Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

If I learn Continental philosophy...

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 10:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
...will I start speaking in a pretentiously worded, sesquipedalian manner, especially when lecturing mere mortals on their logical fallacies?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:14:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the same way that if you learn analytical philosophy, you'll need to buy a new keyboard in order to represent all your argument in the form of mathematic symbols rather than words to make things just as inaccessible ;)

There's loads of friendly jokes between the two, and they get quite funny :P
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:14:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In the same way that if you learn analytical philosophy, you'll need to buy a new keyboard in order to represent all your argument in the form of mathematic symbols rather than words to make things just as inaccessible ;)

There's loads of friendly jokes between the two, and they get quite funny :P
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 2:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Synthesize the two and what do we get? "Let X atomically quantify a predicate on a Body Without Organs (assume it is an other-other extrabeing)..."
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 4:47:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 10:44:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
...will I start speaking in a pretentiously worded, sesquipedalian manner, especially when lecturing mere mortals on their logical fallacies?

haha, I guess it would depend if it makes an impression on you. Frankly, some of the best writers are from the continental tradition...certainly Nietzsche is up there and I remember really liking Schopenhauer's writing.

However, the style that I really try and emulate in my philosophical work is definitely more analytic and I've personally fallen in love with Anscombe's writing.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

So Continentals actually speak like this or not?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 5:41:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

So Continentals actually speak like this or not?

That isn't a Continental idea, that's a relatively simple idea. In fact, it's easier expressable in analytical terms. It could plausibly have continental basings (Lacanian or postmodernism could have its roots in there) but it it can be simplified easily to:

"The success of instrumentalism does not justify instrumentalism. It is circular to justify a meta-epistemological position by using evidence that is only considered evidence inside that epistemological model. Or, only if we assume instrumentalism or a similar unjustified epistemological model does induction reliably tell us truth or falsehood of propositions."

Which is a simplification. No term there (instrumentalism; epistemological; meta; circular) is one that is awkward to use in philosophy. It'd be like reading a piece in psychology on liminal states. There'd be terminology there to express what is a complex idea in philosophy.

Something continental:

There is a somewhat analogous situation with regard to the heterosexual seduction procedure in our Politically Correct times: the two sets, the set of PC behaviour and the set of seduction, do not actually intersect anywhere; that is, there is no seduction which is not in a way an "incorrect" intrusion or harassment " at some point, one has to expose oneself and "make a pass." So does this mean that every seduction is incorrect harassment through and through? No, and that is the catch: when you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner), and she decides retroactively, by her reaction, whether what you have just done was harassment or a successful act of seduction " and there is no way to tell in advance what her reaction will be. This is why assertive women often despise "weak" men " because they fear to expose themselves, to take the necessary risk. And perhaps this is even more true in our PC times: are not PC prohibitions rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process? Is not the seducer"s art to accomplish this violation properly " so that afterwards, by its acceptance, its harassing aspect will be retroactively cancelled?

Or, a shorter piece of Continental Philosophy: "We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom."

Continental Philosophy is chided (and in my opinion rightly so) for its misuse of words in order to make a point. The point when reading through it makes sense, but really it is a lot of words that do not say anything. The shorter quotation makes this evident.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:01:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

So Continentals actually speak like this or not?

I guess so; the quote above is nonsense but you'll find nonsense from analytic and continentals alike.

Continentals can be much more obscure than the above quote. I think I was able to understand it by reading it over a few times but you simply don't have that luxury with some of the continentals (Hegel, I'm thinking of you.)
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply description of confirmation bias.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:06:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply description of confirmation bias.

I think he's just being sophistical.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:10:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:06:39 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply description of confirmation bias.

I think he's just being sophistical.

Maybe we just don't understand how inductive reasoning works.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 7:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:10:48 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:06:39 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply description of confirmation bias.

I think he's just being sophistical.

Maybe we just don't understand how inductive reasoning works.

lol ok.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 1:45:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply description of confirmation bias.

It is. I'm just referring to the way it is worded.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:15:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 1:45:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply a description of confirmation bias.

It is. I'm just referring to the way it is worded.

And you're right to raise an eyebrow over it; nothing really gets done philosophically when those language choices are made.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:19:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:15:17 AM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 1:45:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply a description of confirmation bias.

It is. I'm just referring to the way it is worded.

And you're right to raise an eyebrow over it; nothing really gets done philosophically when those language choices are made.
Odd, it seems perfectly comprehensible to me though there is something odd going on in the middle. But then I guess it all depends on background. Anybody want to have a crack at rewording it to get the same concept across in a more accessible manner so I can see the difference?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:28:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:19:31 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:15:17 AM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 1:45:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply a description of confirmation bias.

It is. I'm just referring to the way it is worded.

And you're right to raise an eyebrow over it; nothing really gets done philosophically when those language choices are made.
Odd, it seems perfectly comprehensible to me though there is something odd going on in the middle. But then I guess it all depends on background. Anybody want to have a crack at rewording it to get the same concept across in a more accessible manner so I can see the difference?

It is comprehensible, just needlessly cumbersome and inelegant. Here's my attempt:

"To selectively recognize only those things which favor an explanation is to protect that explanation from really being one at all."
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:35:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:28:41 AM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:19:31 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:15:17 AM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 1:45:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply a description of confirmation bias.

It is. I'm just referring to the way it is worded.

And you're right to raise an eyebrow over it; nothing really gets done philosophically when those language choices are made.
Odd, it seems perfectly comprehensible to me though there is something odd going on in the middle. But then I guess it all depends on background. Anybody want to have a crack at rewording it to get the same concept across in a more accessible manner so I can see the difference?

It is comprehensible, just needlessly cumbersome and inelegant. Here's my attempt:

"To selectively recognize only those things which favor an explanation is to protect that explanation from really being one at all."

Hmm, I feel like that is still missing something, maybe I'll have a go at it myself in a bit.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:40:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:35:35 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:28:41 AM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:19:31 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 7/25/2013 2:15:17 AM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/25/2013 1:45:05 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 7/24/2013 7:04:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

If we're interpreting the passage, I think this is simply a description of confirmation bias.

It is. I'm just referring to the way it is worded.

And you're right to raise an eyebrow over it; nothing really gets done philosophically when those language choices are made.
Odd, it seems perfectly comprehensible to me though there is something odd going on in the middle. But then I guess it all depends on background. Anybody want to have a crack at rewording it to get the same concept across in a more accessible manner so I can see the difference?

It is comprehensible, just needlessly cumbersome and inelegant. Here's my attempt:

"To selectively recognize only those things which favor an explanation is to protect that explanation from really being one at all."

Hmm, I feel like that is still missing something, maybe I'll have a go at it myself in a bit.

I suppose the point was to be suggestive, not exhaustive; something able to be said in a single breath and passable as a conversational utterance (hence, "accessible").
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 2:46:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 2:40:39 AM, Poetaster wrote:
I suppose the point was to be suggestive, not exhaustive; something able to be said in a single breath and passable as a conversational utterance (hence, "accessible").
Understood.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:01:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 10:44:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
...will I start speaking in a pretentiously worded, sesquipedalian manner, especially when lecturing mere mortals on their logical fallacies?

Don't worry. You won't learn Continental philosophy so I wouldn't worry about it.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:05:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

So Continentals actually speak like this or not?

I don't know if that's actually Continental. It just looks like a worst way of critiquing circular reasoning lol.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 12:11:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:05:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/24/2013 5:19:46 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
This quote inspired the thread: "I don't think you understand how inductive reasoning works. That you chose to presume something is real, and find in your observations realities which appear coherent with that presumed reality, is not evidence that the thing is itself real. You say that you observe certain phenomena and in them find your idea of the nation reflect back to you, but nowhere in that is the reality of the nation actually suggested, any more than a Christian's personal experience of divinity in worship suggests the reality of that divinity."

So Continentals actually speak like this or not?

I don't know if that's actually Continental. It just looks like a wordy way of critiquing circular reasoning lol.

Fixd
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 8:07:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:01:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:44:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
...will I start speaking in a pretentiously worded, sesquipedalian manner, especially when lecturing mere mortals on their logical fallacies?

Don't worry. You won't learn Continental philosophy so I wouldn't worry about it.

Why not? I could if I pleased.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 3:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 8:07:10 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:01:09 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/24/2013 10:44:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
...will I start speaking in a pretentiously worded, sesquipedalian manner, especially when lecturing mere mortals on their logical fallacies?

Don't worry. You won't learn Continental philosophy so I wouldn't worry about it.

Why not? I could if I pleased.

Given yer OP it doesn't look like you would like it. Which is a shame.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 7:04:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 10:44:16 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
...will I start speaking in a pretentiously worded, sesquipedalian manner, especially when lecturing mere mortals on their logical fallacies?

Yes, and you will always need to be ebullient and loquacious whenever you use the word sesquipedalian.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater