from elsewhere. Also, philosphical theories, unless they claim to be strictly scientific (logical positivism) never really get "debunked" since you can't emperically debunk them. They may become abandoned or out of style but eventually some guy will take these concepts, abuse, morph and revive them, no matter how "debunked" they were at the time, for example Nietzsche was considered a joke in academic circles for a long ass time before he was taken seriously. Another example in analytic circles would be Alvin Plantinga repopularizing the ontological argument, a piece of scholastic logic that in his original form will be utterly hair raising to most modern people and that was considered totally and 100% debunked by Kant by almost everyone for like 200 years. Similarily, analytic thomism isn't bunk just because it's based on a way of thinking that's generally considered outdated. This is why I am so opposed to any philosophical thinker or even a whole philosophical tradition being "nonsense", as long as there are some concepts one can take and run, there's value and sense there. |
Just because Plantiga re-popularised an out-of-date and disproven argument does not mean that one should do so. In fact, Plantinga, who I would like to state is truly a charming man, has gotten a lot of flack for doing so, in his own realm of Christian theological philosophy. Ought, Is, Hume, etc, old sport. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
No no, just for my BA thesis (history). |
I didn't realise your BA was in History. That makes me even more concerned about your very-much-out-of-date views on medieval credit transactions :( |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
No no, "prussia model" means that you literally modelled your academic System after the 19th century burocratic authorarian Military-state of prussia - the Germany that caused WW1 :gsmile: |
WWI was caused by the Russian desire for additional Black Sea ports, and support of terrorists to that end, not by Prussia :o |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I didn't realise your BA was in History. That makes me even more concerned about your very-much-out-of-date views on medieval credit transactions :( |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I assume/hope you realise that, this entire time, you have displayed a strong tendency to only see criticism of post-structuralism in the binary (analytic) terms of analytic/continental disagreement, while I have been attempting to deconstruct that divide by showing that things are more complex than that ;) |
And I'm supposed to be patronizing? Yes, I'm dumb and you're smart, got it!
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
WWI was caused by the Russian desire for additional Black Sea ports, and support of terrorists to that end, not by Prussia :o |
You know damn well what I meant.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Just because Plantiga re-popularised an out-of-date and disproven argument does not mean that one should do so. In fact, Plantinga, who I would like to state is truly a charming man, has gotten a lot of flack for doing so, in his own realm of Christian theological philosophy. Ought, Is, Hume, etc, old sport. |
I have my issues with Plantinga myself but he was just one of many examples. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
And I'm supposed to be patronizing? Yes, I'm dumb and you're smart, got it! |
I'm merely pointing out how this conversation has (ironically) gone; you have been adamantly stating that people who disagree with post-structuralism just don't understand it. Bit of a difference there.
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
You know damn well what I meant. |
Not really. If you get annoyed by people ting on post-structuralism, I get peeved by people blaming Prussia for WWI.
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
I have my issues with Plantinga myself but he was just one of many examples. |
Right, but just because you have many examples does not mean that it is a good tactic or should be recommended. |
|
|
| Woony |
I was mainly talking about the fact that you were concerned over my intellectual disability of having a different Interpretation of medieval Money lending.
I was just trying to give some historical context for Lira about the word prussia. I wasn't trying to make some kind of controversial statement about prussia's role in the war, hence why I just reffered to "the Germany [at the time]". I don't really care about it but the idea that germany was largely (not soley) responsible is fairly common in german historiography. Keep in mind that this is still a Topic with heavy political implications here, the slippery slope from serious historical work to straight up revisionism is sometimes very quick, so maybe people tend to be more careful. I honestly don't really care either way though. I have zero passion for WW1 debates, I had to take a bunch of courses because of the 100 year anniversary and it was the most boring ever for me. Not passionate enough about this to get into an Argument :p |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
No no, "prussia model" means that you literally modelled your academic System after the 19th century burocratic authorarian Military-state of prussia - the Germany that caused WW1 :gsmile: |
Hehe, I was joking. I really like German philosophy, so I remember that's where Kant (and Herder and Hamann) come from :p
By the way, quick question I've always wanted to ask a German historian: How come Bavaria is in Germany if they're culturally closer to Austria? I know Austria isn't part of Germany (and vice-versa :p) because the Anschluss didn't end well for anyone in Europe... but, wouldn't an Austrian Bavaria make more sense?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
WWI was caused by the Russian desire for additional Black Sea ports, and support of terrorists to that end, not by Prussia :o |
Argh, come on! I'm told it's because Franz Ferdinand died and then, a hundred years later, you tell me this?! How am I supposed to keep track of these things!? :mad: :p
(Seriously though, Russia? Weren't they busy getting all commie'd up anyway?) |
|
|
| Woony |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
By the way, quick question I've always wanted to ask a German historian: How come Bavaria is in Germany if they're culturally closer to Austria? I know Austria isn't part of Germany (and vice-versa :p) because the Anschluss didn't end well for anyone in Europe... but, wouldn't an Austrian Bavaria make more sense? |
Well, first of all there is a longstanding bavarian seperatist movement (not very seriously anymore, obviously) - it's still called Freistaat Bayern. But I'm not sure if bavaria is really culturally closer to austria, I'd say bavaria is much closer to the rest of south germany than to austria. The austrians are a weird bunch :p |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
(Seriously though, Russia? Weren't they busy getting all commie'd up anyway?) |
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
 |
|
|
| Lira |
:stongue:
| quote: | Originally posted by Woony
The austrians are a weird bunch :p |
Well, one of their numbers became famous for telling people everyone wanted to get it on with their mothers, so I'm in no position to disagree with you there :p
And I thought they were similar because Southern Germany (and Austria) is mainly Catholic and the North is mostly Protestant, but maybe I'm overestimating the influence of religion there. |
|
|
| Lira |
 |
|
|
|
|
