This reddit is intended for academic philosophers - (graduate) students, teachers, and researchers. Encouraged submissions: Open access articles of merit and substance, including from the popular press, that directly engage with a philosophical issue or concern the philosophical academic community. Links to teaching resources also appreciated.
I know this sounds bad but I genuinely cannot take Camus, Foucault, Hegel, or any of those Continental philosophers seriously. It’s unclear whether they are saying anything meaningful, and it all just sounds like nonsense. Another thing I can’t wrap my head around is people who are scholars of ancient, medieval, “modern” (1600-1800) philosophers. What even is the point? They were wrong about almost everything. No one yells “hey I’m a Newton scholar!”
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I'm so glad none of my undergrad opinions are preserved on public forums.
Based.
Please, accept my upvote.
If your question is only, "What's the point?" then I would suggest you read contemporary philosophy which engages with previous figures; many of these authors will explicitly say why they find X dead philosopher relevant to the subject of their research. It's certainly not the case that there is one overarching reason why philosophers would do this.
I would note that your note about physics and Newton is problematic. Many physicists, especially theoretical physicists, pay a lot of attention to the genealogy of current ideas in physics and find significant inspiration from figures who may seem outdated. Just yesterday I watched a discussion with Lee Smolin where several modern philosophers, e.g. Leibniz, were brought up. Folks still claim to be Helmholtzian. People often still invoke Newton's ideas, e.g. laws, sometimes to their intellectual peril if they don't understand why he invoked the concept of law to describe physical processes.
I would also like to propose the following argument:
P1) If an author uses scare quotes to dismiss the ideas of a key figure in their field, then the author has sufficient training and background knowledge for their rhetorical use of scare quotes to be justified or the author is displaying their ignorance and/or arrogance.
P2) As a philosophy major, it's likely you do not have sufficient training and background knowledge for your rhetorical use of scare quotes to be justified.
C) It's likely that you are displaying your ignorance and/or arrogance.
Holy shit? Do you think I’m saying there is no point in learning about the earlier figures in philosophy? Or did I say they aren’t so important that you should waste your life studying a modern philosopher.
Like, im fully aware learning about Newton can help you understand critiques of B-theory eternalism that rely on rejecting Einsteins mechanics. It’s just that you don’t have to spend your whole life learning about Newton to get an idea of past history, and get inspiration from their ideas.
I'll respond to each element of your post.
I don't believe I made this claim. I'm going to largely ignore this portion of your post because it's a rhetorical attempt to establish your superiority by trying to diminish me by displaying shock at how my response could miss the mark so badly. I did not miss the mark so badly. This portion of your post is not philosophical in nature.
What you said is that you cannot "wrap your head around... people who are scholars" of older philosophers. This has a very difference sense than the concrete claim you are making here. On the "wrap your head around" account, that would be a display of ignorance; you simply do not have the knowledge to understand why someone would spend significant time studying earlier figures. On the "waste your life" account you give here, I would say this falls under the argument I made about the possibility of you displaying your arrogance. I simply do not believe you have the moral authority to dictate who has or has not wasted their life.
The concept of "wasting a life" is a rather "continental" one, no? Most analytic philosophers avoid questions about what makes a life meaningful or worthy vs. unmeaningful or unworthy. Traditional analytic philosophy would focus on the meaning of such terms in their everyday use, focusing far less on applying such terms to people. Unless you have a surprisingly rigorous account of what "wasting a life" means, you might benefit from reading folks like de Beauvoir, Sartre, Nietzsche, and so on.
I'm glad you're aware.
I'm not sure what you could be referencing here. I am unaware of anyone who has spent their "whole life learning about" a single past scholar, philosopher, or author.
Your logical reasoning is immaculate, jolly good show.
This is embarrassing
This is a future ivy-league graduate and lawyer, watch your tongue sir, lest the courts remove it for you!
A) All people are wrong about most things, don’t hate on the classical era just for being a bit behind us on the curve!
B) A lot of continental philosophers are trying to capture cognitive details and question the phrasing of a given problem in a fundamental way, so they tend to resort to complex jargon or poetic insinuation. Check out Foucault’s Order of Things or Hegel’s PoS.
C) They were/are employed in the production of philosophy seminars, papers, and books, so they’re real “philosophers” IMO — no quotes needed.
D) you’ll probably get more traction on another sub, this sub is (supposedly? I think?) about the grad and postdoc life. If you can expand this into “defending a substantial point” you can post it as a text post on r/philosophy, and I bet it would get intense discussion at the very least. Else they and r/askphilosophy have open discussion threads
You’re taking the LSAT, so presumably you want to be a lawyer, but you’re mad at people making arguments for “wrong” conclusions?
Could you articulate some specific and substantive reasons as to why you don’t respect any of the philosophers that you previously mentioned?
It’s not going to be different than any other analytic philosopher has put it. What they’re saying is at best literature it’s not philosophy. There’s a huge methodological flaw. There writing is poetic and it’s unclear what they are saying. Even if I were to disagree, they could always just bend their words and say “but I really am not saying that”.
Philosophy is about being able to engage in arguments even if you don’t agree with their opinions or can’t “take them”. Don’t project your inability to understand an author as meaning their ideas, arguments or world view is nonsense.
Your last point where you say “they were wrong about everything” just shows you are completely unaware of your own beliefs. Most of our theories are incorrect, even in science. But the point of philosophy isn’t about having correct answers or even accurately representing reality. It’s about knowing how to ask critical questions, particularly about your own assumptions. Your stance shows a lack of self-reflection and a beginners level understanding of philosophy.
Side note: there are plenty of scholars that specialize in a particular person. It’s quite common at the MA and PhD level, because contrary to your opinion, there is plenty of depth, inspiration and usefulness in deeply engaging with classical, medieval, or modern philosophers.
Hell, based upon theories of truth, I'm not even sure what "correct" measures, right?
Correct lol there is a notion of correct in logic and philosophy of mathematics, but we only theorize that they are representative of reality, moving it back to whether it’s “accurate” rather than correct/true or not
“In logic and philosophy of mathematics”. Are you saying we theorize that model-theoretic truth maps to actual truth? Are you saying the axioms in certain logic systems are supposed to corresponding to the laws in the real world. Do you mean that logical conclusions we derive will be represented by a state of affairs. Just like a Continental incredibly unclear what you’re saying; you’re showing a beginners level understanding of Phil 🤪.
That is what I’m saying. That couldn’t be any clearer. This isn’t continental, this is philosophy of science and mathematics. Look up Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper or Alfred N Whitehead.
Your antagonism is just an as hominem. You must not have learned much in your critical thinking and logic class
Yea based on an inductive inference scientists will likely be wrong? But, can you tell me why Einstein was wrong? No, you probably can’t. We judge theories correctness based on our current understandings. Studying wrong philosophers arguments doesnt compare to studying wrong contemporary physicists arguments. It’s kinda stupid that people in the comments are saying I’m “projecting” and am at a “beginners level of philosophy” instead of actually making cogent points.
Einstein commits to the fallacy of bifurcation and fallacy of misplaced concreteness which have already been shown by Whitehead to by faulty assumptions. This article explains the problems Einstein’s theory has and how Whitehead tried to solve them. Einstein treats space as an object that can be measured and it fails to account for particle physicists which is why we have two separate theories for the fundamental foundation of reality.
https://www.openhorizons.org/whitehead-einstein-and-relativity.html
You are too arrogant to be able to have any value in philosophy. It’s clear your “hard time respecting philosophers” goes beyond them, to many other humans. I get that you embarrassed yourself with this post, but you could have had the opportunity to reflect and grow from it.
Lol. Please. Everyone knows Einstein's theory has troubles. What are you even trying to accomplish here.
If you think philosophy is about being right, then you have not yet learned what studying philosophy is about.
Lol, ok. Then what even is philosophical progress. I will agree continental philosophy is certain not about truth.
Improved depth and perspective of understanding. Incorporated into human life, known as wisdom.
People absolutely are newton scholars. I've seen job listings specifically for a Voltaire scholar. If you don't respect the history of ideas that's your own business, but it is a thing. And you're in it.
It’s not common, and it’s not looked up upon in the scientific community
It sounds like you just don’t have the skills or background to understand the philosophers you’re mentioning. This sounds a lot like the kind of thing I would have posted about analytic philosophers early on in my UG career.
Lol, ahh yes. My tiny brain must just not have the skills to understand your poetic philosophers. I’m sorry I’m not smart an enlightened like you!!!
There was not a hint of elitism in the comment you’re replying to. The point is that like any academic discipline you need a certain background and set of skills to understand it. It’s not about intelligence, it’s about not having the practice to know how to read them. Like any skills, it’s not about enlightenment but work.
Telling someone who have finished their philosophy degree, and reads philosophy all the time that they don’t have the tools to understand philosophy is cringe but ok
An analytic not respecting continentals, there's a surprise! But in seriousness, what did you aim to get out of posting this? You don't like Camus, Foucault, or Hegel - okay. Now what? I have trouble believing this is a serious post, and it's extremely poor bait. And if you really are a philosophy student with these views, I suggest a different degree.
Huh? Most people in the philosophy department in my school don’t care for those people either. And I am working toward other degrees in math and physics
If you're in an analytic-heavy department, they probably won't care about any of the continentals. But it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with continental philosophy. I'm not trashing Moore and Wittgenstein just because I'm not from their world.
Right? And would you tell them to reconsider their career path since they don’t like those philosophers
You should consider adopting a principle of charity. Assume the people you are reading are not stupid. They are rational people, even smart people, who have something to say that deserves to be taken seriously. Just because you don't vibe with continentals doesn't mean they are are not worth the time.
Again, charity. These people did not exist in a vacuum, and their work is not exactly collecting dust on a shelf, waiting for you to pass judgment on it. These are deeply reflective works that ask questions of earlier philosophers, and there are reams of scholarship on them. Engage with the arguments, read secondary scholarship, read people that disagree with them, and then re-engage and see how it goes.
Philosophy is, in my view at least, not a discipline based on solutions. It's a conversation and a series of questions: what does it mean to be human? What does it mean to lead a good life? What is "good" anyway? These are the same questions you ask yourself sometimes, just like everyone else before you. We still haven't answered them! But knowing how some people have attempted the answer can point us in new directions - or allow us to find something new on a well-worn path. We are always in conversation with the past, even if it isn't always explicit.
So are you, realistically. Yet you still deserve a place in the conversation.
Well, yes, some people do. Others simply call themselves "physicists", or "mathematicians", or "historians". Just like historians of philosophy generally call themselves "philosophers" as they engage with the philosophical ideas of their area of interest.
Many philosopher think this way, but it is embarrassing to admit it.
Didn't any contemporary philosopher that you like write a paper about why philosophy is different than science? Curious...
We don't go into your forums and slap the hentai porn out of your hands.
So, this is going to be a rather unusual take you won’t find a lot of academicians take:
As u/Ultimarr pointed out, we’re all wrong about most things. It’s a function of time that decides who’s view is true of the objects themselves, and that function is contingent on the populations deriving it. Einstein is only correct insofar that his theories continue to be descriptive and predictive; when we can collect enough data to measure that they are not (or, in his case, realize that his theories were missing things), then we amend our collective world views.
But, more pointedly,
Well, for starters, a lot of continental philosophy is immediately applicable to solving hard problems in reality.
Probably the most famous instance is Von Clausewitz seminal “On War”. On War is a military theory book predicated in Hegelian philosophy, and still forms the basis for United States Marine Corps military doctrine to this day. Yeah, that’s right: the theoretical foundations for one of the most efficient war fighting organizations in the world is based on continental philosophy. And it works.
Why? Well, no one knows—or, at least, no one is in agreement on why this works. My pet theory (feel free to cite), is that the “nonsensical” prose of continental philosophy (specifically Hegel, but also folks like Heidegger, Foucault, and Hannah Arendt) are really good at capturing processes. In contrast, we analytic/post-analytic philosophers are, almost by definition, better at critical analysis of ideas—but, importantly, these are not mutually compatible functions. If you know your calculus well (holla at Newton), you’ll notice that the more you try to capture the area under a curve, you’ll either find an infinite value (pi), or resort to measuring rectilinear angles—you can’t capture both aspects with the same method. That’s a bit how analytic thought complements and contrasts with continental thought—importantly, it does not invalidate the veracity of either thought process.
So, in summary: we can verify continental philosophy “works” because we can use it to kill people very, very well. We also shouldn’t discount it just because it’s historical lynchpins are outdated in their opinions.
If I said, there’s nothing such as gravity. Are you going to invest in my idea just because most people are wrong. Obviously not. We’re interested in wrong theories because at the time they’re the best we have. When our science gets updated we won’t be interested in those theories anymore. I don’t get what you’re even trying to say here.
I would generally disagree with this characterization. Scholars in the fields of the hard sciences continue to be very interested in past theories, because that’s part of how we understand current paradigmatic doctrines of our own time. It also frames the context of the current conversations when we try to think about “advancement” in those areas. Even when the theories are “wrong”—context matters in science.
Let me give you a more concrete example of the utility of studying ancient philosophers:
My background in graduate philosophy is bioethics, with a bit of Logic, and some philosophy of the mind. Specifically, my subject areas of interest in bioethics were the ethics of nonhuman intelligences, with a focus on artificial intelligence and genetically modified species. One thing that initially surprised me in the space (circa 2019, mind you) was just how much ancient philosophies were being used to inform contemporary conversations in seminars. And for good reason; I always (and continue) thought that Berkeley was a crock of shit, but there are scholars who genuinely think (and for good reasons) that his descriptions of idealism are accurate with how we should think about AI minds—or even more esoteric subjects, like simulation theories of existence. Again, that is not my persuasion, but their interest in it is valid even if I am right in my opposition to Berkeley: the insights of Berkeley’s argument might provide grounds for new theories on consciousness, even if the particulars of Berkeley’s arguments are not sound. This happens in philosophy often.
So, one good reason to study old theories that we suspect are incorrect: even if they are not completely, affirmatively true descriptions of the universe around us, we might be able to leverage their arguments or insights towards more true ones.
Huh? Just because someone used some Continental philosopher’s book to solve an issue in the past doesn’t make Continental philosophy interesting to study; nor, does it address any critiques of the epistemology these philosophers are using.
I mean… what makes something “interesting” to study is more subject relative, I would say. I’m not interested in formula 1 racing, even though many people very much are. You are entirely at liberty to find continental philosophy uninteresting. However, I was addressing:
One potential “point” of studying continental philosophy is this: there can be immediate, functionalist solutions to physical problems in reality by leveraging insights from continental philosophy. I can take a book that is part of continental philosophy and turn it into effective policy. There are past and contemporary examples of this. That’s pretty neat.
It’s also worth noting this is a trick (ie turning philosophy into effective policy) that my own area of research, post-analytic philosophy and ethics, is notoriously bad at. Do a quick survey on how many analytic theories become the zeitgeist in science or inform policy and you’ll be woefully underwhelmed. So, if we’re talking about “reasons to be interested”, that’s a pretty big one.
Now if you still don’t like that, because it
Then I would kindly like to point out that you don’t seem to be advancing any real critique of continental epistemology, at least in the comments I’m responding to. If you have one, then that’s grand—please note that I am not a subject expert in epistemology, so I probably won’t be able to point you to resources to pursue your inquiry further.
Also, as a general aside: I’m noticing a confrontational tone in some of your responses throughout this thread. Now, I fucking love conflict (old habits die hard haha), but it’s often not the most useful approach when surveying peers or resources in academia. And, in fact, it can make you a rather caustic individual to work with—and you’ll find yourself politely excused more often than winning a victory. I saw another commenter suggest adopting a principle of charity in pursuit of your criticisms to continental philosophy, and I would like to endorse their recommendation. Trust me man; you’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. It’s totally fine to passionately dislike other theories (or even theorists), but we need to maintain some semblance of civility and respect if we are to meaningfully converse about our differences. That is a foundational cultural attribute to modern academia in the West.
Do you want us to take this post serious or are you trolling?
I can see that. It does seem like trolling, but whether it is or isn't almost seems irrelevant by this point in the conversation it inspired. I don't want to suggest that trolling is a useful practice but in this instance the responses the person received at least responded philosophically. So, even if this is an act of trolling, a philosophical response did what it does best, which is have a conversation versus an emotional reaction. In undergrad I heard the same things and as far as trolling goes, in a way, this is a high-level trolling anyway. Lol. But I have shared this with a few friends who never took philosophy but enjoy talking philosophy and thinking philosophically and have no intention of going any deeper into philosophy past our tiny discussions. The way people responded, in my opinion, at least modeled the most basic function of philosophy which is to question and hold a conversation, versus a high-minded and perhaps unintentionally emotionally reactive debate and calling it philosophy. You know, the people who like philosophy more because they like to argue/debate than they enjoy exercising their mind through an interesting contemplation.
I assumed it was trolling.
For a thousand years there was pretty much only footnotes to Aristotle (though there may have been developments within this tradition). Then Hobbes and Descartes showed us how to be iconoclasts again.
And then Kant did it again.
The 20th Century was an attempt to do this again, in the Anglo-American tradition especially. Unfortunately that has largely failed—linguistic philosophy is seen as mostly a product of a very specific time and location.
But in all of this, there are glimmers of truth, kernels of wisdom, misunderstandings to be corrected, ways of thinking to be developed further…
There isn’t a single source of Truth out there that all philosophers have failed to achieve and thus should be discarded. There are just humans working on different projects in different traditions, trying to make things make sense in many different ways.
Rejecting that out of hand is at best ignorant, and at worst, stultifying.
Sophomore
Sophos- wise
Moros- moron
I could sympathize with you a bit when you just critiqued the Continental philosophers, but then criticizing all of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy...that's surprising coming from a Philosophy major!
Foucault is my second fave philosopher.
I’m sure your mind will make last contributions to humanity. Let’s celebrate your birth.
Sure October 26th
On May 9 2024 He sayeth:
An earth shaking moment in the humanities!
Humanities are mostly a meme anyway
I mean this also begs the question as to why would you study the history of philosophy as a subject/study anything which doesn't have the outcome of material benefit.
This is a nice dose of schadenfreude.
One problem I have with continental philosophy is that it seems more focused on driving forward cultural/political revolution as opposed to focusing on the classical quest for knowledge and truth (thinking of class consciousness, Marxism in general.) Like, don’t you realize there is a problem with your political goal if you need to reinvent reality in order to achieve it? At some point, you can’t really practice continental philosophy/critical theory without getting wrapped into the political project.
I was just a philosophy major many years ago, but I recall Kant, Husserl, and Heidegger going to extraordinary lengths to investigate reality, what we can know, and the nature and value of truth. Politics is only one application of Hegel's work. Nietzsche didn't write about politics, other than the odd aphorism, he was all about the individual's relation to truth and the world. So other than the Marx/Hegel connection and Foucault's activism, I'm not sure what would make you think this. It may be that I just haven't read the right works.
You’re right about the writers you mentioned, but I’m referring mainly to the work of contemporary continental/critical theory philosophers. The recent campus protests about Gaza is highlighting this school of thought.
You are right - the type of scholars you refer to are not philosophers at all, just curators of thought, at best. Today's academic Philosophy is a sorry sight mostly populated by intellectually and spiritually sterile nerds engaged in purposefully endless circlejerking just to justify their paycheck. Otherwise, they would have to go out in the real world and work. They are the cursed ones who have no talent or interest in anything other than learning and repeating what they learned. The ancient Greeks, especially Socrates, would simply laugh at them.
LE: There is no surprise in how everybody here scoffs at you. Most of the people here are exactly that type. What do you expect them to say - "i'm unoriginal, untalented and my life's work is utterly pointless"? There are plenty of reasons to study Philosophy, but becoming one of these people is not one of them. Whatever you do, make it worthwhile!
Aristotle for sure will applaud anyone who's dedicating his life to only thinking.
Socrates would too. But it's not these guys. They only regurgitate inconsequential footnotes and have no thoughts of their own. Their only reason for existence is churning out sterile papers that serve nobody but themselves. Truth serves everyone and that is anything but love for truth.
How does Foucault have no thoughts of his own?
I was referring to scholars in [insert any philosopher's name]. I only addressed the latter part of the post because Ultimarr already answered the former part well enough in his/her first two points (the other two I find to be off the mark). Foucault is a philosopher, regardless of what one might think of his ideas, for the simple reason that he bothered to think, unlike the thought curators I mentioned earlier. Camus is an interesting case because he never really claimed a spot among philosophers, so he didn't write using the appropriate framework. That's not a fault of his, but this is a different topic altogether.