because i won’t abandon my darling philosophy to the likes of nussy, bilbo baggins and fishboy
my frustration with the analytic tradition deepens. i think that in principle it represents a flawed methodology. especially the extent to which it exalts and leans upon logic. (by logic, i do not mean the general reasoning power of humanity, rather i am referring specifically to symbolic logic.) yes, logic is useful and at times invaluable, but that value is not necessarily universal. philosophy must be engaged with the world, and the medium of the world is natural language. it is foolishness to think that everything in the world of philosophical relevance can be translated into symbolic logic. logic could never do justice to the ambiguities and double entendres that permeate natural languages. this should not be interpreted as “logic hacking”, because i don’t think logic should be abandoned. but it should once again become just a single tool in the philosopher’s tool box. logic as a universal yardstick is grossly insufficient.
if only people still read aristotle’s rhetoric, then they might remember that there are three modes of appeal - logos, ethos and pathos.
perhaps i have underestimated aristotle’s contribution. (somewhere flynn is saying “i told you so”)
so why the rambling polemic? because i have decided to pursue the phd. somethings i have seen recently have re-proven to me that philosophy is in a bad state, and furthermore that it looks to stay that way unless someone can change it. i think i can be that person…
“All poets and writers enamoured of the superlative want to do more than they can.” - Human, All Too Human
2 years ago