14.7.03

analytic philosophy - accepting historicism one could call it "imperialist philosophy". a bit of a leap, yes, but let's.

"At Harvard, regarded by the analytic establishment as a premier department despite its weaknesses in history, W.V.O. Quine, analytic epistemology's towering figure, declared philosophy and history of philosophy to be separate fields ['fields'? - like organic chemistry and industrial chemistry?]. A Harvard professor teaching early modern philosophy could abashedly ask his charges, as one did, "Descartes -- was he before Newton or after Newton?" At Princeton, similar to Harvard in its ahistorical orientation, a philosophy professor famously posted a sign on his door, "Just Say No to the History of Philosophy!"

[...]

"Over the past 20 years, however, a new generation of philosophers -- including a surprising number trained at those two institutions -- have tried, in the words of Princeton's own current expert in early modern philosophy, Daniel Garber, "to find a more historical way of doing the history of philosophy." [indicative really, 'history of philosophy' must be historical - is this the insight? to 'do' philosophy]."

language indicates rigid lock-up in analytical epistemology. simple reflection within the boundaries of the epistemic frame in order to grasp historical totality via object produces linguistically pragmatic construct, reflection via oppressed language -> deceptive enlightenment - sounds like trying to mate a dog with a cat. absence of history in anglo-american philosophy and sole epistemic reception of most any magnum opus in western tradition indicative of political culture. analytical philosophy is merely scientific theory, which, in light of idealist argumentation is a rather spurious corner of the object, unreflectively corresponding to advanced industrial society. semantics of history based on positivist set of assumptions -> downward spiral into meaninglessness -> result: functionalist interpretation of (doing) history. self has nothing to do with anything -> interpretation feeds status quo. essentially: fascist ideology.

subject, anyone?

No comments:

Post a Comment