Ask a Philosopher

[aelf]

You've once claimed there were insurmountable differences between Continental and Analytical philosophy. Which probably would only be true if analytical philosophy was indeed positivist. If there are any other ways this could be, these are exceedingly few. Of course, analytic philosophy is naturally in opposition to those who call themselves Postmodernists, that much is true.

The insurmountable differences are not metaphysical. They're discursive. Which is why the two sides aren't really even talking to each other.

 

[Tahuti]

The insurmountable differences are not metaphysical. They're discursive. Which is why the two sides aren't really even talking to each other.

Since you gracefully pointed out yourself how the two have a tendency to address different topics, this means you've also shown how the two cannot be innately opposed. Being Nietzschean on ethics doesn't render it impossible to be a neutral monist on epistemology, for instance.

 

[aelf]

I'm not sure how that addresses my previous post. They would, unsurprisingly, be opposed on some things, but I didn't say they were necessarily opposed either.

But it's kinda hard to reconcile two traditions when they have fundamentally different ways of looking at and talking about their world.

 

[lovett]

The point to be made here, I suppose, is that 'innately opposed' and 'irreconcilable' are not antonyms. So both can be true of the division between continental and analytic philosophy - if we really must insist on using those terms. I imagine this is the point Aelf is making.

 

[Marcher Jovian]

What is the difference between sanity and insanity?

 

[Gary Childress]

What is the difference between sanity and insanity?

As someone diagnosed schizoaffective (though fortunately fully stabilized on meds) I think "insanity" is easy to spot from the outside. We know it when we see it in someone else but the insane person is, in my experience, usually incapable of spotting it in themselves. All my delusional experiences have been almost like dreaming while I'm awake. I can see now that my thinking was terribly distorted but while in a state of insanity I couldn't tell that. Here I'm talking about real insanity, not the casual way people sometimes use the word, like "anyone who goes sky diving is insane."

Real insanity is, for me, very strange and difficult to pinpoint with a definition. For instance I could say that insanity is a form of erroneous thinking but there are other forms of erroneous thinking other than insanity. So I couldn't say that erroneous thinking is "THE" difference between sanity and insanity. Because there are forms of sane thinking which are erroneous too.

Understanding insanity is something humans may or may not ever be able to do. Why does it happen? You could say it happens because chemical X starts to come out of region Y in the brain but that's not really what we humans tend to mean when we ask "why" something happens. Most of the time I think we are looking for an answer along the lines of: "because it helps us to be better able to survive under conditions XYZ" or "the Devil is trying to possess us" or some sort of profound insight into the ultimate nature of the world. But perhaps all we will ever be able to successfully conclude is something like chemical X starts to come out of region Y in the brain.

But who knows? Maybe the next Albert Einstein will come up with a profound understanding of reality which will explain insanity.

Funny, that's basically what Chomsky said about him as well:

http://www.civitatedei.com/2011/11/noam-chomsky-is-no-fan-of-derrida-or-postmodernism/

I can somewhat agree with Chomsky on the topic of Derrida and post-modernism. I spent two semesters studying various "continental" thinkers such as Heidegger, Husserl, Derrida, Foucault et. al. Derrida and the whole deconstruction movement are utterly incomprehensible to me. Really sounds like a lot of nonsense on the face of it. Foucault I found a little interesting. Some of his language is pretty whacky but overall he explored some interesting themes like trying to link the history of the sanitarium to that of the leprosarium. He was obsessed with power and how it is exerted by one over another. But yeah, most of his writing he seems to go out of his way to sound incomprehensible where plain language might work better. Most of what I learned of Foucault came from secondary sources as a result. I spent a few years after college studying Foucault but didn't get a whole lot out of it I don't think. Husserl is actually pretty neat and relatively understandable IIRC. He laid the foundation for what has been called Phenomenology. Heidegger is incomprehensible but I've read secondary sources on him that make some sense of his project. Heidegger seems to be the impetus for Derrida from what I understand and part of Heidegger's claim was that he wanted to use language in a way that would release him from certain metaphysical presuppositions. I remember reading his "letter on Humanism" in which he claimed that the word "humanism" is ultimately derived from an ancient Greek prejudice against non-Greeks. He seemed to believe that humanism is therefore somehow tied to racism. Maybe a bit of the genetic fallacy in there, I don't know.

In a sense there is a major divide between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy in the way the philosophers project to their audience. I found that the continental thinkers enticed me to try to figure out what they meant by something where analytic philosophy is much more concerned with making things explicit to everyone. In some senses continental philosophy reminds me a lot of religion and the attempt to decipher things like the Upanishads or a Zen koan. Such things are not self evident and not easily transmitted from one person to another. Analytic philosophy is much more like science and making things transparent as much as possible. It's an interesting divergence between the two schools of thought or whatever you want to call them. I mean I don't understand a lot of the Upanishads or Zen Buddhism but I don't therefore call it nonsense. I think continental philosophy is somewhat similar in some respects. You have the wise sage trying to teach the apprentice something he doesn't quite understand, at least not yet.

 

[Mouthwash]

Would you recommend Russell's History as an introductory book? I've heard a lot of bad things about it.

 

[lovett]

I've never actually read it.

But philosophy would be in a pretty parlous state if the best introductory book were written sixty years ago. I'd suggest something more modern. Simon Blackburn's "Think" is an excellent example.

 

[Mouthwash]

Would you consider Max Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble Mathematical Universe hypothesis to be a form of Idealism? My understanding (after reading Permutation City) is that only math actually exists; nothing physical. Our experience is not the product of a single outlying explanation, but is every metaphysical explanation for them combined. So there isn't any difference between "reality" and "simulation."

 

[Tahuti]

Hmm... difficult. Does he state that math can exist outside of the mind? Then it might be called neutral monism instead.

 

[Atticus]

Would you recommend Russell's History as an introductory book? I've heard a lot of bad things about it.

It's written from entirely subjective view, most probably on purpose. Russell drops statements that are meant to be more witty than accurate, and that can be confusing if you read it as an introductory book.

 

[Angst]

Would you consider Max Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble Mathematical Universe hypothesis to be a form of Idealism? My understanding (after reading Permutation City) is that only math actually exists; nothing physical. Our experience is not the product of a single outlying explanation, but is every metaphysical explanation for them combined. So there isn't any difference between "reality" and "simulation."

Well, that's a very insurmountable way to go about it. And I think it kills off several important fields of study, at least a little bit. IE; even if there's a truth to your statement, the world is too complex for us to eg refine purist mathematic truths from The Silmarillion.

I'm not sure whether it's a form of idealism. Why is it important?

 

[Mouthwash]

Hmm... difficult. Does he state that math can exist outside of the mind? Then it might be called neutral monism instead.

Yes, that's the entire point. It's a form of radical Platonism.

It's written from entirely subjective view, most probably on purpose. Russell drops statements that are meant to be more witty than accurate, and that can be confusing if you read it as an introductory book.

So... I should read something else before it? I'm just searching for an easy way of getting into philosophy. So far History of Western Philosophy seems very readable and got an endorsement by Einstein, who read A Critique of Pure Reason by age nine.

Well, that's a very insurmountable way to go about it. And I think it kills off several important fields of study, at least a little bit. IE; even if there's a truth to your statement, the world is too complex for us to eg refine purist mathematic truths from The Silmarillion.

I'm not sure whether it's a form of idealism. Why is it important?

It isn't; just curious.

 

[Atticus]

So far History of Western Philosophy seems very readable and got an endorsement by Einstein, who read A Critique of Pure Reason by age nine.

You know, if someone read A Critique of Pure Reason at the age of nine, that is not a reason to heed his recommendations on introductory reading. Quite the opposite!

It's true that Russell's book is time to time fun to read etc., but that is with cost: you can never tell whether he is telling some anecdote just because it's funny, or if it's true. On the philosophical matters, the text is (iirc) written through and through from his own point of view. Thus, he says for example that Hegel thought nothing of worth (iirc), and while that may be true, you'd want to read a more sympathetic account of Hegel's thoughts first.

What should you read, I'd go with what Lovett says, I don't consider myself qualified to give better hints. (What I write above about Russell is pretty much evident from his text itself).

 

[Mouthwash]

"Think" doesn't seem very thorough, though. At least, not as much as I'd been hoping.

 

[Perfection]

What is the meaning of life?

 

[Mise]

You asked, "what is the meaning of life". Siri has found (1) result. Here is the meaning of "life":

life (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)
1.
a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
b. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
2. Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.
4. The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.
5.
a. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.
b. The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.
c. A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.
d. The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
e. Slang A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
6. The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car.
7. A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death.
8. An account of a person's life; a biography.
9. Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life; everyday life.
10.
a. A manner of living: led a hard life.
b. A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate objects: "Great institutions seem to have a life of their own, independent of those who run them" (New Republic).
c. The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical life in New York.
11.
a. A source of vitality; an animating force: She's the life of the show.
b. Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life.
12.
a. Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist: painted from life.
b. Actual environment or reality; nature.
adj.
1. Of or relating to animate existence; involved in or necessary for living: life processes.
2. Continuing for a lifetime; lifelong: life partner; life imprisonment.
3. Using a living model as a subject for an artist: a life sculpture.

 

[Borachio]

What is "meaning"?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I'm only a philosophy student (I passed First Year this year), but as far as I can tell to talk about anything have a "meaning" in the way used is incoherent. Individuals can have intentions in their actions, but what could a "grand meaning" mean? If what is meant is the purpose for which life is created, it is either genetics or no meaning whatsoever depending on what precisely you mean by meaning.

 

[aelf]

What is "meaning"?

Probably the most straightforward cited answer in this thread.

There are two ways in which the term ‘meaning’ is typically used: (1) “What someone means to say or do”, and (2) “what that which is said, written or done means” (Giddens, 1979: 44).

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

(Of course, this is assuming that you want the practical definition of meaning and not the dictionary definition)