/ Forum > ILovePhilosophy > Philosophy Forums > Philosophy /
/ Forum > Yahoo! Answers > Arts & Humanities > Philosophy /
/ Topic > More Foundations of pomo-Philosophy / 24Dec09 /
.
] J.P. asks: What are the epistemological foundations of
] postmodern philosophy? . . .
.
tx reply: Say, wouldn’t ‘Truth and Method’ by Hans-Georg Gadamer
count as a foundation? Epistemological or postmodern or otherwise?
It is a very big book. Even a very big philosophical book with a ‘hard
to get your mind around’ biggness to it. So that’s fine, but on the
whole, I think the emphasis on hermeneutics is altogether rational
and sensible … despite the more generally senseless talk that is
such a large part of modern and/or post-modern philosophy …
(actually, I prefer to call current philosophical movements 21C-
philosophy; part of which is popular-philosophy, pop-phil for twitter).
.
Thus if the professional (ie. “scientific”) philosopher is happy to
dismiss and ignore other philosophers because of their lack of
adequate epistemological foundations, well then I am perfectly
happy to ignore their advice to drop everything at once, and
get to building some adequate epistemological foundations …
and for pete’s sake hurry up already!
.
Nor am I entirely happy with t.t’s statement that: “Nihilism is the
child of existentialism and skepticism.” I would rather say that
skepticism is far more responsible for philosophical nihilism than
existentialism is. True, existentialism CAN be made to serve a
negative and value-less attitude and world-view; but it can also
be used to serve a positive and worthy mind-set … but only
when existentialism is being rightly treated (eg. as when Sartre,
Kafka, Camus, those damn 19C russkies, etc etc, are NOT the
best and only masters).
.
And in any case, megalomania is quite right; blueprints are neither
essential nor required. What IS required is an equal respect for
logic and reason … for it sometimes happens that what appears
to be logical and scientific and rhetorically just-so is not thereby also
rational and reasonable. “Live long and prosper” advocates many
perhaps “unfounded” values, but it clearly does not promote logic
as an infallible guide to life and all things philosophical. Check it out.
.
] J.P.: … the whole of the freethinker movement …
.
tx: That’s a mighty interesting phrase you gots there, jp . . . 
.
Also remember that the world-wide-web removes from philosophers
any excuse for not reaching out and touching someone. Insofar
as the web promotes and encourages authentic human dialogue,
philosophers have the opportunity to engage many others (even
non-philosophers) with the reality and purpose of philosophy. This,
of course, requires a temporary departure from the philosophy-as-
analysis approach to life and its ideas; which admittedly is difficult
for the philosopher who considers philosophy as more or less
confined to a systematic building of very important and very
significant ideas . . .
.
But Socrates was not like that. He went out, he reached out, and
he touched other hearts and minds with his endlessly persistent
and annoying questions. He knew that philosophy is more than
just logic and analysis; it also included method (ie. dialogue,
engagement, interaction on many levels) and purpose (ie.
curiosity, the thirst for wisdom, the drive for knowledge and its
application (eg. technology), etc. Here analysis is just another
tool in the philosopher’s handbag, and surely NOT the alpha
and omega of philosophy.
.
So I am more interested in the practice of philosophy than with
the “theory” of philosophy. Like Socrates, we are of the opinion
that philosophy consists of both questions and answers in equal
measure. The scientific-type of philosophers are far too focused
on the answers side of things. Or perhaps I should say that they
are busy brooding over the logical-fact that there are no real
answers with any real substance, longevity, and absoluteness
to them … right? So why even bother.
.
Perhaps the scientist-philosophers have forgotten that Socrates is
the one who shows everyone who and what a philosopher really
is. He is the one who demonstrates how a philosopher should live
his philosophy, how and why a philosopher teaches philosophy
(and who he teaches), and that - in practice - philosophy is chiefly
being the quest for wisdom. Thus the necessity for engagement
and dialogue. Thus also the need for questions as well as answers.
.
Therefore 21C-Philosophy - at least from the viewpoint of the
sociology of knowledge - is very much a public and collaborative
effort and enterprise. In other words, sociology is most definitely
a vital foundation for the so-called “post-modern” philosophy. How
far, and to what extent this is also an epistemological foundation
may or may not be immediately obvious. In any case, I would
suggest that the science called sociology-of-knowledge must have
considerable relevance to “epistemological foundations” in general;
and most certainly to the almost desperate need for them.
.
- the not-entirely focused one - textman ;>
.
P.S. Philosophy is not a noun, which is to say that it is not a
thing; but rather it is a verb, which is to say that philosophy
is an action, a process, an ongoing and original event!
Yes, this is exactly what the historian sees, and rightly so.
x