25 Sep 2022 08:30 - 17 Jun 2023 08:29
Open in Logseq
    • Most philosophy strikes me as amazingly wrongheaded and I can't bear to read it. OTOH, there are exceptions, philosophical writing that is clarifying (Dennett, Andy Clark, that sort, those that are basically theoretical cognitive scientists) or bracing/dizzying (Nietzsche, Deleuze, Sloterdijk). These don't feel like they should be the same field, to be honest, and I certainly read them with completely different sets of motivations and expectations. But they are both better than the kind of dreary analytic philosophy which is the default in the English-language world.
    • I came by my anti-philosophy stance at MIT, of course, where the standard line was that AI and cybernetics had rendered all past philosophical discourse obsolete and irrelevant. This was not quite the case (See Heideggerian AI , and Phil Agre on AI's contempt for philosophy The Soul Gained and Lost )
    • What got me through that period was conceiving the history of philosophy as a kind of ass-fuck, or what amounts to the same thing, an immaculate conception. I imagined myself approaching an author from behind and giving him a child that would indeed be his but would nonetheless be monstrous.
      • – Deleuze
    • Hanno Sauer, The end of history (via WS Discord where it is being roundly mocked):
      • Not so much anti-philosophy, but against the study of the history of philosophy ideas.
      • An example of meta-philosophy? It does, at least, engage directly with the question of what the actual goals of philosophizing are.
      • I think the fundamental question is whether philosophy is more like art (literature) or more like science. In the former case – well, nobody thinks that art automatically gets better over historical time. Modern art is not better than classical art, it's just different, and nobody finds it wrong to read classics that are thousands of years old. If philosophy is more like science though – a body of knowledge, not just a body of work – then it should indeed improve with time as new discoveries are made, and the knowledge should be detached from the names of the original discoverers – as he says, we don't read Newton to understand Newton's Laws.
      • My own opinion is that philosophy really is more like literature, but it has pretensions to science which trip it up (especially true for analytic philosophers; the continentals seems to know they are doing something more like literature or performance art).