21
   

Who destroyed philosophy?

 
 
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:59 am
Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?
 
Victor Eremita
 
  4  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:04 am
@someone2010,
Kant divided philosophy, Kierkegaard undermined traditional philosophy of religion, Nietzsche undermined traditional morality, Heidegger tried to undermine traditional metaphysics, and Wittgenstein tried to undermine language. Yeah, its a gradual thing...
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:50 am
@someone2010,
The Wachowski Bros destroyed it when they showed us it's all just The Matrix Smile
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  6  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 12:13 pm
@someone2010,
someone2010 wrote:

Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?


Philosophy is alive and well, thank you. You may, however, have a conception of philosophy, that does not fit in. But that is all right. You just have to think a little about it. After all, the question, what is a philosophy is a philosophical question. So by trying to answer it, you will get right into the swing.

By the way, I cannot refrain from remarking that your question, who destroyed philosophy? commits the elementary logical fallacy (noted by Aristotle, by the way) called, "the fallacy of many questions", for it supposes something that you have not shown is true, namely that philosophy has been destroyed. Sometimes this fallacy is also knows as the fallacy of begging the question. Just FYI.
0 Replies
 
amist
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:01 pm
Destroying bad ideas is an improvement of philosophy, not a destruction of it.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:10 pm
It is not destruction but relevance. But Wittgenstein's 'Whereof one cannot speak, one ought not to voice' or something like that shows that what is appropriate in a classroom during a lecture cannot be extrapolated to world outside at large. It is an ivory tower complex.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:23 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

It is not destruction but relevance. But Wittgenstein's 'Whereof one cannot speak, one ought not to voice' or something like that shows that what is appropriate in a classroom during a lecture cannot be extrapolated to world outside at large. It is an ivory tower complex.


What is wrong with ivory towers? Why must philosophy be useful (whatever that means)? Does everyone have to be a baker?
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 05:45 pm
@kennethamy,
Scientists have done many lab experiments but when they tried to use them outside the lab they failed. In a lab or ivory tower many 'extraneous' factors are left out but in the real world those extraneous factors will undo the argument or experiment.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 06:07 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:

Kant divided philosophy, Kierkegaard undermined traditional philosophy of religion, Nietzsche undermined traditional morality, Heidegger tried to undermine traditional metaphysics, and Wittgenstein tried to undermine language. Yeah, its a gradual thing...


I undermine Logic all the time... I'm one of the greats!
kennethamy
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 06:12 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:

Victor Eremita wrote:

Kant divided philosophy, Kierkegaard undermined traditional philosophy of religion, Nietzsche undermined traditional morality, Heidegger tried to undermine traditional metaphysics, and Wittgenstein tried to undermine language. Yeah, its a gradual thing...


I undermine Logic all the time... I'm one of the greats!


Yes, I could tell when I could understand what you were writing, at all. But there was no need to tell us that you weren't very good at thinking straight. It may be that your commitment to academese distorts your ability to think. It does for many people who forget to speak English. Academese is the enemy of clear and straight thinking.
de Silentio
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 07:16 pm
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita wrote:

Kant divided philosophy


Interestng. Can you explain how did Kant divided philosophy?

See, I always thought that Kant brought together rationalism and empiricism. (however, my shortcomings may come from the fact that I have never really studied the effects of Kant, rather I focused on Kant himself)
Victor Eremita
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 07:27 pm
@de Silentio,
Well broadly construed I was thinking about the analytic/continental divide (*gets riot shield up*), Kant fixed up one problem (rationalism/empiricism) but opened a new can of worms with ac divide. I wouldn't say Hegel tried to undermine traditional philosophy, merely to surpass such problems with his System, but the other four tried to undermine traditional philosophical problems.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:34 pm
One take on what has happened with philosophy is that the German idealists made the subject so difficult to understand that, after Hegel, the trajectory of the subject was abandoned, or rejected, because it contained too many interminable arguments and conundrums which nobody could understand or resolve. So I think Hegel is mainly to blame. Schopenhauer would agree with that, I am sure.

0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:40 pm
although I do agree with Ken that the subject is not 'destroyed'. It has been changed considerably in the modern age, and I much prefer the period prior to the wretch Neitszce, but it is still a great subject.
Specter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:42 pm
@someone2010,
I hate to state old cliches, but nothing is destroyed, only altered or redefined; sometimes into a form which we do not recognize or fully understand. So the philosophers of old haven't really been DESTROYED, but rather, they have been put down for a time so that we may pick up some other schools of thought.

And as EVERYTHING in culture is recycled, we may see a rebirth of classical thought at some distant juncture and in some obscure form. As for now, however, we are never content with ideologies of the present, and continuously attempt to break the boundaries of "conventional" thought and seek new and strange philosophical lands.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 09:06 pm
@kennethamy,
You're so easy ken, I don't even have to spike your drink
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:27 pm
@GoshisDead,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:59 pm
actually most of what is going on in these forums is not philosophy, it is postmodernism, or debates between philosophy and postmodernism, anyway. So I guess old-school types will say that it is an attempt to destroy philosophy, postmodernists will regard it as just another conversation.
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:39 am
@jeeprs,
And why does Po-Mo not count as philosophy?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:47 am
@GoshisDead,
Its all to do with "consensus". Read Kuhn on the mechanisms of paradigm shifts.
Conservatives resist revolutionaries. Read up also on "fuzzy logic" and the assignment of set membership according to dynamically shifting criteria.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who destroyed philosophy?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 03:05:43