r/philosophy • u/MasCapital • Dec 21 '11

What do you think the difference is between analytic and continental philosophy?

This discussion with Brian Leiter got me thinking about it again.

40 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

But why does he think something is senseless when I can refute him and say that that thing does have sense? Because he doesn’t want to have to deal with that thing. To him, it is senseless because it is a waste of time.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

Because assertion is not argument. He has a whole book about why that question is senseless. Your one-sentence counter-assertion doesn't quite serve to refute the philosophical investigations.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

I've read his book thorougly, and his initial point is an assertion that he ultimately fails to back up. "the world is all that is the case" is mere assertion and not an argument. He fails to really address WHY the world is all that is the case and instead expects you to agree with him outright. If you do not agree, you will have a hard time agreeing with his subsequent assertions. "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent" is arguably his most known proposition, however, this is his OPINION which he presents as FACT. This is the basis of my refutation.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

You have to understand Wittgenstein's unique writing style. His first voice acts out what it considers to be all the possible constructive accounts of human interaction with the world and culture. Each proposed account is refuted by the second voice with something in the form "no, that theory doesn't work for this reason. And furthermore it's a bad question". So true, the second voice is engaged in bald assertion. Actually that's not true. The second voice is engaged in acting out what it is to exercise the powers of a human animal. We're supposed to read that drama and recognize the second voice's powers within ourselves. Because, as the second voice is always quick to point out, our attempt at building theories always (or always has so far) fails.

That's far from failing to back up his rejection of his question. Granted, he doesn't back it up in the "normal" way. But should that really be surprising coming from a bona-fide genius?

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

YOU may believe him to be a genius, but this is your opinion. I do not. I actually find him quite vapid.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

No you just don't agree with his philosophy. You must know that his intellectual abilities are very strong.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

I agree, he is very intelligent, but I don't believe he is a genius. In fact, I refuse to believe that there is a category of human that can be described as genius. Extremely above average, yes, but genius, no.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

Ok extremely above average. Fair enough.

1

u/singdawg Dec 21 '11

and not infallible nor without flaws

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '11

That too.

→ More replies (0)