Scientists will traditionally take centralised constructed logic and end at continua of complexity
Continental philosophers will posit decentralised nominalised diachrony as a language tendency but will affirm the univocal.
That's a hell of spectrum for both disciplines - and there's a dynamic relation
Personally I prefer scientist being philosophical than the other way around unless philosopher informed on early Copenhagen
Though Krauss was unfair to David Z Albert which is being noted in transdisciplinary circles as scientific bullying
Some philosophy is returning to truth discourse. To me, they had enough of the polysemic posture and are asking for articulation. Wonderful, a lot of the polysemy was lazy but here's to a nonludic revision of continental thought
Analytical philosophers don't get away scott free either - if postmodernity was wilfully ludic to the point of postured opacity then the analytic tendency for outlandish speculations comes for a challenge as well - the Swampman hypothesis and notion of perdurantism in question. Fine for me to work with as poet but otherwise a large scale philosophical non sequitur. A strain of Wittgensteinian fallaciousness is also noted and scoffed at - "I don't understand what you mean..." as rhetorical ploy has been disentangled as basically a metaphilosophical destabilising gesture which says more about the ignorance of this hackneyed Wittgensteinian ploy than the epistemological suspiciousness of the statement that ushers such Wittgensteinian gadfly flippancies as well like "I wouldn't know about that." Well as a many continental and analytical philosophers now counter - well you wouldn't know much about anything really.
Though in a grand political way this parlay, this current of curiousity and confluence is warranted for so many reasons.
Yet in my personal ethics
Scientists who weaponise their atheism can kiss my ass and philosophers who advise govt on just war can kiss my ass too
No comments:
Post a Comment