How to distinguish between REAL philosophy and mental wankery?
>>427095
REAL philosophy advances opinions you agree with.
Mental wankery advances opinions you disagree with.
>>427095
Foucault is often as full of shit as the rest of the post-structuralists; however, I find his ideas about skepticism and power interesting.
It's interesting to read his works, even when he plays dishonest rhetorical games, because of his ideas and style.
Also, not many people can make Chomsky look foolish
>>427106
>Also, not many people can make Chomsky look foolish
You really need to be familiar with the older (1800s and younger) philosophy before going into the more modern stuff.
The older stuff has mostly been sorted out. Most of the quakes have been forgotten and when dealing with mixed philosophy (part real part wankery) you can often find things to tell you what parts of the philosophy are relevant and what isn't: for instance it's well known meditations is the important Descartes work and the rest are lesser.
In general though a reliable way to tell a philosopher is useless to see that they don't have any good philosophers as their sources of inspiration. All important work is done on the shoulders of giants.
>>427125
Love him or hate him (for me, the latter), there's no denying that Chomsky is an exceptionally clever individual
>>427095
>REAL philosophy
Is done by people at research universities
>mental wankery
That's the sociology and media studies department
>tfw rage sharting about pomos all the time
>now you fuck with foucault
>you're dancing with Derrida
>liasoning with lyotard
>>427161
I think that's the point of this new meme: that the meme of Chomsky being stupid has no other critique to deliver.
>>427154
Well that's part and parcel of the "is any work truly original?" question.
I think also that we place too much emphasis on tracing philosophical development. For example: having interacted with academic philosophy and different schools of thought for many years now, I have yet to see someone truly stand on the shoulders of giants.
Most philosophical positing and refutation concerns itself with only a few of the previous generations of thinkers in any particular field.
>>427274
>Most philosophical positing and refutation concerns itself with only a few of the previous generations of thinkers in any particular field.
That sounds like bullshit.
>>427274
>Most philosophical positing and refutation concerns itself with only a few of the previous generations of thinkers in any particular field
Isnt that was is supposed to happen?
You cant be retracing every step back to the beggining anytime you want to tackle a particular philosophical field.
By tackling the previous generation you're indirectly tackling several generations of accumulated work?
>>427327
It probably is since I only actively engage in one field, but movement into others and the conversations or arguments I see (including my own field) in these follows this trend.
I'm trying to make a more general and larger point about academic postulation within.
I'm probably failing.
>>427341
Yes I would think it's the purpose in an ideal sense, the problem however is that discourse changes everything. What one sociologist means by "dialectics" will not match what a political philosopher would call "Hegel".
>>427095
what you are doing right now is called mental wankery. work your way from that.
>>427095
real philosophy wasn't written by a french born after 1900s, that much I know.
