How can you tell when a philosopher is a charlatan?
>>294911
Usually they tend to believe motion is possible tbqh w y lad
The more they dig through overly complex ideas whle playing with word to put out their brand new and unique concept, the more they are likely to be full of shit.
example : Derrida. Différance my ass, it's just wordplay and nothing else.
When they claim that nothing is objective, aka the postmodern cop out.
*sniff*
>>294911
very easy: they expose their fantasies and claim that they connect to the empirical data whereas they fail to expose the connection. They whine when people poke their little theories in showing them the lack of said connection.
the best fraudsters are called the logical positivists, the classical rationalists, the Critical rationalists and so on.
When they stop talking about justifications for their ideas, and just start claiming shit.
>>294911
>How can you tell when a philosopher is a charlatan?
A distinction without a difference.
>>294911
I know he's a charlatan when I'm getting upset at what he's saying.
>>294911
when you master the art of understanding them you can refute them.
Also try to understand their system of though and see if it's lacking a central element
>>294911
He eats chips and drinks champaign all day in his luxurious mansion while a cat shits on him.
>>294911
mostly by the consistency of their philosophy
if it runs a certain understandable logic, even if you don't agree with it, you can still understand how they got there and you can still take something from it.
If their philosophy is filled with inconsistency, hypocrisy, round-about arguments, and double-think then they are probably just trying to sound smart go ahead and disregard it.
>>296085
And there it is.
/thread
>>294911
When they spend a lot of time talking and say nothing or very little.
It's really that.
No matter how weird, retarded or controversial what the philosopher says it, what you should pay attention to is how much of it he manages to express in relation to how much mumbo jumbo he spouts
>>294911
When you're too lazy to put the effort in to understand them
>>294911
Is he associated with a 20th school that contains the prefix post- or neo-? If so, do 360.
>>296085
What is the difference between a Charlatan and a Sophist?
>>296318
The charlton is consistent in his bullshit because he wants you to think there is an actual system behind it. The Sophist has a different opinion on the same subject each new day.
Derrida knew exactly what he was doing and was a great contribution to the philosophy of language and metaphysics. His prose style is awful, but it's so for a reason. I will be happy to expand on this, if anyone is interested.
>>296318
A charlatan is the most disgusting kind of faggot, he likes to listen to himself talk and his work is focused towards aesthetical value at the expense of the time, patience and intelligence of others
A sophist points out how one's thoughts and reasonings can be flawed or countered by clever manipulation of language or reason itself. His work is focused towards obtaining what he wants.
The first one should be holocausted, the second one is great for philosophical discussion and actually helpful, whether you agree with him or not.
>>294977
*tug at shirt*
>>296370
>>294977
Mein Gott, I hav becom a literal "meme".
>>296364
Ok. Explain what his contribution was and give an example of it's effective use or application.
>>296364
>Derrida
>he's shit for a reason, not because he's actually shit
ok family whatever. Go on and enlighten us with your roleplay adventure. Do what you want with your time
In the end you're gonna die too
Any of these obtain:
• Being a "Continental" """"""Philosopher""""""
• Putting a chapter in your book on feminist philosophy, as if having a vagina makes your opinion valid alone
• Downplaying science
• Not being able to read Greek
I could go on. The list is long.
When they're popular.
>>294977
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxGLL0yuBYs
>>296396
He noticed that the structural approach to language pioneered by Saussure was leaking out to other fields and recognised the dangers of doing so. Structuralists have, to reduce Derrida a little, basically forgotten the factor of time. When they consider their objects of study, say for example culture, peoples, metaphysics, they can only consider "pie slices" of synchronic periods against each other.
The french anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss would thus go on and write a book called "The Raw and the Cooked", establishing a typical structural binary opposition between two periods in history. What Levi-Strauss forgets to ask himself, according to Derrida, are what assumptions you first have to make to arrive at the concept of "raw": you first have to have established the concept of cooked correctly.
Thus western metaphysics in general. This is what he calls "metaphysics of presence". What is usually considered true and important is what "IS", whereas Derrida stressed the importance of what "is left" or what "is coming". This is what deconstruction is, and it's extremely useful when encountering simple dichotomies, violent hierarchies and ideology in general.
The films The Look of Silence and The Act of Killing are basically an application of his theories, to take an example from the arts.
>>296436
Jesus Christ it's really unnerving
>>296456
Pure circlejerk worthlessness.
>time
>historical periods
Nothing but fabrications.
>>296456
>This entire post
If you talk using any of these terms, you are a charlatan. You are literally what Sokolow was making fun of.
>>296410
Alright, I'm going to bite. The reason he writes the way he writes is to radically avoid constructing a metaphysics of presence himself, as I've outlined here >>296456. The very way western philosophy has conceptualised is, to an extend, toxic to him. You could say that his ideas resist the very concept of "idea", concept of "concept" and so on, which he feels he needs to reflect in his prose style.
When you get used to the motifs and terms, he will gradually seem more and more coherent. His critique of western metaphysics and saussurean linguistics is actually rather straightforward.
>>296471
As I said in my post, the very point is that "periods" are fabrications. Time, not so much.
>>296473
I am always amazed and profoundly triggered when I read some pages from these french post modern shits.
Literally the art of talking about twisted derivatives of pseudo versions of concepts that are nothing and have no value.
Worse than reality tv I think
>>296500
Time is an imaginary uncomprehensible concept too.
The only thing that is is now, always.
>>296506
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Alan D. Sokal
Department of Physics
New York University
4 Washington Place
New York, NY 10003 USA
Internet: [email protected]
Telephone: (212) 998-7729
Fax: (212) 995-4016
November 28, 1994
revised May 13, 1995
Note: This article was published in Social Text #46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996).
Biographical Information: The author is a Professor of Physics at New York University. He has lectured widely in Europe and Latin America, including at the Università di Roma ``La Sapienza'' and, during the Sandinista government, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua. He is co-author with Roberto Fernández and Jürg Fröhlich of Random Walks, Critical Phenomena, and Triviality in Quantum Field Theory (Springer, 1992).
Transgressing disciplinary boundaries ... [is] a subversive undertaking since it is likely to violate the sanctuaries of accepted ways of perceiving. Among the most fortified boundaries have been those between the natural sciences and the humanities.
-- Valerie Greenberg, Transgressive Readings (1990, 1)
The struggle for the transformation of ideology into critical science ... proceeds on the foundation that the critique of all presuppositions of science and ideology must be the only absolute principle of science.
-- Stanley Aronowitz, Science as Power (1988b, 339)
There are many natural scientists, and especially physicists, who continue to reject the notion that the disciplines concerned with social and cultural criticism can have anything to contribute, except perhaps peripherally, to their research. Still less are they receptive to the idea that the very foundations of their worldview must be revised or rebuilt in the light of such criticism. Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
>>296456
So basically
>you should always move the goalpost
brilliant
>>294911
Kind of like you can expose anyone else for being full of shit.
>unwillingness to talk to level
>throw around names of the two authors they know
>hand/dick out
read: 90% of the college professors I have ever met.
>>296518
According to physicists, time is an objective dimension of the universe. According to Derrida, time would be "out of joint", because of the way we construct concepts.
>>296456
in other words, a very simple thinker who basically says nothing and whose thought has overreached beyond what the basic premises of it could allow.
>>296524
My approach will be as follows: First I will review very briefly some of the philosophical and ideological issues raised by quantum mechanics and by classical general relativity. Next I will sketch the outlines of the emerging theory of quantum gravity, and discuss some of the conceptual issues it raises. Finally, I will comment on the cultural and political implications of these scientific developments. It should be emphasized that this article is of necessity tentative and preliminary; I do not pretend to answer all of the questions that I raise. My aim is, rather, to draw the attention of readers to these important developments in physical science, and to sketch as best I can their philosophical and political implications.
>>296525
Actually, that's somewhat fitting. Of course his philosophy is what I would call radically skeptic. Others would call that relativism, but I don't think so.
>>296540
I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum; but I have taken care to provide references where interested readers can find all requisite details.
>>296456
Alright, let's try this in english.
As an example.
I'm studying history, maybe I'm forming a theory. How can I use Derrida's theory to improve my study or theory? What are the negative consequences for my reading/writing for not doing so?
From what I understand you are trying to say historical study has taken things into 'ages' or nicely sliced timed periods to such a degree that it's begun ignoring the actual history that doesn't fit into the neat little slice?
>>296543
>I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum
>I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum
>I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum
>I have endeavored here to keep mathematics to a bare minimum
That's how you know you're reading a journal for self-referential meming retards.
>>296532
What do you mean by basic premise?
He doesn't say nothing. He fucked with a whole school of established thought and people hated him for it. Inconsequential is the last thing he was.
>>296456
Let's deconstruct this mess
Can you explain this on simpler terms? could you get your point across? (if there's any)
>>294911
>How can you tell when a philosopher is a charlatan?
He doesn't use modal realism to cheat on his waifu.
>>296545
I think he should be viewed as a theory to understand human consciousness and the way it constructs fixed concepts, which can leave traces. He doesn't actually say that much about the discipline of history.
But let's say you are writing a book about the aftermath of the holocaust and the way it has been processed through the ages. With Derridas theories in mind, you would be extremely suspicious of any institution or persons claiming to have "closure" on the matter, to me the authority on how to properly mourn and work up history. You would be able to point out where these structures of meaning have cracks, and why it should be important to linger on those cracks. I would imagine, for example, that this would be extremely helpful in an historical analysis of the nation of Israel and its relationship to the Shoa.
>>296562
>>296608
Ok so it's about not turning history into a fable that has a clear beggining, an end, and a message that wraps up the entire story?
And he explores this through looking at language and how we interpret it?
>>296555
yeah but that assumes the structuralists themselves weren't just as retarded. they were.
>>296630
Yes, I think that would be a way to summarize him. With special emphasis on the language in interpretation parts.
>>296631
Ok mate, if everything is retarded and nothing means anything, then I find it hard to argue with you. And perhaps you're a little bit more like the the man you think Derrida is, than you're comfortable with.
>>294925
hey there,
the fact that wordplay exists and entertains children shows that there might be potential for it to be studied.
If you look close enough, all language is wordplay, what is really important is how its used to manipulate reality.
whatever your occupation, either mathimatician or plumber you are enslaved by language, and the reason for that is our need to communicate.
His writings were not written in a didactic manner, he is not trying to make it easier for you so you can be taught some values.
His writings are aimed at progressing human thought itself, understanding what meaning itself is and making it explicit.
So all in all, you're reading it wrong and its not his fault you decided to jump to the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim.
>>296675
Yes
>>296675
Wordplay is an important part of understanding and communication.
It does not, however, create concepts.
>>296700
Derrida was critiquing the very idea we think, thus the very idea of a "concept".
>>296700
but language does create concepts.
>>296668
what makes them retarded is their assumed reductionism.
That's why I lurk.
You all have convinced me, a student on his way to TEFL + teaching English and writing, to check out Derrida. I've been having a lot of thoughts about my teaching approach, and language barriers and other stuff have came to mind.
Suggestions are welcome for other great minds to enlighten me as they see fit.
>>294911
this thread is so fucking embarrassing.
one fucking person who understands derrida and ten stormniggers jerking each other off.
to the guy: why the fuck do you even bother? threads like these are clearly bait/circlejerks where people just enter and spam memes
>>296749
you can always get a "reader book".
So "grammatology Reader" would be an example. You get both original text and commentary and it really helped me when i was new to philosophy :)
>>296760
I thought it would be an interesting exercise. Also I think I might have instilled some doubt on a cocksure but unread detractor or two (just maybe).
>>296749
Start with this lecture on Derrida and deconstruction (consider watching the corresponding ones about structuralism as well):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np72VPguqeI
The wikipedia articles on différance and deconstruction aren't too bad either. Then read the essay titled "Différance" and move on to Specters of Marx.
>>296456
How does this add anything new to Nietzsche's plethora of remarks concerning "being/becoming" (in you or derrida's terminology: "is/coming")? It seems less nuanced and reads poorly in comparison (Nietzsche plays a little with the meanings of common words, that's why his style is more intelligible and influential, without seeming as obscurantist like Derrida who seems to be closer to the idealists way of using New Academic ways of Style to Make Sure this achieves everything Without falling Prey to the imperfect common Language) from what you say here.
I wish there wasn't so much knee-jerk resentment towards philosophy or "not objective" thought here. Literally fills the thread with more rubbish than any famous charlatan appreciation could.
>>296782
The first thing I wanted to do was attack you for implying I've never studied philosophy before, but I knew it was knee jerk and that you're only helping.
>>296787
I've been reading a bio of him, and I can understand the reason he gets so much flak and why anons here keep memeing he said "nothing". I understand deconstruction now, and it pissed people off because it's like that asshole friend you have that just beats the dead horse every conversation, no matter the topic. Talks it to death. But instead of that, he'd be standing there trying to find the hidden meanings and dual irises and mainly, oppositions in your arguments and theories. People didn't like him 'cuz he thought there were usually hidden meanings. And was normally correct.
That messes with people's worldview, and people don't like change like that. It's scary.
-anyway, the anons talking shit here simply don't understand what they don't understand.
>>296833
Duality*
>>296760
>Everyone who doesn't suck Derrida's dick is a NAZI!
>>296833
You did kind of sound like you needed recommendations.
But yeah, you're right. What sometimes baffles me are people's tendency to have everything spoonfed to them, especially when it comes to theory and philosophy. When they encounter a difficult text, they assume the writer is a hack before they assume their own ignorance.
>>296853
Not defending Derrida but this
>What sometimes baffles me are people's tendency to have everything spoonfed to them, especially when it comes to theory and philosophy.
There are people that actually think you should be able to grasp the big picture in 1-2 posts on 4chan. It's like people who refuse to indulge in anything with more complexity thant a twitter post of buzz-feed articles. Any serious discipline is going to require you read books.
>>296853
>>296869
>What sometimes baffles me are people's tendency to have everything spoonfed to them, especially when it comes to theory and philosophy. When they encounter a difficult text, they assume the writer is a hack before they assume their own ignorance.
I think it happens because mechanistic knowledge is prized most in our society and once you learn the basics of each stage of that then the rest is self-explanatory. So when people who have a decent knowledge of that come to other forms of knowledge they knee-jerk when its not as intuitive or utilitarian.
Anyway don't feed these people and answer me instead >>296803
>>296803
I must admit that I'm not a Nietzsche expert at all, but I know Derrida had a great deal of respect for him and quotes him from time to time. My best response would be that Nietzsche is of a more transcendental/existential school of thought, talking more about the world and the human condition, whereas Derria focuses on presence/absence/becoming specifically regarding language most of the time.
and now the thread has turned to a circlejerk.
welp
In general I think the best way to judge a philosopher is to look at what their legacy was, if any other philosophers adopted their ideas or if it had a good effecton society. The other way is to look at who inspired them, if they are expanding the idea of shitty philosophers or bad concepts you probably won't get much.
Having no lineage to previous philosophers is always a redflag.
>>296967
Possibly. I think he did more than simple application of someone else's system, but as a way of connecting the two I think it works.
I think most french philosophers of that generation (Baudrillard, Lyotard, Foucault and so on), owe a great debt to Nietzsches epistemology, especially the genealogy as method.
memes
>>297084
You should have posted the one with Sokal since someone here actually thinks it was a noteworthy event.
>>295214
Does that include the medieval scholastics?
>>297084
>Works of engineering on the Continental side
>>297160
Germany was the technological power house until WW1 if I recall. And had more nobels than France and UK combined.
>>297125
Outside of theology did these guys ever accomplish anything? It's like after Rome fell philosophy simply stopped existing until Descartes.
>>297177
America has them all beat.
>muh pragmatism
>muh practicality
>>296529
>peer reviewed
You're fucking retarded. Like it is well known that the article was not oeer reviewed. And sokal was already an established academic so he naturally would be published easily. If you want to engage postmodernists you should do it the right way, Deleuze's criticism of Lacan were far more damning than Sokal and his fuck buddy's were.
>>296529
You know in the introduction to the book talking about the hoax the authors specifically say that what he did does not mean the philosophers had a great contribution to other fields.
His point wasn't even that the philosophers fail to understand *everything* it's that they shouldn't be fucking around with fields like quantum physics that they are untrained in. None of the central points of any of the big name philosophers were damaged. What was damaged was the credibility of a journel and the academic chuckle-heads that circle jerk each other over anything vague sounding that uses big words.
This what the fucking writers of the fake article said bro, im basically paraphrasing them.
Everyone already knows the french community was filled with charlatones and it's a pain in the ass to shift through the jokers to find the ones that you actually should read.
Also bro there is no such thing as the analytic/continental divide. The fucking analytic them-self dropped that with Quine decades ago.
>>297186
The seem to have made some pretty decent developments in logic.
>>296318
again consistency
Sophist is consistent in the fallacies he spots in other philosophies.
likewise they at least try to understand the logic of the philosophy they are questioning.
>>297412
Your use of "health" as a categorical assessment of the general level of a nation's historical culture is flawed. Go fuck yourself.
>>297114
>>298650
He gave a good reply and that's your comeback?
Good one mate
>>296946
Good post, valid point
>>296869
This. Some people here are autistic and actually don't understand why the average lurker or poster is gonna have issues fully grasping what they mean in just one or two posts.
What's philosophy a charlatan would quote?
>>299054
>What's philosophy a charlatan would quote?
Heidigger, Hegel, any post-modernist.
Not because they have necessarily philosophy but because they have hard to understand philosophy so you can stand behind.
It kind of sucks but identifying shitty philosophers is primary an experience thing. You really have to look at their legacy and lineage. But you can't understand what a good lineage looks like until you have some understanding of the past philosophers. Also if a philosopher is modern they haven't made a big enough legacy to judge.
The best advice I can give is to start your journey somewhere in the past until you find good philosophers than their lineage into the present. Mid 20th centuary philosophy onward is a minefield of charlatans.
>>299262
>>299054
The real question is, what philosophy WOULDN'T a charlatan quote?
Might as well ask here: how do I into Zizek? Sublime object of ideology is the most cited entry work I've seen about. Could I just jump right into that massive Hegel book of his?
For reference: I hang with the analytic philosophers (no bully) so I'm use to autistic logic fun time and not so much with dialectical fun time.
>>296367
>reasonings can be flawed or countered by clever manipulation of language
pretty sure its a sophist only means the second thing here. a sophist is not good to debate because they by definition make fallacious arguments. if were speaking historical, a sophist doesn't necessarily do what he does it to achieve anything either. they were kind roamed around as master debaters and questioned the morality of the day.
a charlatan is someone who claims to be an expert in something and then deceive people for financial and personal gain; they're fraudsters.
>>296547
it was a meme paper meant to expose the academia for fraud...unless you knew that already
>>299291
he's a real grifter, a very eclectic one
don't start with him if you are new, you need a strong foundation in historical sources, including Marx, Stirner, Hegel, Wittenstein, etc
>>299323
Fair enough. I can stick with my sterile abstractions and linguistics I guess.
>>299329
cognitive linguistics is the only real philosophy left
>>296721
language is concepts
>>294911
when they are french or continental in general
>>297209
Pragmatism is the biggest pile of horseshit in the history of philosophy. It's possibly worse than Derrida et al.
>>296085
stop being a sophist.
if you do not understand something, it does not mean that it is not logical
>>294911
When he calls himself a philosopher or a thinker.
>>296946
>In general I think the best way to judge a philosopher is to look at what their legacy was, if any other philosophers adopted their ideas or if it had a good effecton society.
yes, because each philosopher has heard, read and understood any philosopher before him...
why do you choose to be a caricaturist ?
>>299541
is this special pleading for metaphysics?
>>299600
not at all, rather a decrease faith in reason or logic
>>299706
>faith
this word doesn't mean the same thing to everybody
>>296675
Witt pls go
>>294925
/thread
>>297084
I'm a philosopher and that pic is just fantastic.
Made my day!
>>299541
And not even the philosopher can understand the meaning if the meaning keeps changing. So consistency is important.
Rather than tell me that I do not know the meaning, tell me the meaning and stick to it, otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.
>>300473
found the butthurt
>>294911
of course, there are plenty, just a few:
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
y tho?
>>300497
>"abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical"
where did he say these things?
>>296418
A majestic Britbong in its natural habitat.
>>300541
to be fair the last one is completely true
>>294911
A philosopher is a charlatan when his first name is Slavoj and his last name is Zizek.
>>300497
Notice how all of these are contemporary people.
You also forgot to mention Zizek. I mention Zizek because he is so wildly popular with the now "relatively" active left. He just talks, and talks and talks, and after 5 anecdotes, 3 jokes and an adventure story he not only didn't answer anything, he himself doesn't even remember what he was trying to answer to start with. Now and again he says something insightful, but the way he works seems to be based on the idea of infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, in the sense that if he just talks enough, eventually something he says will be good.
That being said, some of the stuff in his works about Hegel is worth read.
Just my 2c anyway.
>>300571
Maybe some centuries ago, not today.
Wittgenstein was no master of the Greek language, are you going to try and tell me he was of no value becasue of it?
Stop buying into the pretentious memes.
