The research for my podcast episodes is intense. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees 0:00 - What is Philosophy? Why do it? 14:34 - Is Philosophy the "Love of Wisdom"? 18:27 - Who Gets to be called a philosopher? 25:27 - What's the main goal of philosophy? 24:44 - Is philosophy more of an art of science? 26:14 - Science vs. Philosophy - who wins? 31:14 - Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics 33:54 - What is Continental Philosophy? What are some problems? 41:47 - What is Analytic Philosophy? What are some problems? 55:20 - Huemer's methods for generating new ideas 57:33 - What is Historical Philosophy? What are some problems? 1:08:34 - Philosophy as a way of life?
I'd love to see someone who would defend continental philosophy on your channel! Some suggestions would be Carlos L. Garrido, Vivek Chibber, or David Bentley Hart.
Lately I haven't watch your videos as much, because my life have changed for good (new jobs, religious conversion...) and dont have much time, but I enjoyed a lot this Huemer episode. I just wanted to thank you for keep doing this. God bless.
Huemer is interesting in general, and I agree with his arguments for agnosticism and the existence of souls of qualia exist. Though I don’t think his two articles fits even a sufficient critique of two of the three traditions in question (if specifically talking about their popular figures). J.N. Findlay, Robert Brandom, and Robert Pippin, to name a few, are analytic readers of Hegel and Heidegger, still read though begrudgingly by those trained continentally, e.g. Houlgate, Winfield, Maker, etc. It is also not pointed out that much continental philosophy from 18th century in Germany then from 19th century everywhere in Europe is philological, hence Carnap’s impasse with Heidegger on his Elimination of Metaphysics essay critiquing the guy is due to incompatible styles. Kyoto School philosophers would likewise be impenetrable if one doesn’t act like a philologist first. If he were instead suggesting the same about Lacan, Zizek, or Judith Butler, then I tend to agree, but these figures except Butler do not deny objective reality, and neither do all existentialists do so, maybe some but Sartre and Camus definitely do not. It is also I think disingenuous to suggest that to be in the field of history of philosophy that you are likely “drawn to a sort of folie a deux.” It may be a starting point for many, but the landmark works in this field don’t exactly tell you that the writers are boxed in their chosen focus. This isn’t what philosophers like Charles Taylor, Peter Adamson, Matthew Meyer, and Justin E.H. Smith have done, as they’ve not venerated nor exclusively patterned themselves from philosophers they’ve made historical accounts of, but rather built from what they’ve learned, and they all do history and philosophy at the same time (though Smith is both historian and philosopher of science, so I guess the major takeaway is history and philosophy of science has all the positives without the negatives of the three traditions Huemer attacks). I also don’t see how it is disadvantageous to find that a philosopher’s Nachlass changes their reading, especially if their works remain useful for certain authors for subjects that still are important today. All three do have their limits which Huemer mentions: a) analytic doing almost pointless semantic debates, dead-end analysis, defining down the issue; b) continental being generally hard to penetrate without reliable interpreters e.g. one would have to read intros by Stephen Houlgate on various readings of Hegel or Heidegger that are debated, accepted, or rejected; c) history of philosophy being mostly either a comparative or reinterpretive enterprise which is fine when unearthing Nachlass since that doesn’t exactly mean you are a slave to a tradition and there could still be genuine insight, but the fact is many academics in this field are satisfied being boxed in the preexisting historical traditions, ancient, medieval, or early modern, which is a shame. Lesson I’ve learned from Huemer’s, I think, flawed two articles is that, despite history and philosophy of science’s subservience to the sciences sort or hard, I don’t see the same flaws found in all three that I think does apply to the other three. Good philosophers do educate us even when we believe them to be mistaken. Cheers for the great video, Parker!
Two corrections: First paragraph: *souls, IF qualia exist Last paragraph: *sciences, SOFT or hard *HOPS’ subservience to the sciences soft or hard, I don’t see the same flaws in HOPS Huemer finds that I find convincing in the other three
Ok, so I had to wait until the end to see it, but the line of dialogue where Dr. Humer states, " I suspect that bad people have less understanding of ethics." This is excellent, and from a criminology perspective, and certainly not in every case, but for the bulk of crime we are used to dealing with, the offender usually has a lower understanding of a lot of things, not just ethics. So I feel there is a theme there to dig into, at least for people in my field, albeit small. Great podcast 👌
Funny i'm the guy who commented on the inspiring philosophy episode, saying how Bohmian mechanics offers a perfectly coherent physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, and here we have Humer advocating for it a few podcasts later, i still definitely advise you get Tim Maudlin invited though, he can help clarify lots of the issues surrounding quantum mechanics and physics more broadly.
@@ParkersPensees If you're a consciousness fan, you might consider talking to Hans Halvoson about his essay in the book _The Soul Hypothesis_, which basically argues that the existence of mental substances (solus) would solve QM's "measurement problem."
There are a great many individuals and groups perpetually philosophizing, online and offline. It can be dizzying. Most are unaware of this activity. There is something wholesome and encouraging when the activity is intentful.
I appreciate when someone can answer, "I really don't know anything about it," if that is indeed the case. That should have been Huemer's answer when you asked him about continental philosophy. And the history of philosophy, for that matter.
Disagree on the point of continental thinkers not addressing objections. They can be seen doing that constantly, although of course more obscurely. Here are some examples: Heidegger was criticized by Cassirer for his views on Kant, by Merleau-Ponty for not taking into account the perceptual experperience of the body into his phenomenology, and by Levinas for not taking the notion of otherness into account in his analysis of Dasein. Derrida criticized Foucault's analysis of Descartes in Madness and Civilization in his essay Cogito and the History of Folly, to which Foucault also responded. Baudrillard critiqued Marx's analysis of value; Adorno critiqued hegelian dialectics; Deleuze and Guattari responded Chomsky in A Thousand Plateaus and so on. Clearly their method is evidently more "obscure" in character which is an evident detriment to the readability and understandability of their arguments and objections... but they're there, despite all the excruciatingly difficult language. Once you get used to what they're talking about, things get somewhat clearer (of course it's still not comparable with the conceptual clarity of analytic thinkers). As a friend once told me the adjectives "analytic" and "continental" should be substituted with "unbereably dry" and "uselessly cryptic". But I'm starting to see more efforts on both sides to try and merge the so-called divide (Brandom tried to integrate Hegel in the analytic tradition and continental thinkers like Ray Brassier or Reza Negarsestani implementing the works of Wilfrid Sellars and Rudolf Carnap).
Wouldn't be a bad idea to get someone on who actually has read continental philosophy. Dr Ellie Anderson of Overthink Podcast would be a great guest I'd bet.
speaking as someone who got a degree at an analytic institution and has a great appreciation for analytic philosophy, continental philosophy is not irrationalist nonsense. but it does, in my view, tend to be considerably harder to study than analytic philosophy because of its very historical nature. if you want to understand what deleuze was trying to accomplish, for example, you need to be intimately familiar with kant, spinoza, bergson, freud, nietzsche, marx, reich, and a litany of other figures. you also need to understand how poststructuralism(the tradition which deleuze is most often identified with) stands in relation to various intellectual trends that preceded it-like critical theory, existential phenomenology, german idealism, etc. i think we ought to integrate analytic and continental approaches. both analyses are necessary if we wish to make sense of things.
Fun episode. Just wondering... 51:47 I was surprised you just agreed with Mike when he suggested that philosophers who work on free will that take time to argue about "taxonomy" stuff are caught up in some confusion (and, by implication, are doing bad philosophy). Would you mind saying what you were thinking there, ie why you took Mike's point to be obviously right?
Yeah I was keeping a lot in my head at that moment and if I pressed that point I woulda lost it all and jacked up the rest of the episode so I just let it go haha sorry about that
@Parker's Pensées ha. I thought it might be as simple as that...lord knows the rabbit hole you might sink into if you followed up on a free-will question. Lol. I'm gonna tease Mike about what he said here, so was just curious. Thanks!
I find his criticism to continental philosophy very common sense(in bad way), it is some ready-made speech. It is not that continental philosophers aren't clear or precise, thats judging them with analytic eyes. They do answer to objections. Or expand upon objections. The problem with continental philosophy in contrast with analytic it's the lack of common ground both in method and the constitution of the object of knowledge. It seems like each one is creating a new philosophy with its own terminology(which they are). But if you read one philosopher enough, you know they have arguments(maybe not clear-cut). Continental philosophy is not some free for all, there is rigor albeit not analytical. Continental philosophy is mostly concerned with systems of thoughts, and systematizing everything in one interpretative lense. They are much less concerned with logical truth. It may seem antiintuitive. But not all philosophy is or should be based on logical inspection. That is the prejudice of analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy is much more scientific in a sense, it follows common principles and each philosopher contributes a grain of sand to their common system, much more like a scientist in the lab. Contiental philosophy seems more caotic and difficult each philosopher tries to explain everything through an interpretative lense. Analytic philosophy seems purposeless, because they go in circles, trying to find consensus and general agreement about menial details. Continental philosophy seems senseless because they don't care or focus on consensus and are much more loose with terminology and language use, so they create terms and conceptual systems that may be too abstract to comprehend clearly.
New to your groove, and diggin' these blessed musings. Socrates christened / initiated the sight of Academon in his, most enlightening, dialogs w Phædrus between the Old World Sycamore and Vitex trees. (Sound reminiscent..?) This cornerstone sermon site later became the sacred gymnasia of broad shouldered Plato, then later still came to be named "Academy". Great stashe, buddy.
Parker: "I've noticed my philosophical buddies do (X) with me in conversations. Do you think this is problem we philosophers can struggle with?"" Huemer: "No I think you might have some autistic friends." Ok that's funny.
I'll show you my chat gpt, oh yeah i just push this button on my smartphone, some changes....the wiring will not agree it's not hospitable but we have a priori something else to make sense of conditional perception in the mind of alterity in process perception of words and reality formation regardless of the mind of alterity the process of sense psychology then effectively decenters objects to be analyzed in the mind through language and practices that use a specific formula for self positing alterity in the content independently of the idealism of the other to deconstruct them to constantly shape-shifting reality by reducing elements of our system to achieve a difference in perception as a totality of existence within a demographic organization in cognitive bias of being towards death in a trancdental lifeworld of being towards something that others as well as the something others
After the process the analytic philosopher will constantly bombard you with idealisms and probabilities of its antithesis of the process that were created through this continental deconstruction of analytic processing of the alterity of - independenty and isolated - of the other. The continental philosopher will write abstract calculations that cause dementia and force them to read it. The analytic is the a priori and they use to reverse this ontology before heidegger.
I find this point odd. Analytic Philosophy: "of course its complex, its written for high level readers. You wouldn't ask that a scientific article meant for the scientific community to be comprehensible for everyone." Continenetal philosophy: oh they all right to obfuscate (not literally the words used. But the gist uses. I find this odd because you give credence to analytic philosophy for one needing to exist and to be in that milieu to comprehend it, but deny that there is a continental milieu that that has the same requirements.
@@thejimmymeister I feel like people like Huemer and you just take someone like Derrida and assume his obfuscatory and performative style applies to all continental thinkers.
@impulsive1252 You don't sound convinced, so I'll explain. Firstly, I don't share Huemer's view of Continental philosophy, so "people like Huemer and [me]" can be charitably interpreted only to mean something very general, probably like "people interested in philosophy." It's obviously untrue that _people interested in philosophy just take someone like Derrida and assume his obfuscatory and performative style applies to all continental thinkers_ because you are clearly interested in philosophy but don't assume that. If you really meant that I think all Continental philosophy is deliberately obscure rather than necessarily complex, then you're wrong right out of the gate because I don't. I don't think that Schopenhauer or Arendt are obscure, for example. So your feeling in this case must be wrong at least due to the way you use "people like Huemer and you." Secondly, when I think obscure Continental philosophy (because I do think there is obscure Continental philosophy even though I don't think all Continental philosophy is obscure), I think Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger, and Nietzsche. I do not jump to someone like Derrida, never mind jump to someone like him and then go on to assume all other Continental philosophers share his style. (I don't assume that any philosophers share a style. Even the obscure Continental philosophers I named don't share a style.) So you're wrong on that point, too. A final note: I think that some instances of obscurity are justified although most aren't. Nietzsche could not have done what he did without being obscure. Fichte and Hegel could have. If we look to analytic philosophy, I think we find an example of obscurity in Wittgenstein, and I don't think he could have done what he did in _Tractatus_ without being obscure. (I do think, though, that _Philosophical Investigations_ is needlessly obscure.) My initial comment about there being a difference between obscurity and complexity was intended only to draw attention to the points that 1) there are contexts which require complexity but not obscurity 2) so it is reasonable to accept complexity as a necessary difficulty even in a case when one does not accept obscurity as a necessary difficulty. I hope that illuminates things.
I mean this is a load of BS. He said "Continental philosophers are more subjectivist, and don't address criticisms". Wow, he made this up. Because both of these statements couldn't be further from the truth. And then a few seconds later, he admitted he just thinks they were "bad writers". So basically, they are hard to read, therefore nonsense. Very rigorous way of looking at it. Real heavy hitter we have here. Not impressed.
Socrates didn't profit by choice. He was constantly surrounded by rich and impressionable young men offering him money, and he repeatedly turned it down.
![งมหอย จับปลา มือเปล่า หาอยู่หากินแบบวีถีอีสานกับแก๊งเซียนหรั่ง ม่วนคัก! [ขอนแก่น] @Sianstudio](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEJZg6N-AbU/mqdefault.jpg)
The research for my podcast episodes is intense. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees
0:00 - What is Philosophy? Why do it?
14:34 - Is Philosophy the "Love of Wisdom"?
18:27 - Who Gets to be called a philosopher?
25:27 - What's the main goal of philosophy?
24:44 - Is philosophy more of an art of science?
26:14 - Science vs. Philosophy - who wins?
31:14 - Bohmian interpretation of quantum mechanics
33:54 - What is Continental Philosophy? What are some problems?
41:47 - What is Analytic Philosophy? What are some problems?
55:20 - Huemer's methods for generating new ideas
57:33 - What is Historical Philosophy? What are some problems?
1:08:34 - Philosophy as a way of life?
This was fantastic! Thank you for being you & for doing these intensely cool interviews :)
@@westonscrivner I'm so glad you liked it! Thanks for the kind words!
I'd love to see someone who would defend continental philosophy on your channel! Some suggestions would be Carlos L. Garrido, Vivek Chibber, or David Bentley Hart.
Lately I haven't watch your videos as much, because my life have changed for good (new jobs, religious conversion...) and dont have much time, but I enjoyed a lot this Huemer episode. I just wanted to thank you for keep doing this. God bless.
My man!! Congrats on the life changes!
Hey! Just curious what did you convert to? I hope you dont mind me asking
I am catholic now
@@adriang.fuentes7649 what were you before you were catholic and why did you change exactly?
sometimes a thing is confusing because there are many steps; other times, because there are many leaps
Nicely put!
Huemer is a breath of fresh air.
So true
this is your first video I've seen and it's excellent. I must check our more as well Huemer's works. thanks.
"Continental philosophers don't address objections" Dang, Huemer will just make shit up and sound super confident!
Huemer is interesting in general, and I agree with his arguments for agnosticism and the existence of souls of qualia exist. Though I don’t think his two articles fits even a sufficient critique of two of the three traditions in question (if specifically talking about their popular figures). J.N. Findlay, Robert Brandom, and Robert Pippin, to name a few, are analytic readers of Hegel and Heidegger, still read though begrudgingly by those trained continentally, e.g. Houlgate, Winfield, Maker, etc. It is also not pointed out that much continental philosophy from 18th century in Germany then from 19th century everywhere in Europe is philological, hence Carnap’s impasse with Heidegger on his Elimination of Metaphysics essay critiquing the guy is due to incompatible styles. Kyoto School philosophers would likewise be impenetrable if one doesn’t act like a philologist first. If he were instead suggesting the same about Lacan, Zizek, or Judith Butler, then I tend to agree, but these figures except Butler do not deny objective reality, and neither do all existentialists do so, maybe some but Sartre and Camus definitely do not.
It is also I think disingenuous to suggest that to be in the field of history of philosophy that you are likely “drawn to a sort of folie a deux.” It may be a starting point for many, but the landmark works in this field don’t exactly tell you that the writers are boxed in their chosen focus. This isn’t what philosophers like Charles Taylor, Peter Adamson, Matthew Meyer, and Justin E.H. Smith have done, as they’ve not venerated nor exclusively patterned themselves from philosophers they’ve made historical accounts of, but rather built from what they’ve learned, and they all do history and philosophy at the same time (though Smith is both historian and philosopher of science, so I guess the major takeaway is history and philosophy of science has all the positives without the negatives of the three traditions Huemer attacks). I also don’t see how it is disadvantageous to find that a philosopher’s Nachlass changes their reading, especially if their works remain useful for certain authors for subjects that still are important today.
All three do have their limits which Huemer mentions: a) analytic doing almost pointless semantic debates, dead-end analysis, defining down the issue; b) continental being generally hard to penetrate without reliable interpreters e.g. one would have to read intros by Stephen Houlgate on various readings of Hegel or Heidegger that are debated, accepted, or rejected; c) history of philosophy being mostly either a comparative or reinterpretive enterprise which is fine when unearthing Nachlass since that doesn’t exactly mean you are a slave to a tradition and there could still be genuine insight, but the fact is many academics in this field are satisfied being boxed in the preexisting historical traditions, ancient, medieval, or early modern, which is a shame.
Lesson I’ve learned from Huemer’s, I think, flawed two articles is that, despite history and philosophy of science’s subservience to the sciences sort or hard, I don’t see the same flaws found in all three that I think does apply to the other three. Good philosophers do educate us even when we believe them to be mistaken. Cheers for the great video, Parker!
Two corrections:
First paragraph: *souls, IF qualia exist
Last paragraph: *sciences, SOFT or hard
*HOPS’ subservience to the sciences soft or hard, I don’t see the same flaws in HOPS Huemer finds that I find convincing in the other three
Ok, so I had to wait until the end to see it, but the line of dialogue where Dr. Humer states, " I suspect that bad people have less understanding of ethics." This is excellent, and from a criminology perspective, and certainly not in every case, but for the bulk of crime we are used to dealing with, the offender usually has a lower understanding of a lot of things, not just ethics. So I feel there is a theme there to dig into, at least for people in my field, albeit small. Great podcast 👌
Funny i'm the guy who commented on the inspiring philosophy episode, saying how Bohmian mechanics offers a perfectly coherent physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, and here we have Humer advocating for it a few podcasts later, i still definitely advise you get Tim Maudlin invited though, he can help clarify lots of the issues surrounding quantum mechanics and physics more broadly.
Yeah that's my next area of study. I know almost nothing so it'll be fun being a dummy again
@@ParkersPensees If you're a consciousness fan, you might consider talking to Hans Halvoson about his essay in the book _The Soul Hypothesis_, which basically argues that the existence of mental substances (solus) would solve QM's "measurement problem."
@@AP-vg3nr awesome!! I love these kinds of tips, thank you!
There are a great many individuals and groups perpetually philosophizing, online and offline. It can be dizzying. Most are unaware of this activity. There is something wholesome and encouraging when the activity is intentful.
Yay more Huemer, good work
Philosophy covered with wrestling bruises, what a combo! Warrior Philosopher!
Could you drop the links to Dr Huemer's papers in the shownotes?
I appreciate when someone can answer, "I really don't know anything about it," if that is indeed the case. That should have been Huemer's answer when you asked him about continental philosophy. And the history of philosophy, for that matter.
Perfectly said.
Couldn’t agree more.
Humer = mix between Hume and Homer
Disagree on the point of continental thinkers not addressing objections. They can be seen doing that constantly, although of course more obscurely. Here are some examples: Heidegger was criticized by Cassirer for his views on Kant, by Merleau-Ponty for not taking into account the perceptual experperience of the body into his phenomenology, and by Levinas for not taking the notion of otherness into account in his analysis of Dasein. Derrida criticized Foucault's analysis of Descartes in Madness and Civilization in his essay Cogito and the History of Folly, to which Foucault also responded.
Baudrillard critiqued Marx's analysis of value; Adorno critiqued hegelian dialectics; Deleuze and Guattari responded Chomsky in A Thousand Plateaus and so on. Clearly their method is evidently more "obscure" in character which is an evident detriment to the readability and understandability of their arguments and objections... but they're there, despite all the excruciatingly difficult language. Once you get used to what they're talking about, things get somewhat clearer (of course it's still not comparable with the conceptual clarity of analytic thinkers). As a friend once told me the adjectives "analytic" and "continental" should be substituted with "unbereably dry" and "uselessly cryptic". But I'm starting to see more efforts on both sides to try and merge the so-called divide (Brandom tried to integrate Hegel in the analytic tradition and continental thinkers like Ray Brassier or Reza Negarsestani implementing the works of Wilfrid Sellars and Rudolf Carnap).
Where is Huemers article about good vs great philosophers?
46:57 LOL @ mike’s immediate response
Wouldn't be a bad idea to get someone on who actually has read continental philosophy. Dr Ellie Anderson of Overthink Podcast would be a great guest I'd bet.
speaking as someone who got a degree at an analytic institution and has a great appreciation for analytic philosophy, continental philosophy is not irrationalist nonsense. but it does, in my view, tend to be considerably harder to study than analytic philosophy because of its very historical nature. if you want to understand what deleuze was trying to accomplish, for example, you need to be intimately familiar with kant, spinoza, bergson, freud, nietzsche, marx, reich, and a litany of other figures. you also need to understand how poststructuralism(the tradition which deleuze is most often identified with) stands in relation to various intellectual trends that preceded it-like critical theory, existential phenomenology, german idealism, etc. i think we ought to integrate analytic and continental approaches. both analyses are necessary if we wish to make sense of things.
Fun episode. Just wondering...
51:47 I was surprised you just agreed with Mike when he suggested that philosophers who work on free will that take time to argue about "taxonomy" stuff are caught up in some confusion (and, by implication, are doing bad philosophy). Would you mind saying what you were thinking there, ie why you took Mike's point to be obviously right?
Yeah I was keeping a lot in my head at that moment and if I pressed that point I woulda lost it all and jacked up the rest of the episode so I just let it go haha sorry about that
@Parker's Pensées ha. I thought it might be as simple as that...lord knows the rabbit hole you might sink into if you followed up on a free-will question. Lol. I'm gonna tease Mike about what he said here, so was just curious. Thanks!
Когда стрим с Кукечем?
I find his criticism to continental philosophy very common sense(in bad way), it is some ready-made speech. It is not that continental philosophers aren't clear or precise, thats judging them with analytic eyes. They do answer to objections. Or expand upon objections.
The problem with continental philosophy in contrast with analytic it's the lack of common ground both in method and the constitution of the object of knowledge. It seems like each one is creating a new philosophy with its own terminology(which they are). But if you read one philosopher enough, you know they have arguments(maybe not clear-cut). Continental philosophy is not some free for all, there is rigor albeit not analytical. Continental philosophy is mostly concerned with systems of thoughts, and systematizing everything in one interpretative lense. They are much less concerned with logical truth. It may seem antiintuitive. But not all philosophy is or should be based on logical inspection. That is the prejudice of analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy is much more scientific in a sense, it follows common principles and each philosopher contributes a grain of sand to their common system, much more like a scientist in the lab. Contiental philosophy seems more caotic and difficult each philosopher tries to explain everything through an interpretative lense.
Analytic philosophy seems purposeless, because they go in circles, trying to find consensus and general agreement about menial details. Continental philosophy seems senseless because they don't care or focus on consensus and are much more loose with terminology and language use, so they create terms and conceptual systems that may be too abstract to comprehend clearly.
New to your groove, and diggin' these blessed musings.
Socrates christened / initiated the sight of Academon in his, most enlightening, dialogs w Phædrus between the Old World Sycamore and Vitex trees. (Sound reminiscent..?)
This cornerstone sermon site later became the sacred gymnasia of broad shouldered Plato, then later still came to be named "Academy".
Great stashe, buddy.
Huemer FTW!
Parker: "I've noticed my philosophical buddies do (X) with me in conversations. Do you think this is problem we philosophers can struggle with?""
Huemer: "No I think you might have some autistic friends."
Ok that's funny.
Lol yeah and I'll look back on that moment in fondness when they cart me off to TH-cam jail 😅
Where do you get books like that on your bookshelf? I see so many collections of books on peoples video's but cant find anything like that.
22:32 not yet…not yet…
I'm gonna be really disappointed if this stuff doesn't get defined along the way in this video, in a way I can understand 😅😅😅
😅
3:11
🤔💭
I'll show you my chat gpt, oh yeah i just push this button on my smartphone, some changes....the wiring will not agree it's not hospitable but we have a priori something else to make sense of conditional perception in the mind of alterity in process perception of words and reality formation regardless of the mind of alterity the process of sense psychology then effectively decenters objects to be analyzed in the mind through language and practices that use a specific formula for self positing alterity in the content independently of the idealism of the other to deconstruct them to constantly shape-shifting reality by reducing elements of our system to achieve a difference in perception as a totality of existence within a demographic organization in cognitive bias of being towards death in a trancdental lifeworld of being towards something that others as well as the something others
After the process the analytic philosopher will constantly bombard you with idealisms and probabilities of its antithesis of the process that were created through this continental deconstruction of analytic processing of the alterity of - independenty and isolated - of the other. The continental philosopher will write abstract calculations that cause dementia and force them to read it. The analytic is the a priori and they use to reverse this ontology before heidegger.
🤔
You can have too much Huemer; my intuition tells me so.
😅
I find this point odd.
Analytic Philosophy: "of course its complex, its written for high level readers. You wouldn't ask that a scientific article meant for the scientific community to be comprehensible for everyone."
Continenetal philosophy: oh they all right to obfuscate (not literally the words used. But the gist uses.
I find this odd because you give credence to analytic philosophy for one needing to exist and to be in that milieu to comprehend it, but deny that there is a continental milieu that that has the same requirements.
There's a difference between complexity and obscurity. Both take work to get through, but that doesn't mean they are equally justified.
@@thejimmymeister I feel like people like Huemer and you just take someone like Derrida and assume his obfuscatory and performative style applies to all continental thinkers.
@@impulsive1252 You can feel whatever you'd like, but if you feel that, you're wrong.
@@thejimmymeister Sure, mate.
@impulsive1252 You don't sound convinced, so I'll explain.
Firstly, I don't share Huemer's view of Continental philosophy, so "people like Huemer and [me]" can be charitably interpreted only to mean something very general, probably like "people interested in philosophy." It's obviously untrue that _people interested in philosophy just take someone like Derrida and assume his obfuscatory and performative style applies to all continental thinkers_ because you are clearly interested in philosophy but don't assume that. If you really meant that I think all Continental philosophy is deliberately obscure rather than necessarily complex, then you're wrong right out of the gate because I don't. I don't think that Schopenhauer or Arendt are obscure, for example. So your feeling in this case must be wrong at least due to the way you use "people like Huemer and you."
Secondly, when I think obscure Continental philosophy (because I do think there is obscure Continental philosophy even though I don't think all Continental philosophy is obscure), I think Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger, and Nietzsche. I do not jump to someone like Derrida, never mind jump to someone like him and then go on to assume all other Continental philosophers share his style. (I don't assume that any philosophers share a style. Even the obscure Continental philosophers I named don't share a style.) So you're wrong on that point, too.
A final note: I think that some instances of obscurity are justified although most aren't. Nietzsche could not have done what he did without being obscure. Fichte and Hegel could have. If we look to analytic philosophy, I think we find an example of obscurity in Wittgenstein, and I don't think he could have done what he did in _Tractatus_ without being obscure. (I do think, though, that _Philosophical Investigations_ is needlessly obscure.) My initial comment about there being a difference between obscurity and complexity was intended only to draw attention to the points that 1) there are contexts which require complexity but not obscurity 2) so it is reasonable to accept complexity as a necessary difficulty even in a case when one does not accept obscurity as a necessary difficulty.
I hope that illuminates things.
I mean this is a load of BS. He said "Continental philosophers are more subjectivist, and don't address criticisms". Wow, he made this up. Because both of these statements couldn't be further from the truth. And then a few seconds later, he admitted he just thinks they were "bad writers". So basically, they are hard to read, therefore nonsense. Very rigorous way of looking at it. Real heavy hitter we have here. Not impressed.
Socrates’ didn’t profit from philosophy; that’s partially what his beef with the sophists was over!
They were intellectual mercenaries who argued for the highest bidder though
Socrates didn't profit by choice. He was constantly surrounded by rich and impressionable young men offering him money, and he repeatedly turned it down.
Oh man, analytics have no ability for self-critique unfortunately.
As called continental, this is wonderfull, what you call philosophy is dont want understand. Cubic meters in gallons. Stupidity has no limits
The old all continental philosophy is obfuscation... with the side dish of no examples given.
Your guest is wrong on numerous points. Have me on and i'll explain why and what the rational alternative is.
Self admitting philosophical larping, holy cringe