4 ms·
The pragmatic (in the non-philosophical sense) argument is that it is less than helpful to be a Spinozist or Cartesian or whatever without knowing it, and witho
by romaniv 11y ago
The pragmatic (in the non-philosophical sense) argument is that it is less than helpful to be a Spinozist or Cartesian or whatever without knowing it, and without knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the position.
Because that forces you to actually think through your positions and argue for them using your own words, rather than deliberately obscure academic slang?
In natural sciences and math the simplest theory that works is the preferable one to use. In "modern" philosophy and various branches of academic criticism everyone tries to outdo each other in complexity. The practical result of it is that many people operate under false assumption: the assumption that if no one understands you, you automatically "win". This does nothing to improve the quality of reasoning or discourse.
- Retric 11y agoThere are a few mental tools that show up from watching arguments get torn apart on a regular basis. The failure points of Bayesian probability is a great example of this. Suppose I start drawing cards from a 52 card deck of cards and I ask you to estimate the odds that the next card will be a 6H. You work though the math and everything looks fine. I draw AH, JC, 2S, 6H, and all is well with the world, except the next card is another JD. Now what? What if the next card is a picture of an Apple followed by a 2S? PS: The failure point being you need a probability that your prior probability estimate is right, and then a probability that that prior estimate is right recursively.
- A_COMPUTER 11y agoTrying to learn physics solely through experimentation instead of a from a book of the accumulated efforts and failures of generations of people, would be a phenomenal waste of time. Philosophy isn't any different in that regard.
- romaniv 11y agoWe're not talking about learning theoretical physics. We're talking about presenting arguments, usually involving relatively mundane subjects. "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein
- bobcostas55 11y agoI think you have a very narrow view of academic philosophy. Certainly there are many who obfuscate intentionally, or invent myriads of terms where it isn't really necessary. But there are plenty of writers, particularly in the "analytic" tradition, who write very clearly and succinctly. Try Hume (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding -- short and high-impact), Russell, Rousseau, Searle, Putnam, or Dennett.
- romaniv 11y agoFor every Searle there are several hundred people who routinely spew porridge of post-structuralist terminology to address the most trivial of questions. So who better characterizes modern philosophy/criticism?
- kijin 11y agoCome back in a hundred years and see how many people remember Searle vs. any of the post-structuralists. Heck, you don't even need to wait a hundred years. Go to any philosophy department in the English-speaking world right now and ask how many people know Searle vs. any of the poststructuralists.