I am thinking of a "symmetric" video where a philosopher expands on the failures of historiography. Somewhere between the two we may enjoyably stand. 🙂
In my opinion one of the major failures of philosophy, or at least philosophers, is their inability to communicate their ideas clearly. There are plenty of examples of philosophical works that are incomprehensible, even to other top philosophers! Heidegger was alive for decades after publishing his main works and top philosophers still argue about what he meant by some of his core terminology/concepts! Why didn't he clarify them in his book? More importantly, why didn't he clarify them after he realized that people didn't understand what he meant? What an utter failure! He should have been embarrassed to show his face, but instead he was proud! Imagine writing a book that is incomprehensible to most of your peers. It's hard to imagine a bigger failure than that! And then to not care enough about it to clarify what you meant! I can only conclude that Heidegger and many other philosophers did/do not want to clarify their meaning. They WANT to make themselves incomprehensible (I'm looking at you Derrida) for two main reasons: 1) to pretend that their readers are not intelligent enough to understand them 2) to hide the flaws in their theories - If they spelled them out clearly, with examples, it would be apparent that they were wrong! I even wonder whether there is a sort of unspoken agreement among professional philosophers to continue making philosophy as convoluted and incomprehensible as possible, and to avoid calling out such bullshit, in order to safeguard their job prospects. If they got rid of all the convoluted bullshit, the bad ideas would be exposed, and then those ideas would be got rid of, and then there would only be about one tenth of the material left to work with and comment on, and therefore, we would only need about one tenth of the philosophers! Most of the philosophers specializing in Heidegger, for example, would be out of work. We need a revolution in philosophy! A revolution of comprehensibility. We need a few brave philosophers to start calling out unnecessary complexity and obscurantism for what it is. We need to start mocking philosophers who use such obscurantism in order to embarrass them into communicating clearly. If you can't make yourself understood to your peers, you are an utter, utter failure - try harder!!! And if you deliberately use obscurantism, then you are a charlatan who should be run out of town. Come on philosophers, stop all this bullshit!
@@TheDissenterRL Maybe you could do a video about this? Send my comment to a few philosophers and see if you can get anyone to come on your show to talk about this problem. Start the revolution!
@@lauguerreiro6512 Well, this is a good example of that. If you watch my second talk with Patricia Churchland, she does the same in regards to moral philosophers. I have bits of that here and there. I think I also have some of that in my second talk with Kevin Mitchell.
Thanks for this video, Well, in France philosophy is in dire straits actually. The bullshit heideggerian tradition is so deeply implanted and strong. There's no link with science at all, moreover a large distrust with science and reason. Believe me, you don't want that in US. Maybe, we should work on more bonds between scientists and philosophers, even fuze some departments. Philosophy is usefull to build theories, models, analyses, criticisms. I think the main problem nowadays is that philosophy-centered-oriented approach. Philosophy is about how things hang together, thanks Sellars, not only philosophy itself. Philosophy needs science, and science needs philosophy too. It's possible to build a more fruitful way to produce knowledge mixing the qualities of analytic philosophers and scientists.
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
Stephen is my cousin and I am fascinated by his work
I am thinking of a "symmetric" video where a philosopher expands on the failures of historiography. Somewhere between the two we may enjoyably stand. 🙂
10:21 If prosocratics do not do philosophy what on earth are they doing? What genre of speach are they cultivating?
Should have had Peter Unger on (Empty Ideas).
The photo of Stephen Gaukroger in the thumbnail, is NOT THIS Stephen Gaukroger!
In my opinion one of the major failures of philosophy, or at least philosophers, is their inability to communicate their ideas clearly. There are plenty of examples of philosophical works that are incomprehensible, even to other top philosophers!
Heidegger was alive for decades after publishing his main works and top philosophers still argue about what he meant by some of his core terminology/concepts!
Why didn't he clarify them in his book?
More importantly, why didn't he clarify them after he realized that people didn't understand what he meant?
What an utter failure! He should have been embarrassed to show his face, but instead he was proud!
Imagine writing a book that is incomprehensible to most of your peers. It's hard to imagine a bigger failure than that!
And then to not care enough about it to clarify what you meant!
I can only conclude that Heidegger and many other philosophers did/do not want to clarify their meaning.
They WANT to make themselves incomprehensible (I'm looking at you Derrida) for two main reasons:
1) to pretend that their readers are not intelligent enough to understand them
2) to hide the flaws in their theories - If they spelled them out clearly, with examples, it would be apparent that they were wrong!
I even wonder whether there is a sort of unspoken agreement among professional philosophers to continue making philosophy as convoluted and incomprehensible as possible, and to avoid calling out such bullshit, in order to safeguard their job prospects.
If they got rid of all the convoluted bullshit, the bad ideas would be exposed,
and then those ideas would be got rid of,
and then there would only be about one tenth of the material left to work with and comment on,
and therefore, we would only need about one tenth of the philosophers!
Most of the philosophers specializing in Heidegger, for example, would be out of work.
We need a revolution in philosophy! A revolution of comprehensibility.
We need a few brave philosophers to start calling out unnecessary complexity and obscurantism for what it is.
We need to start mocking philosophers who use such obscurantism in order to embarrass them into communicating clearly.
If you can't make yourself understood to your peers, you are an utter, utter failure - try harder!!!
And if you deliberately use obscurantism, then you are a charlatan who should be run out of town.
Come on philosophers, stop all this bullshit!
I tend to agree, and share your frustration, Lau.
@@TheDissenterRL Maybe you could do a video about this? Send my comment to a few philosophers and see if you can get anyone to come on your show to talk about this problem.
Start the revolution!
@@TheDissenterRL it could be a series of videos "Philosophers, calling out the bullshit in philosophy."
You are called "The Dissenter" aren't you? ;)
@@lauguerreiro6512 Well, this is a good example of that.
If you watch my second talk with Patricia Churchland, she does the same in regards to moral philosophers.
I have bits of that here and there.
I think I also have some of that in my second talk with Kevin Mitchell.
Thanks for this video,
Well, in France philosophy is in dire straits actually. The bullshit heideggerian tradition is so deeply implanted and strong. There's no link with science at all, moreover a large distrust with science and reason.
Believe me, you don't want that in US. Maybe, we should work on more bonds between scientists and philosophers, even fuze some departments. Philosophy is usefull to build theories, models, analyses, criticisms. I think the main problem nowadays is that philosophy-centered-oriented approach. Philosophy is about how things hang together, thanks Sellars, not only philosophy itself. Philosophy needs science, and science needs philosophy too. It's possible to build a more fruitful way to produce knowledge mixing the qualities of analytic philosophers and scientists.
As an unapologetic STEM supremacist preparing to watch this, I somehow intuit I will strongly agree with the message here.