Hugo Holbling

Jacques Derrida is castigated by some for being too playful and not systematizing his ideas. Richard Rorty claims that much criticism of his views arises from a feeling that he has "let the side down", not taking metaphysics seriously enough. On the other hand, complaints are often heard that Hegel is too obtuse and difficult to read.

I'm interested to hear the opinions of fellow denizens of this forum as to how philosophy should (or shouldn't) be done. Postmodern frivolity or lack of depth? Should fiery rhetoric be left to the politicians or does it have its place in hard thinking? Ought we to pare our musings down in the interests of precision, or shall we let rambling metaphors abound?

Please don't bother complaining that i've set up some kind of false dichotomy, or suppose that i'm asking for a rigorous definition of how philosophy ought to proceed, from here on in; i just want your opinions. Do you despair at talk of ontology, epistemology and hermeneutics, or do you tune out whenever sparks fly between combatants?

For myself, i'd like to think that philosophy with a hammer and a funny-bone is okay with you, but i doubt if everyone sees it that way. Your thoughts, please!

(Bill: Please don't move this to Miscellaneous Discussions, or somewhere else; my guess is that this forum is where most philosophers or wannabe thinkers will see it. :notworthy )

Keith Russell

Hugo:

I don't think we judge philosophy itself by how philosophers 'do' philosophy, but I do think we should judge the philosophers by how they 'do' it.

Anyone who has Internet access to this forum, has access to on-line dictionaries, etc. If they despair of philosphical terms, they have the ability to educate themselves

Hermeneutics, ontonology, teleology, semiotics, epistemology, aesthetics--

--bring it on.

(As for sparks between combatants, I think (and I think you agree) that--barring ad hominem--they're easily at least half the fun!)

Keith.

Bill Snedden

I'm reminded of a Monty Python skit where there is a radio call-in show discussing farming. The first couple of calls are inane and have nothing to do with farming, but the panel discuss them anyway. Then, a caller poses a lengthy question regarding agricultural procedures and the panel leader interrupts him saying, "I'm sorry, we only want questions about farming."



I think that this is probably the best forum for this discussion and have no plans on moving it. I would assume Nialscorva would agree.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"Truth is just truth. You can't have opinions about truth." Peter Schickele

Hugo Holbling

Thanks for your views, Keith. I'm glad you don't take our scuffling too seriously; why say "i think you're wrong" when "you're dribbling again..." will do?

Hugo Holbling

Sorry, Bill - your post wasn't serious enough for me to address it.

I like your new sig, btw.

los

Without the initial conception there would be no reason for skeptism.

I say anything goes, and refine it as you go. Philosophy is about the thought.

Hugo Holbling

A Feyerabendian among us!

Thanks for your input, los.

Bluenose

My first philosophy teacher felt it was all about developing better questions rather than just learning the old answers to old questions. So she tried to get us to learn how to think philosophically and try to understand how the big questions endure while each generation wrestles with the contemporary problems.

Osiris

I don't like the rhetoric.

Maybe it is because I am not witty enough to have a dialog at that level (I realize I have just left myself wide open for attack ), but I don't think it helps anyone get to the bottom of the issue at hand. For me it seems to bias my opinion in favor of the person with the best rhetoric, with my understanding of the real issue left to suffer.

Also, when we get to the level of philosophical thinkers, we can have some people with very inflated opinions of themselves who take every opportunity to prove this to everyone else. Fiery rhetoric can be the easiest way for these people to do this. Alas, it does nothing for me and my quest to understand the philosophical issues in this wonderful experience we all share, life.

Hugo Holbling

Thanks for your opinion, Osiris. I guess that's one strike against me.

Funny that you should say this, as most of the complaints i hear about philosophy are that it's too verbose, wasting a lot of words saying nothing. Different strokes for different folks, i guess.