the real poison in academic philosophy

[dfindley]

is idolatry.

I suppose I have had an implicit understanding for sometime, and feel as though it has finally surfaced into something explicit.

thestudy of philosophy (love od wisdom, ya) is a historical movement towards truth. but what do we find it has become instead? primarily idolatry.

what do we find the most successful academics doing? research and commentary on historical and contemporary figures. there is value in this, but as a means to an end -- not as an end in itself.

at worst we elevate our favorite idols as authorities in philosophy.there are no authorities in philosophy. only gifted contributors in this historical movement.

but we idolize them and put them on a pedestal and, implicitly, understand that we are not their equals.

we idolize them andforget that we have the capacity to think for ourselves.

and when one is courageous enough to think for himself, we are contemptuous and hold him in disdain. and so we stifle originality and innovation. for our cowardice and our idolatry.

[catwoman15]

I hold in distain anyone who still uses 'he' and 'him' to denote the neutral human. But that's just me.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

what do we find the most successful academics doing? research and commentary on historical and contemporary figures. 

 

 

This premise is false.

[dfindley]

hi selfhating philosopher,

you know I do think I meant to have said 'mostsuccessful academics' not 'the most successful,'. do you think I need to change it again to 'many'?

do you think my conclusion is unstable?

[dfindley]

....I guess I'm going to Thailand if review committees read any of this ...

[bar_scene_gambler]

My guess if you were destined for Thailand from the beginning, although mocking the department chair at MIT probably didn't win you any favors. 

[Philhopeful]

"what do we find the most successful academics doing? research and commentary on historical and contemporary figures. there is value in this, but as a means to an end -- not as an end in itself."

 

This is simply false. There is a branch of philosophers who are mostly occupied by commentary and exegetical debates, but most philosophers at higher departments are creating their own work, challenging paradigms, and engaging in recent debates. The model of the single "genius" philosopher who appears once every 50 to 100 years is just wrong. Even historically that just isn't how it happened. Even Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and so forth had contemporaries with which they were engaged. The fact that history hasn't remembered them all in the same light doesn't undermine that.

 

I for one have no philosophical idols, nor do any of the professors with whom I have come in contact. 

Edited December 26, 2013 by Philhopeful

[Philhopeful]

Every one is responsible for moving forward in life, and that may require us to make psychological generalizations and justifications to live with our path. However, as a "pursuer of truth" you shouldn't give yourself the luxury of making utterly ungrounded generalizations based on your own biases. 

[shelbyelisha]

I'm not sure why anyone is still responding to Dfindley, especially after he called someone a bitch.  Let's not feed the trolls anymore.  Downvote and move on. 

[dfindley]

thanks philhopeful. I disagree -- idolatry is rampant.

otherwise I'm not interested in entering into conversation with most of these people anyways.

you are especially welcome, catwoman.

[catwoman15]

Am I the only one who is legit curious as to what dFindley's goal is here? I know there's a great troll/not-troll debate. But like..seriously, dude, what's the end game?

[Loric]

I feel like this needs a "Meanwhile.. In the Philosophy Forum.." meme...

 

I had no idea this was all going on.. *munches popcorn*

[bar_scene_gambler]

I feel like this needs a "Meanwhile.. In the Philosophy Forum.." meme...

 

I had no idea this was all going on.. *munches popcorn*

It's certainly been dramatic since the arrival of our little crank. I have to admit, his borderline schizophrenic insanity has become somewhat endearing to me over these last few weeks. 

[dfindley]

READ MY PAPER 'ONTOLOGY OF THE ELEMENTS; A TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC' IN MY 'LAST PAPER' TOPIC

AND REMEMBER YOUR PLACE !!!!!! I OWN

[dfindley]

by the way i post here while i read kant all morning. (and i mean really read it , BSG)

so you can be as petty as a militant feminist

im the one enjoying coffee and tea in leisure reading kant . in fact i dont even NEED graduate school like you people do. i have a life of leisure and philosophy ahead of me, regardless.

juat to put things in perspective for you people

[Loric]

oo.. he does have real Kona coffee.. he can rightfully lord that over us..

[bar_scene_gambler]

oo.. he does have real Kona coffee.. he can rightfully lord that over us..

Yep. I've truly been put in my place. I just can't compete with coffee and Kant. I guess I'll just have to settle for tea and Goethe.

[SelfHatingPhilosopher]

I reported post #5 here, from dfindley. and I mentioned in my report that his other posts should be looked at. Hopefully he'll be banned shortly. Has anyone else here attempted to have the moderators made aware of him?

[dfindley]

youd be doing me a favor. these people are awful. its terrible that philosophy attracts such awful personality types.

im looking forward to studying and publishing on my own. me alone im better than fancy-pants faggot earning his funded MA

PS blow me

[Greenwood16]

okay, i realize that dfindley is a joke/troll so I'm not surprised that he wasn't taken seriously but I do believe there is something worth noting about philosophy that makes it quite peculiar among academia. It (along with a few other subjects like literature) focuses heavily on the source (author) of the content in conjunction with the content itself. Rarely in biology, math, chemistry do you mention the author/discoverer of the information you are studying. Can you imagine studying a cell and making detailed note of who discovered each and every aspect of the cell along with their history and placement among history? Philosophy is a study with a tradition unlike most subjects. It involves more than just an understanding of concept but an interaction with a thinker. Call them idols. Call them people. Philosophy simply is different than other subjects and that is something I'm rather fond of.

 

If I were to describe it, I wouldn't necessarily say idols as that implies a divide. Idols aren't the same as us. If they were, they wouldn't be idols. But I wouldn't call them people either. I don't read Hume like I would a letter from my brother. There is a sense of reverence (which is what dfindley would call idolatry). However, unlike dfindley I think it is deserved reverence.  Our relationship with a philosopher should be like that with an wise elder. We should respect them for their contributions and come to them seeking to understand them (instead of what I see so often - an idiot who should be torn down) while also not stealing their humanity by making them untouchable. 

 

From what I have seen of our current state of philosophy I don't think we are far off. Could we do better? Of course. But that will only come with an understanding of philosophy with regards to its nature. A philosophy of philosophy so to speak.

 

/endrant

Edited December 27, 2013 by Greenwood16

[dfindley]

they certainly do deserve respect, but you should read them as equals to yourself, (as opposed to authorities) on the same path towards truth.

and if you find yourself quarrelling pver some trivial matter in a jpurnal dedicated to nietzsche or writing a book about de leuze or derrida (i do believe they wrote their own books) then you are a failure.

you are also perpetuating idolatry and poisoning the community.

(ps 'selfhatingphilosopher': blow me)

[shelbyelisha]

Has anyone else here attempted to have the moderators made aware of him?

Yup.

[philstudent1991]

me too. the obscene name calling was what crossed the line for me

[spunky]

me too. the obscene name calling was what crossed the line for me

 

oh c'mooon! things are *just* starting to get interesting. 

 

we get like 0 of these ones in Psychology. 

[Billy Goehring]

they certainly do deserve respect, but you should read them as equals to yourself, (as opposed to authorities) on the same path towards truth.

and if you find yourself quarrelling pver some trivial matter in a jpurnal dedicated to nietzsche or writing a book about de leuze or derrida (i do believe they wrote their own books) then you are a failure.

 

 

I do believe that Deleuze and Derrida wrote their own books. Deleuze wrote books on Hume, Spinoza, Proust, Bergson, Nietzsche, Kant, François Chatelet, Foucault, and Leibniz. Derrida wrote on Husserl, Kant, Heidegger, Descartes, Plato, Freud, et al. What point are you trying to make? "Be more like the philosophers you admire! Never mind that they had their own idols and their own engagements with historical and contemporary figures."

 

It was perfectly alright for Jacobi, Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling, et al to comment on each other's work (and Kant!) endlessly. For that matter, I'm sure you have no problem with Kant writing on Leibniz and Wolff.  It was acceptable for Nietzsche to write about Wagner, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, and Spir. And let's not forget that Spinoza was initially known as a Cartesian. 

 

Yes, many of us--particularly those of us known as continentalists--are preoccupied with history. That can be problematic. But don't knock history if you don't know anything about it.