Jared Taylor to do an AMA July 26th on /r/altright

SoGenerous · 1日前

It's a term often used for referring to everything before the analytic/continental split. Hume, Kant, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz, etc.

SoGenerous · 3日前

Shitposts are so integral for the alt right's culture. We're gonna need lots and lots of shitposts.

SoGenerous · 3日前

Yeah, that advice is honestly pretty stupid. You'd have to research an entire field. I'd ask yourself what you know the best. That'll save you a lot of time on research and probably help morale.

SoGenerous · 3日前

Are you sure that you want to write a sample on what's trendy? When breaking new ground, you run into a lot of people who are married to their own ideas and won't give you a good shake. You also run into places without prominent secondary sources and where your professors won't even have read the book, so the risk of making costly mistakes runs high. I might recommend something safer.

I'd recommend working in the history of philosophy because (a) everybody respects it, (b) there are infinite secondary sources--many very well known and well respected, (c) there's SO much water under the bridge that no matter how into a particular idea whoever reads your paper may be, they will acknowledge that it's a respectable viewpoint, and (d) those ideas have been around for so long that nobody feels threatened by them anymore--even if it'd be very threatening to that person's ideas if the dead philosopher published the same exact piece today.

Also, keep in mind what a sample piece is. It's not your time to change the world, revolutionize philosophy, or any of that. You're essentially proving that you're not a dummy and that you're capable of learning and being taught. If you can show them a mastery of some basic household names and allude to the fact that you know more modern stuff, then you'll probably go very far. You also don't risk alienating grad schools by showing that you're interested in different things than they are. If you're a panpsychist for instance then you kinda alienate yourself if there are no panpsychists in the department you're going for and they might think you're smart, but reject you anyways for being a 'bad fit.' On the flipside, everyone loves hearing about Kant.

SoGenerous · 4日前

Or... it could be that those departments are not competent in continental philosophy.

Except it's pretty much all (if not all) the highly ranked departments. If it were a few then you'd have a point but it's virtually all of them.

That's not a sign of disrespect.

I just told you, I'm not talking about their feelings or emotions. The things they do themselves, without worrying about intent, make continental philosophy treated as second class.

SoGenerous · 4日前

I didn't say anything about how continentals are thought of. I talked about how continental philosophy is treated in those departments. It has fewer of its people being hired in the departments, fewer courses dedicated to it, and it's not cited in the vast majority of work being done in those departments. That seems like second class treatment to me, despite whether or not the analytics who do get hired might think well of them.

SoGenerous · 4日前

https://www.mcgill.ca/philosophy/people/faculty

http://www.philosophy.utoronto.ca/people/faculty-by-research-areas/

http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/page/faculty (at least 5)

http://www.concordia.ca/artsci/philosophy/about/faculty.html

http://philosophy.ubc.ca/people/core-faculty/ (3 and 1 Eastern philosophy)

These are all majority analytic, and NYU has nowhere near five. It's got one Nietzsche scholar and one continental.

I don't know what point you're trying to make but you're not selling it well. Sorry but other than NYU, Harvard, Stanford, and MIT (perhaps) I don't know what else you have in mind compared to UfT, McGill, Sorbonne Universities, Oxford/Cambridge, Frankfurt/Berlin, Sydney, etc.

The point I'm making is that there are a much higher number of well respected philosophy departments in the US than in Canada and Britain. Go look on philosophicalgourmet.com to see them listed out.

TIL there are more than two anglophones countries in Europe and any country other than France and Germany doesn't count.

I don't know what this means because the sentence is butchered as fuck, but if you're trying to tell me that you're just learning now that France and Germany are not anglophone nations than I don't know what to tell you. Anglophone does not mean a large number of people who can speak and understand english. It means a nation where English is the official and primary language. In France, that language is French and in Germany it is German.

SoGenerous · 4日前

Leiter publishes in both schools, so he's an iffy counterexample but even if that weren't the case, I'd think this was a bit of a lame argument. The fact that someone with a commitment to continental philosophy didn't rank any of them (or perhaps many in case I missed one) among the top of the philosophy programs in the english speaking says a lot in and of itself.

SoGenerous · 4日前

Is there a single department ranked on philgourmet that's not overwhelmingly analytic?

SoGenerous · 4日前

Maybe in the US

The majority of well known philosophy departments are in the US, so I wouldn't sell this short.

but definitely not in Canada

No, this is false. UToronto, UBC, UWestern Ontario, McGill, Alberta, and Calgary are its highest ranked and are all overwhelmingly analytic.

and in Europe.

This might be true for France or Germany, but not for anglophone countries. Britain for instance, is overwhelmingly analytic.

NYU (best department in the states) is also fairly continental.

No it isn't.

It has exactly one continental in the entire department. The rest are overwhelmingly analytic or the history of philosophy.

SoGenerous · 4日前

Continentals are not cited much by analytics and an overwhelming number of highly ranked departments are analytic. It's not uncommon for a department not to have one single continental. I have nothing against continental philosophy, but it's just a fact that it's treated as second class by pretty much all well ranked departments. It's prominent elsewhere in the humanities, but not in the philosophy departments.

SoGenerous · 4日前

I said not a whole lot and you listed ten, I don't think our statements contradict. Although even the ten you listed begin to walk the line of what is taken seriously in Anglophone departments and what isn't. I don't personally have any issue at all with continental philosophy, but it is certainly neglected in the vast majority of philosophy departments and not cited much at all within the much more dominant analytic tradition.

SoGenerous · 5日前

I'd also appreciate if they'd explain why /u/tychocelchuuu got upvoted. I'd bet my right testicle that he hasn't even read the $60 book he linked to. I think it's unethical to advise someone to spend that much money on a book you've never read.

SoGenerous · 5日前

If you are hellbent on starting with Kant, use Jonathan Bennett's translations. He's amazing. Instead of translating from one language to another, he translates from old writing or bad writing to new or good writing. A lot of philosophers are correct in this thread in saying that you will not understand Kant if you just read him. They're correct. Kant was a terrible writer and he wrote in another language. Bennett will help a lot. I'd recommend supplementing Bennett with Sparknotes and wikipedia.

The advice I just gave would have 99.99% of philosophers agonizing and ready to kill me, but it's correct. Only a dedicated Kant scholar could tell the difference between a Bennett/wikipedia/sparknotes scholar and the real thing. It makes Kant surprisingly accessible and it'll be as good as beginning where you want to begin instead of where others tell you to.

The website it: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/

SoGenerous · 5日前

Philosophy is a very non-diverse field and there have not been a whole lot of non-anglophones who get taken seriously or who get considered in contemporary departments. There might be are a few philosophers who happen to be Native American and work in contemporary departments, but I honestly can't name any.

SoGenerous · 5日前

The mere existence of prominent philosophers who are not dialectic materialists is all that's necessary to disprove that comment, because they clearly look at the world differently than that.

SoGenerous · 5日前

How could I?

You can't; you'd have to exist for that.

SoGenerous · 5日前

While many analytics and many continentals do have different interests and point of views, that's not really what the divide refers to. Analytics and continentals come from different traditions, cite different names, hold themselves to different writing standards, and even see themselves differently from each other. I think of the divide less in terms of what they are talking about (though that's not the worst way to do it) and more in rough terms of who'd get along at a cocktail party or who would enjoy collaborating with each other.

SoGenerous · 5日前

You are an actual person with an actual life, irrespective of anything that someone may have written in a book.

Take that, skeptics!

SoGenerous · 8日前

He doesn't claim it is. He claims it's worth four and the rest is covered by rising real estate markets.

SoGenerous · 8日前

Liberals are in big trouble if the new consensus is that calling someone racist makes you a racist.

SoGenerous · 8日前

Said no coal miner ever.

SoGenerous

次のモデレーターです

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率