5 ms·

I wouldn't say it's hubris as much as it's ignorance, dogmatic positivism, and scientism that tends to show itself here and there; I'd say it's more common amon

I wouldn't say it's hubris as much as it's ignorance, dogmatic positivism, and scientism that tends to show itself here and there; I'd say it's more common among those who have made it their life course to be in science or engineering - and I don't mean this disparagingly, as I study EE myself. It's not only ignorance of Marx and Hegel either, Slavoj Zizek regards Marx not as a philosopher but as a sociologist and economist, however GP's words stretch further than Hegel but into Schelling, Kant and all the way back to Aristotle - to say nothing of the "metaphysical" Indian philosophy too. The idea that only Marx and Hegel are guilty of the resistance against dogmatic empiricism in the light of considering being, time, morality and epistemology is a mistake they have made themselves.

voidhorse 9y ago
Couldn't agree more. One only needs to poll some of the opinions of vehement analytics to discover that very intelligent people too, are victims of dogmatism. I think most progress past this once they study a bit deeper, age, and generally engage with disparate perspectives--Rorty's willingness to engage with multiple discourses of philosophical tradition is something I think we all ought to try and emulate. There is a bit of an incommensurability problem too. I find that most resistance to understanding thinkers/alternative discourses stems from a lack of foundational vocabulary/knowledge of the tradition they work within, and, seeing as it takes a good deal of work to acquire this knowledge, most instead default to interpreting the work under the terms and limitations of an interpretive framework (e.g. positivism, structuralism, etc.) they already understand rather than approach the new one. There's a certain degree of bracketing--almost in the phenomenological sense--that must occur if we really want to give a text an honest chance to affect us--Nietzsche had a few illuminating aphorisms on this point, I think most of them appear in The Gay Science and Human, All Too Human for those interested. It's a lack of a sort of meta-theoretical awareness required for resolving incommensurate theories and gauging and weighing them against each other. It's easy enough to select a theory, join in covenant with it, and retain your stance. It's much harder to bring said theory into critical questioning and reevaluation on encountering other approaches (after all the opportunities are boundless--one could levy this very critique against this post).
- duncanawoods 9y ago
  Its good to know the post-modernism generator is still up.
  - voidhorse 9y ago
    There was a slight malfunction during this past election when the wheels of history fell back into an ironism that even postmodern concept and word Frankensteins could not defeat or de-manifest, but otherwise I am chugging along well.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Helmet 9y ago
Nuking this comment as I don't feel it contributes to the discussion at hand.
- bjl 9y ago
  > ...the absolute garbage that critical theory has been pumping out for the past, I don't know, 30 to 40 years. I've found that the only people who spout nonsense like this haven't actually studied any critical theory.
- etplayer 9y ago
  >The vast majority of the academic work produced by people who employ this "philosophy of science" is in-falsifiable and never cited. Number of citations do not indicate or validate the worthiness of a piece of work. Do you not realise the irony of saying that the works questioning the philosophy of science are unfalsifiable? You seem to hold that the idea of falsifiablity is sacred and that any questioning of it should be thrown away because it's unfalsifiable. It's tautological.
ehvatum 9y ago
Is "dogmatic empiricism" another term for "natural philosophy"? Where does one end and the other begin?

voidhorse 9y ago

Couldn't agree more. One only needs to poll some of the opinions of vehement analytics to discover that very intelligent people too, are victims of dogmatism. I think most progress past this once they study a bit deeper, age, and generally engage with disparate perspectives--Rorty's willingness to engage with multiple discourses of philosophical tradition is something I think we all ought to try and emulate. There is a bit of an incommensurability problem too. I find that most resistance to understanding thinkers/alternative discourses stems from a lack of foundational vocabulary/knowledge of the tradition they work within, and, seeing as it takes a good deal of work to acquire this knowledge, most instead default to interpreting the work under the terms and limitations of an interpretive framework (e.g. positivism, structuralism, etc.) they already understand rather than approach the new one. There's a certain degree of bracketing--almost in the phenomenological sense--that must occur if we really want to give a text an honest chance to affect us--Nietzsche had a few illuminating aphorisms on this point, I think most of them appear in The Gay Science and Human, All Too Human for those interested. It's a lack of a sort of meta-theoretical awareness required for resolving incommensurate theories and gauging and weighing them against each other. It's easy enough to select a theory, join in covenant with it, and retain your stance. It's much harder to bring said theory into critical questioning and reevaluation on encountering other approaches (after all the opportunities are boundless--one could levy this very critique against this post).

duncanawoods 9y ago
Its good to know the post-modernism generator is still up.
- voidhorse 9y ago
  There was a slight malfunction during this past election when the wheels of history fell back into an ironism that even postmodern concept and word Frankensteins could not defeat or de-manifest, but otherwise I am chugging along well.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Helmet 9y ago

Nuking this comment as I don't feel it contributes to the discussion at hand.

bjl 9y ago
> ...the absolute garbage that critical theory has been pumping out for the past, I don't know, 30 to 40 years. I've found that the only people who spout nonsense like this haven't actually studied any critical theory.
etplayer 9y ago
>The vast majority of the academic work produced by people who employ this "philosophy of science" is in-falsifiable and never cited. Number of citations do not indicate or validate the worthiness of a piece of work. Do you not realise the irony of saying that the works questioning the philosophy of science are unfalsifiable? You seem to hold that the idea of falsifiablity is sacred and that any questioning of it should be thrown away because it's unfalsifiable. It's tautological.

ehvatum 9y ago

Is "dogmatic empiricism" another term for "natural philosophy"? Where does one end and the other begin?