ARe there any American philosophers who are not complete idiots...

[Buffalo Souljah]

...with their own windfall agenda?

I ask this in all brevity, because my own experiences in reading men (since there aren't many women in the 'canon', and Hannah Arendt doesn't count since she's German--perhaps this says something about our patriarchal 'values') like Emerson, James, Peirce, James, and Dewey and their contemporary followers have been nothing short of lackluster.

My problem with American Pragmatism (and I know I am not alone in this) is that it, in "pulling the rug out from under" traditional philosophical conepts, merely replaces these with another batch of self-proclaimed, self-important jargon that gets us nowhere nearer to 'truth': we merely replace one stinking metaphysical heap with another. The only individual of this "school" who makes the least bit of sense is A.J. Ayer, and his arguments about verification are baseless and circular (not to mention, he was British ).

Where are the [I]real philosophers, pray tell? Perhaps we are just a nation of gum-chewing, pistol-toting belligerants after all... :(

A paper I wrote on James' ''philosophy'' (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29437129/Untitled)

[Lynx]

If you like pragmatism try putting it into practice. Start with the basic "if it works, it's good/true/correct".

What's the use of philosophy if you can't put it into practice?

[Buffalo Souljah]

If you like pragmatism try putting it into practice. Start with the basic "if it works, it's good/true/correct".


But I could use the same argument for a million things that are not good, true or "correct": I could come up with a slew of imaginary beings and mythical places that "work" as fables and fairy tales, but which arguably have no "meaning" or truth in the sense of referring to something in the world. If we open the door to this kind of thinking, then we allow ourselves all sorts of unwarranted liberties between the real world and all of our prejudiced and preconceived notions about it. Slavery "worked" (quite nicely, I have to admit), but we can see the fallacy in any argument that might support it as "correct".

You have to admit that when it comes down to the crunch, "usefulness" is by no means an adequate criterion for establishing truth. All the rest becomes metaphysical prattle. I don't see why this hogwash draws such an obedient following. Perhaps I should go around telling people that "as long as it has the label JIF attached to it, it is true," or "as long as it is an apple, it is true," or any number of things. It doesn't hold water is what I'm saying to think this way. I think it's a tremendously anti-intellectual and conservative world-view to hold, bordering on the lines of offensive. But that's just me. Have your "pragmatic criterion" for all I care.



What's the use of philosophy if you can't put it into practice?That doesn't give you the right to spout a bunch of metaphysical prattle at me and then call that "philosophy". The problem is that there is no "secret method" or "ultimate formula" that you can put into use in any context. We are limited by the meaning our statements about the world possess in relation to the world, and when you seperate the two (ie. our ideas about the world and 'the world' itself) then we will see that it is impossible to describe things metaphysically without resorting to irrational claims that don't make our lives any simpler or bring us any closer to 'truth'. Therefore, what James and Dewey and the rest of them are doing amounts to diddley squat.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think they are idiots, they just arent continental philosophers, so they have different priorities, namely, the clarification of arguments. Its not about finding the "truth" actually

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, WVO Quine, Donald Davidson, Ruth Millikan, Norman Malcolm, David Lewis, Stanley Cavell, Richard Rorty, Cora Diamond, Juliet Floyd, Saul Kripke..., to name but a few.

[syndicat]

I think there are a number of good American philosophers. I recommend John Post's little book "Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction" which is not mostly about metaphysics, despite its name. Also, Ruth Garrett Millikan, a materialist philosopher at U of Connecticutt.

[Buffalo Souljah]

so they have different priorities, namely, the clarification of arguments. Its not about finding the "truth" actuallyPray tell, how do I "clarify" statements whose constituting elements refer to nothing in reality, given their context: the statement "the number three is an apple" cannot be clarified, since we can determine it is nonsense. To speak of "truth", "art", "the real" and any number of concepts leads nowhere, since one clearly must in order to "clarify" these resort to tautologous or metaphysical abstractions, which constitute misappropriation of normal language.

The statement "That block is made of wood" has sense, since it refers to an object before which one is present (given one is standing before what one thinks is a block of wood), and is based out of empirical observation, and uses words which have meaning in the context in which they are used (ie, "block" has meaning--likewise "to be made of wood" has meaning). Likewise, if I see that the block is not made of wood at all, but of metal, the statement is no longer valid and its meaning is lost. One comes up with a new term for it, given the context.

However, if I say "truth happens to an idea" or "art is the complete culmination of nature," I am at a loss for what is meant by "happens" or "nature". They are being used here in special ways that ultimately have no meaning, aside from being a string of words that sound nice.

Before we "clarify" arguments, we first have to thoroughly "disinfect" the language we are using to formulate those arguments. Otherwise we end up walking on very unsturdy ground.

[Buffalo Souljah]

Yes, WVO Quine, Donald Davidson, Ruth Millikan, Norman Malcolm, David Lewis, Stanley Cavell, Richard Rorty, Cora Diamond, Juliet Floyd, Saul Kripke..., to name but a few.
Quine was an American? I stand corrected.


Saul KripkeI don't care for Kripke; his concept of 'rigid designators' doesn't fly for me. There is no way for me to determine whether something can be 'true in all possible worlds' because I cannot imagine all possible worlds, let alone say anything useful about them. It's a waste of time to attempt to do so, and the argument is dead before it even gets off the ground.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, I didn't say we had to agree with them all, but they aren't idiots.

Kripke's exposition of Wittgenstein's analysis of rule following is a modern classic. I agree with you about his other theories, though.

And check out what I posted about possible worlds:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1672261&postcount=2

[Lynx]

But I could use the same argument for a million things that are not good, true or "correct": I could come up with a slew of imaginary beings and mythical places that "work" as fables and fairy tales, but which arguably have no "meaning" or truth in the sense of referring to something in the world.
Fanciful, mistaken or non-parsimonious solutions to problems can be cleaned up later.

If we open the door to this kind of thinking, then we allow ourselves all sorts of unwarranted liberties between the real world and all of our prejudiced and preconceived notions about it. Slavery "worked" (quite nicely, I have to admit), but we can see the fallacy in any argument that might support it as "correct".
This is only a violation of ethical guidelines. Being a pragmatist doesn't mean you have to be a Machiavellian.

You have to admit that when it comes down to the crunch, "usefulness" is by no means an adequate criterion for establishing truth. All the rest becomes metaphysical prattle. I don't see why this hogwash draws such an obedient following. Perhaps I should go around telling people that "as long as it has the label JIF attached to it, it is true," or "as long as it is an apple, it is true," or any number of things. It doesn't hold water is what I'm saying to think this way. I think it's a tremendously anti-intellectual and conservative world-view to hold, bordering on the lines of offensive. But that's just me. Have your "pragmatic criterion" for all I care.
How about "the only truths are solutions" ?
Ideas that don't resolve problems in the real world eventually have to be discarded.

That doesn't give you the right to spout a bunch of metaphysical prattle at me and then call that "philosophy". The problem is that there is no "secret method" or "ultimate formula" that you can put into use in any context. We are limited by the meaning our statements about the world possess in relation to the world, and when you seperate the two (ie. our ideas about the world and 'the world' itself) then we will see that it is impossible to describe things metaphysically without resorting to irrational claims that don't make our lives any simpler or bring us any closer to 'truth'. Therefore, what James and Dewey and the rest of them are doing amounts to diddley squat.
I gave you the basics. I don't see what is to be gained by reading books that have been written by those seeking to earn a living from prattle. The more words that are used, the greater the chance of obfuscation instead of insight.

What is the purpose of philosophy?

[Philzer]

Hi!


i dont think they are idiots, they just arent continental philosophers, so they have different priorities, namely, the clarification of arguments. Its not about finding the "truth" actually

I think it is much easier. In pantheism exist no truth, only opinions.

This is no chance/coincidence, but principle. It is the basis to practice the principle of the strongest. I.E. capitalism and democracy.
(practice & ideology, religion & productive forces in the sense of Marx` snakeskin)

Kind regards

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


In pantheism exist no truth, only opinions.

But, is this true? If not, we can ignore it. If so, then we can ignore it too, since there is at least one truth, namely this one.

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa!



But, is this true? If not, we can ignore it. If so, then we can ignore it too, since there is at least one truth, namely this one.

Very nice! But this works only under one condition: You are a pantheist.:D

Kind regards.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


But this functions only under one condition: You are a pantheist

But, is this true? if so, Pantheism is b*llocks. If not, it's b*llocks anyway.

[Philzer]

...but he is also a pantheist.....sorry :)

Hi Rosa


But, is this true? if so, Pantheism is b*llocks. If not, it's b*llocks anyway.

Yes, this is a clear statement.

Have a good night!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Philzer:


Yes, this is a clear statement.

For a pantheist, you keep coming out with far too many true statements.:)

[Philzer]

Hi Rosa!


For a pantheist, you keep coming out with far too many true statements.:)

Yes, I know its senseless. The pantheist is a religious individual.
Like some leftist from the democratic-exploitation-nations, and I even know the following:

Religion is the will to be right without sanity - Philzer

Good night.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think it's somewhat objectionable to categorize those who hold oppositional views as "complete idiots." If I did that, I'd be labeling many of history's greatest intellectuals with that title.

I'm quite sympathetic to pragmatism, and William James' religious convictions are questionable. I dislike talking about religious belief in the context of philosophy as I think theorists support their views independently of their religious belief. Adding religion into the discussion just serves as an easy means to criticize someone who may have legitimate ideas.

The pragmatic theory of truth is complicated and varies depending on the interpretation of different thinkers. It ultimately declares truth to be "what works." The interpretation of "what is useful" is a misunderstanding. Although many pragmatists use the term "useful," they don't mean it as it appears. James has a quote regarding this, and it's regularly used against pragmatism. Pragmatists do not believe that if a tree is in front of you, the tree is not there if it is "useful."

Why? Well, it's not useful that the tree "not be there." Our senses exist to promote ends so they tend to agree rather well with usefulness of accepting the existence of external objects. After all, it's beneficial to avoid walking into trees. Pragmatists aren't idealists who think you could theoretically make the tree disappear.

William James believes it's justifiable to believe what is "useful" when there are problems of verifiability. Because God is not technically falsifiable, he can believe in it if "it's useful." Since morals might not be provable, you can believe in them. You get the idea. Not all pragmatists agree with James on that. Some of them simply dismiss James' views there. One pragmatist (I forget which) compared theism to sticking your head in the sand and pretending the world isn't how it is. It's harmless, but it doesn't accomplish much either.

Pragmatism is dismissed on face value because of how it presents itself. If you look into it, it's more philosophically respectable than you might think. That doesn't mean it's right, of course. I have my own questions about pragmatism that I haven't had time to look into; mostly questions around morality.

I started compiling a of American Philosophers that I knew and thought were not "complete idiots." Using Wikipedia, I found that there were too many to list, and I got lazy. Much of life is full of nonsensical ideas. A useful skill is to read people who disagree with and take a few ideas from them that you like, look at their methodology, see how they went wrong, etc. I used to simply critique people I opposed. Now I learn all kinds of crazy stuff.

[YKTMX]

John Rawls.

[Philzer]

Hi!


John Rawls.

Oh yeah, wishfull thinking, I think it is a good religion to justify democracy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html

Kind regards.

[YKTMX]

Hi!



Oh yeah, wishfull thinking, I think it is a good religion to justify democracy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html

Kind regards.

...

I'm not quite sure what the hell you're on about, comrade.

For the benefit of observers: Rawls' works seeks to substantiate a theory of justice that is based on the notion that departures from conditions of initial equality are only justifiable if they are to the benefit of the least well-off.

His major work, A Theory of Justice, is a masterpiece and a must for all radical politics/philosophy students - or those interested in political philosophy!

There is very little mention of democracy in most of his work. Although I don't see what's wrong, on the face of it, with trying to justify democracy - if we mean the idea that the poor should rule, which is what it means in the Aristotleian tradition.