[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 77 KB, 899x600, habermas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5111387 No.5111387 [Reply] [Original]

Why is continental philosophy so misunderstood?

>> No.5111388

>>5111387
cause it's always turning things on their heads

>> No.5111515

>>5111387
1) because most of continental mouvements reject scientism, which is consider irrational by scientism itself, which is dominant worldwide, especially in english speaking countries.
2) Because the author are trying to reach experiences and phenomenons that have never been exposed before. This is a reason why they are struggling with language, that, by it own structure, allow and refuse acces to certain phenomenon. This is why most of the author (Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida) need to create their own concepts, and defy the usual language structure.
3) Because they are dealing with things considered "subjective" like death, angst, good, justice, world, etc. Most of them (Hegel, Heidegger) even refuse subjectivity/objectivity concepts.
4) Because they ask a lot out of their reader. In continental philosophy, this is : the author must be accessible. This is the reader that must elevate himself to the author idea.
5) Because they are mostly German or French, and what we have is (often bad) translation.
6) Finally, because they ask us to see what we don't wanna see : death, angst, fragility of the world/existence. Reading Derrida, Nietzsche or even Heidegger can get you really depressed, because you reach the void behind things.

There is without a doubt thousands of other reason.

>> No.5111527

>>5111515
Same guy here,
i made a mistake, in point 4).
I meant, this is not about : the author must be accessible. Writing in english is a struggle !

>> No.5111555

>>5111387
It's how they get their money.
Gotta be initiated into the dark cabal.

>> No.5111563

>>5111515
>ask us to see what we don't wanna see : death, angst, fragility of the world/existence. Reading Derrida, Nietzsche...
Anyone with half a brain is aware of that stuff.

>> No.5111575

>>5111563
Okay, before Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and existentialism, name me one philosopher that care about existence and angst. Or name me an analytic philosopher (that havent been influenced by Heidegger, like Rorty, that talk about the same topics) in a philosophical way.

>> No.5111621

>>5111575
I'm not very familiar with philosophy, so I can't, but I'm sure that everyone in this thread was aware of the collosal suffering on this planet before they'd heard of Nietzsche.

>> No.5111642

>>5111621
Who said otherwise? But nobody knew or cared that a Dasein live inside a world before Heidegger. There were no "existential crisis" before Heidegger, like nobody cared about progress before modernity, like nobody cared about that human was inherently guilty before Judeo-christinanism, like nobody cared or knew about ideas before Plato.
Knowing that you are an historical being makes you see that our daily problems come with great authors, and a quick look to history show that nobody cared about "our" modern problems before modernity.

>> No.5113515

>>5111575
>Okay, before Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger and existentialism, name me one philosopher that care about existence and angst.

Every reader of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and existentialism.

If you need philosophers to spoonfeed these ideas to you, you are not spending enough time considering much of anything in your own life.

>> No.5113523

>>5111387
It's really only misunderstood by the people on /lit/ and otherwise, I have met quite a few philosophy graduates and PhDs and none of them just laugh openly at continentals. They don't necessarily agree with them or find the philosophy amazing but it's not like every one is Dawkins

>> No.5113525

Solipsism and spouting "scientism" seem to be the last refuges of crackpot philosophers who want to make unsubstantiated claims about the universe and, at the same time, want their ideas to be immune to any form of criticism. "How dare you ask me for evidence supporting my theory of invisible ghost nets communicating a global subconscious thought network. My theories transcend science. Stop scientisming me." Wouldn't surprise me if the term originated in >>>/x/

>> No.5113527

>>5111515
Most continentals actually don't really reject science at all though. They reject certain epistemological views about science, but I have yet to read any that claim you can reject it

>> No.5113529

this derping about scientism is utterly stupid.

>> No.5113532

>>5111515
>2)

Fucking A bro, like every philosopher ever invents terms.

>3)
Even good analytics reject objectivity, because none of our lenses for viewing the world are objective

>4)
This is still typical in philosophy altogether..

>6)
This reason is cogent

>> No.5113538

>>5113529
Sciencism is a term used to boogeyman. I mean, yeah, stupid commoners on /r/atheism may believe dumb things but serious academics dont

>> No.5113540

>>5113527
>Most continentals actually don't really reject science at all though. They reject certain epistemological views about science

Yeah, like the view that science is an accurate method of understanding phenomenon. Which anyone who is A) sitting in front of a computer and B) not currently dying of measles should realize is rather silly.

>> No.5113544
File: 27 KB, 666x408, philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113544

>> No.5113545

>>5113540
Accurate to what though? The point of them is to say Platonism is wrong and science isn't complete; we can't encapsulate everything with science and it's likely impossible that we ever could. That doesn't mean science isn't useful. I mean even analytics understand that you put ethics before science; otherwise animal experiments would still be common.

>> No.5113555

>>5111575
Hegel solves existential crisis for good in Phenomelogy.

>> No.5113816

philosophers derping about scientism are either too dumb to actually engage with the variety of complex and fascinating questions of genuine philosophical interest arising from science, and thus wasting resources, or just retarded. take your pick.