> It's part of the package if you ask me.

Whether that is necessary or optimal is another matter. But then, there's something to be said for having fun as well!

> Are you denying the Hegelian dialectic as a process for uncovering truth and reaching understanding?

I mean, even throwing everything in your basket at the wall hoping that it sticks could be "a way" for discovery, so.. I'm denying nothing in such an all-around fashion. Was it Feyerabend to say anything goes?

> the impossibility of totalizing signification and recognition

That has also a name, and thanks to actually well-defined terms I believe there is at least some rough boundary of what the limits could be or not.

> Is there something to be gained by denying the limitation of symbolic thought (aside from grasping for symbolic authority)?

I'm not denying the limits (some of which I'm sure somebody way smarter than me already demonstrated).

I'm criticizing hypocrites that just handwaves that ex post and call it a day, as if something this fundamental (and definitively unorthodox) shouldn't be in the first pages of their work, and especially as if "pointing out there's a problem" was the same of how proving it from first principles.

A failure that it's even more stark considering that a certain man a century ago spent 360 pages just to explain how 1+1=2 in the most dead cold way possible, and another nuked the provability and consistency of mathematics itself in a tenth of that.

I'll grant though that I was taking more of an issue with users of this sub here, more than specific philosophers.

> 'Progess' is ideological in the most unproductive sense.

As in "scientific progress" it does not seem particularly bad. Even though yeah, I can see how there may be a waaay better word to make my point.

> Historicism is for fools and capitalists.

Nothing to add there.

[removed]

It's part of the package if you ask me.

Be as "harsh" and "bold" as possible, in order for even the slightest rough edge to be visible (and thus readily debatable).

>But when anything can mean everything (and why not, also its opposite while we are at it) then you aren't on a quest for knowledge.

I don't understand your point here. Are you denying the Hegelian dialectic as a process for uncovering truth and reaching understanding? That seems to he implicit in your framing, but I grant I may well be misunderstanding.

>To the point that I have read the worst scoundrels wiggling away from any responsibility towards their work, by claiming that the very damn language that they were using to convey such information is just too limited to actually know the world.

I think understanding with langugage is possible, to a point -- the impossibility of totalizing signification and recognition -- being that point. Is there something to be gained by denying the limitation of symbolic thought (aside from grasping for symbolic authority)? Again, may be misreading.

>And btw it's quite disingenuous to affirm that Carnap and other logical positivists failed. They set the basis for Popper's theory of truth, in what could be considered the biggest example of "progress" that there probably ever was in philosophy.

Definitely understand your point here... Disagree. 'Progess' is ideological in the most unproductive sense. Historicism is for fools and capitalists. Positivism is only useful toward those same ends.

You don’t sound biased at all. Not that I disagree with what you’re really saying, it’s just that you sound way too biased for the good of your position

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

"Logic" didn't take an issue with metaphysics.

Hell, you could argue the thing itself is, together with the sacred epistemology.

But when anything can mean everything (and why not, also its opposite while we are at it) then you aren't on a quest for knowledge. Poetry seems indeed quite a fitting label for the remainder.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.139543/page/n9/mode/2up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophy

Philosophy can also be awe then (try to explain the raven's paradox with the indoor ornithology metaphor, and people will be blown away) but jesus christ.. it shouldn't be the alpha and omega, and an excuse to write bullshit (in the sense that whatever somebody understands, you don't give a damn as long as they are "impressed"). To the point that I have read the worst scoundrels wiggling away from any responsibility towards their work, by claiming that the very damn language that they were using to convey such information is just too limited to actually know the world.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the guy too far up his ass ended up being a self-absorbed closed society guy, while the one standing up for "facts" eventually ended up being one of the dearest grandpas of philosophy of science.

And btw it's quite disingenuous to affirm that Carnap and other logical positivists failed. They set the basis for Popper's theory of truth, in what could be considered the biggest example of "progress" that there probably ever was in philosophy.

[removed]

[removed]

Most science outside of physics is politically motivated statistical manipulation and physics is not 100% immune either. Physics is the king of the sciences and math is the Queen-- Psychiatry is clown world. Aristotle's natural philosophy turned into physics but Plato's philosophy of the mind is not tangible --the wall of the mind is intangible and metaphysical. Since, physics is the king of the sciences all sciences must obey its laws but to say psychiatric nosology obeys the laws of physics is nonsensical and obviously not true. If a 'disease" in the DSM were found to exist it would move to neurology.

Why Most Published Research Findings are False :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

"In the paper, Ioannidis argued that a large number, if not the majority, of published medical research papers contain results that cannot be replicated. In simple terms, the essay states that scientists use hypothesis testing to determine whether scientific discoveries are significant. "Significance" is formalized in terms of probability, and one formalized calculation ("P value") is reported in the scientific literature as a screening mechanism. Ioannidis posited assumptions about the way people perform and report these tests; then he constructed a statistical model which indicates that most published findings are false positive results."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False#:~:text=%22Why%20Most%20Published%20Research%20Findings,to%20the%20field%20of%20metascience.

It is impossible for true science to exist under Capitalism.

Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism states that the source of human progress and historical change is not to be found in “legal relations” or “political forms,” but rather “in the material conditions of life”. By this Marx means that the economic relations of human beings determine all other relations in that society. Material survival rather than the development of rationality and spiritual thinking forms the fundamental basis of human endeavour in each historical epoch. Since, the development of rationality is sorely lacking in Capitalist society real science does not exist or is in the minority and contained largely to physics.

Psychiatry is an ISA ( Ideological State Apparatus) in Capitalist society. It masquerades as a branch of medicine and a science so that its propositions seem like neutral and objective discourse that is detached from elite control by that is far from the truth

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Here I ask the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. I look at it from 3 angles, a naïve one, one looking at definitions, and a semantic nihilist approach. I conclude that the question has no answer, due to the vagueness of the terms.