The Death of Traditional Philosophy

[ChrisK]

Many philosophers (and anti-philosophers) have attacked traditional philosophy (and philosophy in general). I remember that a while ago Maldordor argued that Kieerkagaard, Nieztche and Marx destroyed traditional philosophy and Wittgenstien tied it up nicely. Others have claimed that Postmodern philosophers have also done so. So my question is, which philosopher was the most effective at doing so?

For example, I think that Wittgenstien was the most effective, in that he was able to find a universal problem in philosophers use of language. I also find people like derrida to be absolutely horrible at doing this. He writes confused garbage that is impossible to interpret (and I know that that was his point; that philosophy was confused thinking), that could have been more clear.

What do you all think?

[A.R.Amistad]

I like Maldorors list. I think the process is incomplete, however, and various people contributed to discounting, say, Plato's mysticism, etc.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I voted "other" because I'm not sure. However, there needs to be clarification on what is meant by "completely destroyed" and "traditional philosophy." I'd give a lot of props to Hume for his insights regarding verifiability and metaphysics.

That being said, I'd be interested in how your defining traditional philosophy in terms of "what it does" rather than "who does it." I'm the slow-learner when it comes to the anti-philosophy perspectives here at Revleft. I think philosophy can help with ethics. Then again, ethics could arguably be considered observation based.

[black magick hustla]

I always thought traditional philosophy referred to the act of building giant metaphysical systems about "Truth". Whether it is Hegelian geist, platonic forms or diamat. I think marx more or less destroyed philosophy when he gave a historical framework to philosophical ideas, rather than things derived of pure reason. Nietzche did this by attacking traditional notions of morality. Wittgenstein tied everything up by arguing that most philosophy is a misuse of language.

[ChrisK]

I voted "other" because I'm not sure. However, there needs to be clarification on what is meant by "completely destroyed" and "traditional philosophy." I'd give a lot of props to Hume for his insights regarding verifiability and metaphysics.

That being said, I'd be interested in how your defining traditional philosophy in terms of "what it does" rather than "who does it." I'm the slow-learner when it comes to the anti-philosophy perspectives here at Revleft. I think philosophy can help with ethics. Then again, ethics could arguably be considered observation based.

Maldordor got it right with I mean the search for the metaphysical truth. Completely destroyed was more of an indulgence on my part.

To be honest, the main reason I framed it as attack so-called traditional philosophy is I didn't know another way to frame it other than just the term philosophy, but that would limit the whole thing to Wittgenstein and that just wouldn't do for a poll.

As to the bolded part, I'm not too sure if that was supposed to be a question or not.