Any philosophers on /sci/? Is it just me or is the whole tradition

At least they're not as retarded as "analytic philosophers"

>>8022585
Most modern-day philosophers and sociologists delve into the realm of culture (dealing with ideologies and power-structures, etc.) while science delves into the realm of studying nature. There needs to be a dichotomy when discussing these things.

Sartre simply says that there is no pre-set meaning to existence and that life is absurd by nature. Sartre believed that since we were not bound to any theological deity, we were free. Foucault then came along and said that people weren't free because they were situated in oppressive power systems of control, which are ultimately ruled by a elite sector of society (See C. Wright Mills book The Power Elite for more). Heidegger took an Taoist approach and said that (in the realm of modern-day society into which people are thrown into) we loose sight of what it is to actual "Be". We confuse our culture with reality, falling victim to the latest trends and fashions, etc. Debord later talked about this from a Marxist perspective, showing how society was nothing more than a spectacle mediated by Images (i.e., appearances). If you want more on how people use images to portray their so-called "self," read Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

I will leave a short summation of Derrida in the next post for you since I'm running out of space. Just remember, Derrida's philosophy works well in cultural systems since words can have multiple definitions, where people defer meaning between them, thus constructing something similar to a Wittgensteinian "language game." To be brief, according to Wittgenstein, since people come from different cultures, they will always misinterpret each other even if they speak the same language and use the same words (since those words have varying meanings due to the contextual difference in setting). Hence his statement: "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him."

>>8022735
Here is a short summation of Derrida for you:

You Can (Not) Interpret

Structuralism sought to explain what the elements of human culture were by analyzing the structures surrounding those cultures. Ultimately, language is the structure of culture (i.e., culture is socially-constructed by language). However, Post-Structuralism argues that language, in and of itself, has a dichotomous contradiction. Simply stated, words can be "ambivalent," as Derrida pointed out, showing how meaning could be deferred by these embedded differences (i.e., "differance"). In other words, we can't understand cultures by interpreting their language since the language itself is (1) open to interpretation and (2) contradictory to itself by nature. Like combining matter and anti-matter (or like mixing yin with yang), words nullify their own existence. This is "deconstructionism." Each word is like this. You can interpret a word as being matter or you can interpret it as anti-matter. But this would only be a result of you seeing one side of a two-sided coin. You can interpret the text anyway you want. However, you must also understand that when you see both sides of the same coin (the matter and anti-mater), they conflict with each other. Thus, you will have two different interpretations that are each other's exact opposite. This makes interpretation rather pointless and futile since the different interpretations cancel each other out, destroying and quashing the concept of interpretation altogether. Restated: interpretation is only an end result of seeing one side of a two-sided word. Furthermore, the ambivalence of a word nullifies our ability to interpret anything.

File: karl-popper.jpg (89KB, 770x1000px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 770x1000px

>>8022668

>>8022735
>There needs to be a dichotomy when discussing these things.

OP here. I think this is my central problem with the continental tradition. I am just not convinced that this statement is true.

I can subscribe to some of the phenomenology of Husserl. But starting with Heidegger and later with movements like structuralism, post-structuralism, and critical theory, all these frameworks seem to rely on the premise that reality is either personal to each individual or that reality is a social construct.

I don't see this approach as being particularly useful since it doesn't seem give me knowledge that allows me to predict the world or do things in the world -- which is ironic since "being in the world" is something that is important to Heidegger.

Of course, these people will argue that that utility is not point, but I then don't understand what is the point. Why even do philosophy if you can't say anything about anything and have it be meaningful in relation to reality or other people?

The other problem I have is of course that the language these philosophers use is completely ridiculous and incomprehensible. I guess Derrida is kind of doing this on purpose to make a point, but I feel like he could have made the same point without making it impossible for people to read his stuff. I dont know, I just don't get either their methodology for doing philosophy or their goals.

Leave this place non STEM scum

>>>/x/

>>8023182
pleb detected

>>8023159
>Why even do philosophy if you can't say anything about anything and have it be meaningful in relation to reality or other people?

1of 2

Philosophy deconstructs ideologies. It shows people that their motivations and meanings in life are completely artificial. The planet is an impartial place and nature is decidedly indifferent. It's why philosophers laugh at STEM people or business people (or any other person) when they brag and boast about said accomplishments (i.e., "look at all the money I make"; "look at my status and position"; "look at all these complex equations I can derive because I’m super smart, pleb"; etc.). To the continental philosopher, there are no real accomplishments in life. All meaning is just used as status symbols in order for people to gain symbolic power over others. Unknown to these people, in the Marxist sense, they are essentially doing what the systems wants them to without them even being aware of it. Conform and assimilate to the norms of the social system and you will be socially rewarded and accepted. Deviate from them and you will be negatively reinforced and outcast. It's herd mentality in the strictest sense.

>>8023548
2 of 2

In other words, in order to make meaning, one must interpret some kind of constructed beliefs to be true. It's an illusion in the strictest sense. And those who believe in illusions make their lives into lies. philosophers kind of find it ironic when they see so many science people (who study nature) make so much meaning out of their accomplishments and brag about every chance they can. Scientists should be the first people to see and understand how the meaning they make has nothing to do with nature itself.

Why do philosophy? Why do science? As a Zen monk might ask: "Why do you desire?" Ultimately, there is no reason to do anything. Still, it's boring staring at a brick wall all day long. People, by their nature, are inquisitive. As such, they ask questions and seek out solutions to problems they are presented with. Still, to make meaning in such a thing is rather egocentric: a Stirnerian spook.

>>8023159
>>There needs to be a dichotomy when discussing these things.
>OP here. I think this is my central problem with the continental tradition. I am just not convinced that this statement is true.

Philosophy and sociology studies society and people, which are prejudiced and subjective.

Science studies impartial and objective nature.

Hence we cannot study both using the same means.

Herbert Blumer stated that when we try to use positivist ways of understanding social structures (when we try to objectively study subjectivity), we are no longer doing actual science since we are mixing objectivity with subjectivity. In other words, it is impossible to not be biased or prejudiced in some sense.

From Wiki:

Following this logic, Blumer discounted social research that blindly applies methods that have been traditionally used in the natural sciences. Such quantitative, objective analysis, he argued, does not acknowledge the difference between humans and animals – specifically the difference in cognitive ability to consciously entertain opinions and to apply meanings to objects, both which enables humans to take an active role in shaping their world.[28] Because society is composed of interactions between individuals or "joint actions/transactions",[29] the only empirical reality is that which stems from human interaction. Therefore, contextual understanding of human action is intrinsic to valid social research.

>>8023581
What are the alternatives to positivism and why are they better?

The great success of empiricism/science is that it's given us useful knowledge that enables things like us being able to communicate over electromagnetic signals on this thing called the internet. It's not clear to me that the same methodologies should not be applied to studying people or societies.

I feel like there is a burden on any proposed alternative methodologies to argue for why they are valid methods of inquiry and why they should be used. For example, a concept in structuralism is "binary opposition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_opposition), which is supposedly a way to look at and understand things. But I don't see any effort from the advocates of this method to explain why it is valid from an epistemological standpoint. They only describe what it is and then proceed to cherry-pick examples that reinforce their ideological beliefs--which again is ironic since it seems like one of their goals (and later of deconstruction) is to tear down ideology.

Contrast this to the scientific method, where people like Bacon, Hume, Mill, Popper, Kolmogorov, etc have written extensively on the method itself and why one should/should not use it.

File: 1458859545491s.jpg (3KB, 122x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 122x125px

>>8023551
people, by their nature, are stoned, fur-less, bipedal apes with more complicated tongues and social hierarchies.

philosophy is the science of this.

so fucking anti-meta.

>>8022585
why do people insist on discussing philosophical ideas on /sci/

there are other boards for this stuff

Post-structuralism is dead.
Long live arbitrary mysticism!

>>8023805
Because at some point in the past science and philosophy both had the same goal: knowledge. This is why so many scientists were also great philosophers (Descartes, Leibniz, Bacon, maybe Newton).

It's not clear to me that this is still the goal of branches of philosophy these days.

>>8023850
yes but their methods aren't the same at all
discussing nonempirical, nonmath ideas on this board is stupid

also, you don't know shit about current phil

>his ideas aren't just complete bullshit he pulled out of his ass?

You just described philosophy right there. It's just common sense, it isn't a science, it doesn't have to be subjected to the scientific method... philosophy is just random shit

>>8023870
>it isn't a science
no shit lol
> it doesn't have to be subjected to the scientific method
the "scientific method" as such is an epistemological framework for the finding of empirical evidence

also it's so ironic that you try and do an attempt at demarcation and claim that philosophy can't acquire knowledge and it makes me a bit sad you'll never understand why

>>8023810
No, we must Neotraditionalism.

>>8022585
>>8022668
There is no such thing as "continental" and "analytic" philosophy. Nobody important ever described themselves as being a part of either "tradition". It's entirely the business of irrelevant philosophy students who don't think for themselves, but simply accumulate labels.

>>8023850

logic is a branch of philosophy. do you not understand what the goal of logic is?

>>8022741
>Here is a short summation of Derrida for you:
An even shorter summary: "Derrida is dead".
Post modernism is dead and it smells. We now need post post modernism.

>>8023805
>why do people insist on discussing philosophical ideas on /sci/
The problem is of course that real science suffers because pomo like stuff such as gender studies drain important funding away from real work. to destroy your enemy we must first understand the enemy, the pomo.