Who destroyed philosophy?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophers
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 21 • Views: 14,835 • Replies: 227

[+6] - kennethamy - 07/06/2010[quote="someone2010"] Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche? [/quote] Philosophy is alive and well, thank you. You may, however, have a conception of philosophy, that...
[+4] - Victor Eremita - 07/06/2010Kant divided philosophy, Kierkegaard undermined traditional philosophy of religion, Nietzsche undermined traditional morality, Heidegger tried to undermine traditional metaphysics, and Wittgenstein...
[+3] - amist - 07/06/2010Destroying bad ideas is an improvement of philosophy, not a destruction of it.
[+3] - Razzleg - 07/12/2010[quote="jeeprs"] well I want to stick up for Kennethamy. We are definitely not from the same stable, opposite in many regards, and often (in fact usually) disagree, but I will say that...

@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...

2 Replies

@someone2010,

The Wachowski Bros destroyed it when they showed us it's all just The Matrix Smile

0 Replies

@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

Destroying bad ideas is an improvement of philosophy, not a destruction of it.

0 Replies

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.

1 Reply

@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?

1 Reply

@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

@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!

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@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)

1 Reply

@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

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

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.

1 Reply

@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

@kennethamy,

You're so easy ken, I don't even have to spike your drink

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

0 Replies

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.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

And why does Po-Mo not count as philosophy?

2 Replies

@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.

2 Replies

Who destroyed philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know