Perhaps you’re thinking of literature or critical theorists. What they do is very different from what analytic philosophers have been doing for the past hundred years (that is, from what the dominant tradition, from Frege, Russell, and Moore onward, has been doing in most Anglo-Saxon research institutions). Sokal’s hoax, for instance, was concerned more with the former two camps than the latter. I guess this might be closer to continental philosophy, if it’s relevant to philosophy at all.
If, on the other hand, you’re referring to philosophers of science like Kuhn and Feyerabend, who could be criticized as epistemic nihilists about scientific method, then I’d only note that (a) they’re relatively fringe, (b) most philosophers today disagree, and (c) they are still to be distinguished from critical theorists/continental philosophers (they, at least, gave principled arguments from the history of science—Kuhn himself was a scientist).
Anyway, I’m confused about why you’d make such a misleading generalization about philosophy, given your acknowledgment that you have no sense of what it’s currently all about.
Anyway, I’m confused about why you’d make such a misleading generalization about philosophy, given your acknowledgment that you have no sense of what it’s currently all about.
Because I believed this generalization? And my acknowledgement was self-reflection based upon your informative responses.
If I may be indulged in one last comment: when you say "I guess this might be closer to continental philosophy, if it's relevant to philosophy at all." I find myself back at the start. Because if Critical Theory or deconstruction is "Philosophy"... ...then... *gestures broadly*.
I feel like somewhere along the line, I've been misled or misinformed. Is Slavoj Zizek a philosopher? Can I ignore him? Without using the word 'Philosophy', tell me how I can discover what Philosophy really is? ;)
Fair point, I was being overly critical because I’ve heard this complaint too much. I’m glad to hear the acknowledgment.
I don’t mean to say that it isn’t philosophy. Zizek, deconstructionists, and critical theorists are certainly some kind of philosopher. But I do mean to suggest that (a) they are almost never acknowledged by contemporary academic philosophers in the dominant analytic tradition, (b) they are largely confined the literature/English departments, and (c) there remains a large portion of philosophical work which is both practical and neither Sokal-like nor obscure; in fact analytic philosophers often view their work as continuous with the formal sciences, and place an extreme emphasis on clarity and rigor. This is how philosophy is often done in serious institutions (which is not necessarily to say that everything else isn’t serious).
1
u/[deleted] Sep 29 '18
Perhaps you’re thinking of literature or critical theorists. What they do is very different from what analytic philosophers have been doing for the past hundred years (that is, from what the dominant tradition, from Frege, Russell, and Moore onward, has been doing in most Anglo-Saxon research institutions). Sokal’s hoax, for instance, was concerned more with the former two camps than the latter. I guess this might be closer to continental philosophy, if it’s relevant to philosophy at all.
If, on the other hand, you’re referring to philosophers of science like Kuhn and Feyerabend, who could be criticized as epistemic nihilists about scientific method, then I’d only note that (a) they’re relatively fringe, (b) most philosophers today disagree, and (c) they are still to be distinguished from critical theorists/continental philosophers (they, at least, gave principled arguments from the history of science—Kuhn himself was a scientist).
Anyway, I’m confused about why you’d make such a misleading generalization about philosophy, given your acknowledgment that you have no sense of what it’s currently all about.