Only French philosophy, the historicized method of the study of relationships and power, is worth a damn.
This is perhaps a little bit off topic, I’m not informed enough to decide for myself whether I agree with your statement or not.
But, I kinda get the feeling that there’s no humanistic/social tradition at all in British/American philosophy. Which if true would kinda get me on the side of your statement if we can replace French for continental European.
Does anybody have examples of British humanistic/social philosophers?
American Pragmatism from Emerson to Putnam
hermes, is this just an overcompensatory reaction to whitelotus, or are you serious?
If you’re serious, then please define “worth” and quantify “a damn” for me.
Let’s hear it for the French! Gilson! Maritain! and the 13th century University of Paris!
<<Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.
-Hume>>
It is at this point at which the listener turns to Hume and says, “Isn’t that a little unreasonable?”
I have a hunch that this thread isn’t about medieval philosophy…or about Hume for that matter. But since I have no real clue what it IS about, I guess I can’t say it’s off-topic to talk about my sig…
Hume is making a point about practical rationality, and practical rationality is (for him) a question about means, not ends. He’s saying we can’t choose, ultimately, what we value.
I actually disagree Hume on this point, but it makes a heluva signature.
I posted an essay discussing this question here.
I disagree
Boethius will always be the the man.
Logo:
<<I have a hunch that this thread isn’t about medieval philosophy…or about Hume for that matter. But since I have no real clue what it IS about, I guess I can’t say it’s off-topic to talk about my sig… >>
Yes, i was going tangent to topic. I think they were talking about thinkers like Foucault – of whom I know next to nothing. I thought the (Neo-) Scholastics were/are fairly (religious-) humanist and social in their philosophy. I was just trying to be ironic.
<<Hume is making a point about practical rationality, and practical rationality is (for him) a question about means, not ends. He’s saying we can’t choose, ultimately, what we value.
I actually disagree Hume on this point, but it makes a heluva signature. >>
Sounds like the differings between Aquinas and Scotus on whether we choose our ends (Scotus) or only the means (Aquinas).
Krashash:
Wow! A fellow Boethius-lover online! Last of the Claassicals, first of the Medievals!
All:
Okay, I’ve hijacked this topic long enough. You were speaking about the modern/post-modern French humanistic/social tradition?
Boethius Rocks. I went to a Jesuit university and for the semester of Medieval Philosophy we went around asking What Would Boethius Do?
yeah especially structuralism and post structuralism Yea Clastres yea Deleuze
derrida and deleuze and all the other post-structuralists aren’t worth a damn, hermes.
curse you, and curse your francophilic tendencies.
although i won’t hear a word said against dear foucault.
are you discrediting the great socrates, Aristotle, and Plato? or perhaps you dont consider wittgenstein and Nietcsche worth a mention? Russel doesn’t do it for ya?
may ninjas slice your spleen and release the black bile!!!
yeahhh boethius! almost forgot about him. i liked his stuff… i went to a catholic college (saint anselm college) which was heavy on the medieval. oh, wait …YES FRENCH PHILOSOPHY WILL CRUSH ALL OTHER PHILOSOPHICAL REALMS! IT IS INDEED SUPERIOR!
maybe i’m just saying that because of my french ancestry… but i really do have an special sort of affinity for the frenchies. honestly, i do. AND MY FRENCH BRETHREN AND I SHALL DOMINATE THE MINDS OF MEN ACROSS THE GLOBE!
I’m sorry, but I can’t think of a single French philosopher who was not very mistaken in one way or another. Maybe Pierre Duhem…but he was more of a physicist.
From Descartes to Sartre to Derrida…all full of crap (actually I really do like Foulcaut, but I don’t consider him a philosopher). And yet, all of them are absolutely fascinating to read. So if “worth a damn” means “interesting but wrong” then I’m on board.
This I agree with (minus Plato). Long live British Empiricism.
…and French wine.
Are these the same French social philosophers who taught Pol Pot in Paris??
Probably not, as Pot went to Paris on what amounted to an engineering degree. Also, Pot was in Paris from ‘49 to ‘53, just before structuralism was becoming a force in the French university. Nope, Pol Pot’s genocidal tendencies are probably best expressed, like all communist atrocities, as an indigenous sub-structure underlying a Marxist superstructure. Stalin is best understood in terms Of Russian History, not Marxist synchrony. Mao is best understood in terms of cyclical Chinese History, not Leninist theory.
So, who’s worse Stalin or Mao? I tend to think Stalin as Mao killed people off primarily because he was a hairbrained numbnuts peasant poet with no critical advisors who came up with wacko ideas that wreaked havoc unopposed. Stalin, Well he called his 80 year Old mother a whore, so obviously he’s got some things gon’ on, ya’ know ?
sighs
No one is ever into the Eastern philosophers these days
PS: Stalin was much worst than Mao for numerous reasons
Except for Dr Seuss. Ahh the daoist Wisdom of Dr Seuss.
I think therefore I am. Ah, yes. I love the French philosophy. But I can’t stand the French.
Of course, I wasn’t referring to Descartes or his goofy god dependent thinking.
I’m planning on moving to France just to take part in the philosophical and political debate over there. The left-wing climate in politics and the secular enviroment sure make it an interesting country (in debate climate). I think it would be enervating to debate in the US, where people are blindfolded by capitalistic and rightwinged christianity.