History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Masada]

I actually wanted to put forward Nassim Nicholas Taleb as well

Dude doesn't really write philosophy.

 

[Tahuti]

Dude doesn't really write philosophy.

That wouldn't preclude him from being a philosopher, now would it? Though frankly, I also disagree with your assertion that he 'doesn't really write philosophy'.

 

[Masada]

Provide some examples. Most of his work is quite firmly grounded in the intersection between finance and economics. Really, his contributions in those fields aren't even original.

 

[Plotinus]

I actually wanted to put forward Nassim Nicholas Taleb as well. I think Alain de Botton, together with Nassim Taleb somehow represent a strain in philosophy distinct from both Continental and Analytical philosophy, yet influenced by both by a small degree. Both men are actually hostile to reductionism analytical philosophy is accused of, yet without embracing any of the traditional continental schools like postmodernism, structuralism, existentialism etc. Actually, Nassim is pretty hostile to Postmodernism as well.

I don't know about Nassim. But it's perfectly possible to be an analytic philosopher without supporting "reductionism" (whatever that is - no two people seem to use the word to mean the same thing). Analytic philosophy is a method rather than any set of doctrines, I think.

There was plenty of crossovering between (Analytical) Wittgenstein and (Continental) Nietzsche. So, it the distinction may indeed have been a false dichotomy for starters. Though Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore would arguably be the quintessential 'stereotypical' analytic philosophers. Pretty much all other so-called analytical philosophers are to some degree indebted to continental philosophers and vice versa.

In what way? I see precious little citation of continental philosophers in analytic philosophy. I see far, far more citation of continental philosophers in theology! Indeed continental philosophy seems to my untrained eyes to be basically the same thing as theology, but without God. When contemporary theologians talk about "philosophy" they almost always mean continental philosophy and typically have virtually no knowledge of analytic philosophy. This irritates me since it means they all assume that because I'm a philosopher I must know about continental philosophy.

I'm sure it's possible to point to some individuals who draw on both traditions, but I don't think that that changes the fact that, for the most part, the two traditions are quite distinct and don't really engage with each other.

Because history is able to provide certainty philosophy can't, wouldn't you say history would be an excellent tool for philosophy?

Well, not really, because the discipline of history has developed tools that can provide certainty (for some value of "certainty") only in answering historical questions. They can't be used to answer philosophical questions. We can, for example, assess the evidence to decide whether Caesar conquered Gaul, but there's no way to apply this method to decide whether there are moral facts or whether the mind necessarily supervenes on the body.

There are various methods that different disciplines have developed to answer questions in those disciplines such that they are beyond reasonable doubt. This applies not just to history but to science and mathematics, and perhaps other areas too. Philosophy is, pretty much by definition, the study of problems for which none of these methods works satisfactorily.

 

[Traitorfish]

Subordination doesn't mean it has to be used all the time. Analytical philosophy arguably deals with the kind of subject matter that doesn't rely need to rely on history, so that may be thee exception. It is a really big thing for Continental philosophy though.

There's areas of mutual interest, there, sure, but not enough or of a kind that it would make sense to advocate for "subordination". Philosophers can provide useful tools for historians to work with, and historians can provide useful material for philosophers to develop their tools on, but neither actually precedes the other as an academic discipline.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Did the Kulturcampf succeed in eliminating (or to the very least, limit it) Catholic influences in Germany?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, it was pretty much a resounding failure. The Catholic subculture became if anything more entrenched as liberalisers and traditionalists found a common opponent in the Prussian state, and mutual repression lead Catholic Germans in the West to seek political alliances with Polish nationalists in the East, generally with the support of the predominantly Catholic South German states like Bavaria, which fell outside of the policies. Meanwhile, socialists and liberals took advantage of the rhetoric to pursue secularising and anti-clerical measures at the local level, which was hardly what the devoutly Protestant Bismarck had intended. The program ended up become a greater threat to the German imperial project then the ultramontane bogeymen had ever been, and it took Bismarck a decade of anti-socialist and anti-Polish persecutions to get the Catholic elite back on side.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What's the word for someone from Antioch?

 

[Phrossack]

What's the word for someone from Antioch?

I believe it's "Antiochene." Also "Antiochian" or "Antiochan."

 

[GamezRule]

What position(s) was considered the the "Head of State" and "Head of Government" of the United States during the Articles of Confederation era?

 

[Louis XXIV]

There really wasn't one. You could go with the President of Congress, but it was about as strong as Speaker of the House if even that. You could go with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, which at least had to be the face of the nation for foreign states.

But there's certainly nothing that fits Head of Government and essentially nothing that fits Head of State. I think the modern European Union has something that fits those positions more carefully, but the analogy would be closer there.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why are Europe and Asia considered two separate continents? Just call it Eurasia and keep the term "Europe" as a geocultural region, for convenience's sake. Seems a bit racist to me.

 

[GamezRule]

Mountain ranges and water and geography isn't racist.

 

[Mouthwash]

Mountain ranges and water and geography isn't racist.

Mountain ranges and water and geographic support a united Eurasian continent.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Why are Europe and Asia considered two separate continents? Just call it Eurasia and keep the term "Europe" as a geocultural region, for convenience's sake. Seems a bit racist to me.

And no Africa?

 

[Tee Kay]

Why are Europe and Asia considered two separate continents? Just call it Eurasia and keep the term "Europe" as a geocultural region, for convenience's sake. Seems a bit racist to me.

The Ancient Greeks thought they were different continents so we inherited that idea.

 

[schlaufuchs]

The Ancient Greeks thought they were different continents so we inherited that idea.

Also "continent" is an extremely arbitrary concept to begin with, at least in the contexts we generally use it. You're free to use whichever definition you want, so long as you let us know which you're using before you use it.

 

[Masada]

Mountain ranges and water and geography isn't racist.

People had to choose which mountain ranges and water bodies to preference over others. Africa for example joins the Middle East without the benefit of either. The Urals which are often used to divide European Russian from Asian Russia... are hills at their southernmost extent extent. And that's just the start. Why do we draw the line at the Urals? Why not the Alps? Why do we accept the Caucasus delineate the extent of European Russia in the south? Why not the Himalayas? Now you might say, ahhh, but one is larger/higher than the other but that begs the question why does that even matter? Why is it that the Alps which a lot of mountains higher than the highest peak in the Urals isn't used to delineate a continent? And so forth. The questions are endless. Now this doesn't mean that I think that the idea of continents is racist because, well, the Greeks dreamed up the things long before racism was a thing. But that doesn't preclude our current continental borders or conceptions of continents being racially tinged.

 

[Agent327]

Wow, you got some strange issues going on in your head...

 

[Masada]

Please elaborate.