Talk:Pseudophilosophy/Archive 1

message: Could whomever said that "Professional Scholars" consider Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance a Pseudophilosophy please cite sources.  I could find any Philosopher or "Professional Scholar" who is against anything, so unless we want to make this article infinitely long, someone should justify why this is included. --Butter 10:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture Section 

message: The entire section on Ayn Rand was recently deleted wholesale by an anonymous editor.  While I might agree that too much attention is focused on Rand in the article, and that too much effort seems to have gone into trying to rehabilitate Rand, I'm not sure that entirely deleting the section is the answer.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand section 

message: It is not "without discussion" that Ayn Rand got her own subsection in this article: see above.  I've been somewhat unhappy with her prominence in this article, and if you will look through the versions of the history, there used to be a whole lot more about Rand; that section had in fact been pared down rather sharply, and parts of it forked to the cited article about academic reactions to Rand.  
Still, I do not see how the answer is to delete the discussion of Rand wholesale, especially since her name pops up frequently whenever discussion of "pseudophilosophy" is made.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand III 

message: Where is the critism in this article? What intellectual standard? Who's standards? Yours... mine? Come on. Pseudophilosophy is just another "straw man" argument mechanism to attack the individual not the ideas. Look at practically every significant western philosopher and you will see their ideas were attacked as Pseudophilosophy... When did this term come into being... byy whom? I could go on but I think I have made my point. H0riz0n 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurality disputed 

message: A portion of the article right now reads "while significantly failing to meet some suitable intellectual standards". To make the article more objective (and thus less readily attacked by ignorant relativists), it should be made clear precisely which intellectual standards are violated (and, if necessary, mention criticism of these intellectual standards). Some hints of standards that most people would agree on: vague, non-defined or ill-defined concepts, mixing together two different concepts that share the same term (in fact, a frequent error), heavy use of concepts with strong connotations, lack of locical consistency, texts being more emotional than factual (too much pathos compared to logos, see modes of persuasion - an example may be philosophy presented as a novel or a poem), etc. [In fact, I think that these are different formulations of more or less the same problem]. These very intellectual standards should perhaps be collected on a page of its own as well. See also the article on pseudoscience, which I find very factual and informative, of course in part because the scientific method is so easy to define. -More on this may be found here: Logical positivism and Plato, for example in the dialogue Gorgias (Plato).
Followup: The use of rhetorical tricks or terms that sound very sophisticated, elegant or complex but still are vague or ill-defined are sometimes a hallmark of pseudophilosophy. Also, I would like to emphasis that the importance of logical consistency, precise definition and correct use of concepts often is seen disputed by relativists and semi-relativists, but still it's an essential part of philosophy and the philosophical tradition. It seems some people want to define philosophy as a discipline where "anything goes", but this isn't and has never been true. If necessary, this very dispute should be mentioned in the article.
::I dont get it, logical positivism is not the font of philosophical wisdom, it is a single school of philosophy who produced mixed success in a modest philosophical project over a hundred years ago.  The logical criteria they created are treated with deep skepticism by numerous contemporary philosophers, and not only continental wankers or whatever.  Similarly, the falsifiability critierion has long since ceased to be used as a shibboleth even for scientific theories, much less for philosophical theories.  If there needs to be a pseudophilosophy article (and I think, by the way, that nearly all accusations of pseudophilosophy generally end up reading: philosophy I don't like) it ought to include a wide variety of these accusations throughout the history of philosophy, and show that it is used in nearly every case where incommensurable philosophies clash.  I think english speaking philosophers tend to underestimate how frequently the same accusations that get lobbed at (mostly French) "poststructuralists" here in the states are made against analytics elsewhere.  Badiou refers to analytic philosophy as "anglo-american sophistry", Derrida claims (in reference to Searle) that "those who raise a hue and cry about obscurity because they do not realize the unclarity of their good old aufklarung are in my eyes dangerous dogmatists and tedious obscurantists.", Zizek has accused Chalmers, Dennett, Pinker and Damasio of more or less complete philosophical ignorance.  Attempting to show the analytic-contiental split as an extended chase scene where analytics try to 'bust' continentals and continentals try to wriggle out using their magic tricks and poetry is completely inaccurate and some of the worst pseudo-history and pseudo-sociology that I've ever encountered.
Jimmyq2305 21:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any external links or references that discuss this? I'd like to read more about it, and it would be relevant for the article. When it comes to Zizek, I don't really regard him as an authority from what I've read by him, but that's me. And people quoted on Critiques of Slavoj Žižek, but as long as there isn't broad agreement on any standards for philosophical work, and people without knowledge of any such standards apparently are free to participate in philosophical discussions, this discussion is bound to dissolve. Long live relativism. Narssarssuaq 21:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zizkek's authority is not what im aiming at.  My contention is simply that philosophers, regardless of their affiliations, will frequently call philosophers of rival affiliations pseudophilosophers.  It is, by the way, easily possible to develop an argument against purely objective standards that does not rely on any purportedly objective standards.  For example, you could claim that while no actually objective standards exist, it is still useful to develop an argument based on a rigorous and verifiable reading of the texts you critique so as to "play the game correctly".  The best (and frequently used) analogy is to games.  While you would never say that the rules of chess are objective (ie: coded in nature or derivable from first-order logic), you would also have major problems if the person across the board from you violated them.  Similarly, while no one would deny that the laws of traffic are social constructs, flouting them would bring you into contact with numerous fear-inducing probabilities.  As far as Zizek's critiques of cog-psych, The Parallax View contains a systematic (for Zizek, anyway) presentation of them.  What I find mostly annoying about the onesidedness of the english-language wiki with regards to 'analytic' versus 'all other' philosophy (Continental Philosophy, by the by, is not an existing philosophical entity, unless it refers very specifically to American thinkers working in a philosophical tradition inherited from continental europe.  On the continent itself, there is no continental philosophy, only phenomenology, psychoanalysis, etc...) is that it loses sight of the fact that the critiques of analytic philosophy are often NOT based on 'policing the boundaries' or 'phallogocentrism' or 'excess of rationalism', frequently they are simply based on lack of rigor and failure to adhere to accepted philosophical standards (viz Derrida's critique of Searle, Badiou's response to Sokal, Fink's response to Sokal). In at least one case, i think it is quite obvious that this has been borne out by fact.  Sokal's claim that Badiou's use of mathematics is (paraphrasing from memory, sorry) 'gibberish here and elsewhere in his work', is at least cast into strong doubt by Being and Event, especially given that Badiou translated Cantor into French, and his extensive citation (usually of the accepted standard editions used by working mathematicians and scientists - precisely the opposite of the sloppiness Sokal claims to describe) and reproduction of the theorems he uses.Jimmyq2305 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "frequently they are simply based on lack of rigor and failure to adhere to accepted philosophical standards" -- I'm interested in these precise "accepted philosophical standards". What are they? How do they differ from field to field in philosophy? Are some philosophical directions in direct opposition to each other? I think I somehow know what the "accepted standards" are, but my views of this are frequently bashed, so I can't really be sure. Narssarssuaq 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are standards, but they are not objective.   for instance, for many analytic philosophers, derrida was not a philosopher until he engaged them in ways they understood.  for many, philosophers people who do semantic analysis of philosophy texts in the analytic tradition are not philosophers either, likewise methodologists and logicians may not be philosophers in one tradition or another.   however, they are not pseudophilosophy.  pseudophilosophy is when something appears to be philosophy, but is not, and it is not philosophy because some universal, but subjective standards... iow, the judgement of many philosophers.  this is why, the small community of philosophers interested in rand and doing rand work, do not and will likely never move rand out of pseudophilosophy.  what has moved work out of pseudophilosophy is when many noted philosophers use the work as philosophy.  zizek has a point about the ignorance of most philosophers, as most philosophers are ignorant of lacan, that though is evidence of the difference between the contextualist tradition and the non-contextualist tradition, which maps weakly into continental/analytic splits, but.. there are contextualists in the analytic tradition too, and a critique of the new philosophers of france, bernard henri-levy, et.al. is that they are not philosophers precisely because they ignore the philosophical contexts to 'engage with the world'...  --Buridan 11:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably means that the subject of philosophy is divided into segments with no real contact with one another. Still, remember that students of philosophy and their philosophical papers are given grades. Are they simply a reflection of the professors' subjective opinions, or is there actually some intersubjectivity present as well? Narssarssuaq 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Having graded my share of philosophy papers, I taught political philosophy for 8 years..... I can say that what you are graded on is usually not subjective in the way that you seem to suggest above.  If you turned in a paper on Rand in my class, you would likely not fail for dealing with pseudophilosophy, but... if all you did was reiterate her ideological positions and pseudophilosophy, then yes, you would likely fail.  The goal of philosophy papers is usually to develop an argument and to demonstrate understanding, arguments need foundations, foundations are found in the literature of the field, and understanding is built in really thinking and reflecting on the topic at hand.  Randians, in my experience, tend to have all the answers, few arguments, and little understanding of the rest of the debates and issues.  That is a gross generalization of course, but many young people come to political philosophy either armed with Rand or Marx, both learned more as ideology than the philosophical merits they might have, and it is my goal to get them to go beyond that.  The basis of the grade then, is rarely based in the content, but it is based in the understanding and analysis of the content.   That is not subjective beyond different professors have different standards and understandings, but in my experience, rarely is there much variance once the professors discuss the paper. --Buridan 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This invariably means that you have used a number of objective standards, doesn't it? For example that you should, I quote, "develop an argument and to demonstrate understanding, arguments need foundations, foundations are found in the literature of the field, and understanding is built in really thinking and reflecting on the topic at hand". Thus, the claim that "there are standards, but they are not objective" written above seems false. Narssarssuaq 11:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Standards and their implementations vary across practices.  Teaching and scholarship are related, but not the same in practice.  That one has more objective standards in grading and assessment of student work does not mean they are appropriate or accepted as a practice for colleague's work.--Buridan 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would mean that there's little or no basis for discussion in "colleague's work" - so that there is a lot more "monologue" than dialogue compared to other academic fields? Narssarssuaq 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there was a study, or series of studies that show just this,i remember seeing it on politicaltheory.info.  --Buridan 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "intellectual standards" 

message: Maybe Schopenhauer's assessment of Hegel says a great deal about Hegel. There is one way to find out, read Hegel for yourself. "The in-itself into which something is reflected into itself out of its being-for-other is no longer an abstract in-itself … etc., etc., etc." Walter Kaufmann's comment about Schopenhauer's comment about Hegel reveals more about Walter Kaufmann than it does about Schopenhauer. Kaufmann has been dead for many years, so I guess that we will never know exactly what he meant. At present, it is just a criticism of Schopenhauer and an approval of Hegel, but we don't really know why. Should we just accept his authority?Lestrade 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where, in Walter Kaufmann's writings, does he say that Schopenhauer's attacks on Hegel actually illuminate more about Schopenhauer than about Hegel? What, specifically, do the attacks illuminate about Schopenhauer?Lestrade 18:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Walter Kaufmann

message: In this paragraph it's written "...occupy margins ; where where we would...". It's obviously not correct. First of all there should be no space after "margins". Second the word "where" should not be stated twice. The problem is that it's in a quotation. Therefore, I don't know how it was originally written. In short either it should be corrected or should "(sic!)" be added.
Smallchanges 12:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (sic!) in "Accusations of pseudophilosophy in academia"? 

message: There is no question that Voltaire has had a great influence on European history and culture. However, did he really come up with any new ideas and concepts, which have been seriously considered by academic philosophers? Wouldn't it be possible to classify him as an early, perhaps the first, example of "Pseudophilosophy in popular culture"?
Smallchanges 13:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voltaire a real philosopher? 

message: Yesterday I wrote a few lines about Mr. G. Soros. Today it's indicated that a quotation is needed and basically I agree to that. However, Right now I don't have access to my books about Soros so I cannot fill in the quotation. Please help me with this, someone. Thanks!
Smallchanges 12:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help me with quotation for Mr. Soros 

message: they are two different things and rand has both.  one is not the other though.  that paragraph is talking about her ideology.  if you want to create a paragraph about her philosophy, feel free.   however, the going through and changing everything that someone doesn't like about rand is not an option.  that is why i reverted, it was because 24, goes around and has a history of making changing to rand articles without any justification and many of those changes are quite dubitable.--Buridan 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph in question is more than a little confused as it is and I believe the word "philosophical" makes better sense.  For instance, why comment that her ideological views are not presented in peer-reviewed journals?  Since when is ideology peer-reviewed?  It seems to me that it is much more natural to read these claims as about her philosophical views (such as they are).  The use of the term "ideological" is more obfuscatory than exact here. Phiwum 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there any concensus here on "ideological" vs. "philosophical"?  I see that Buridan is quite taken with the former term and that LGagnon first made the change.  And I can see the motive: the article is casting doubt on her ideas as philosophical ideas.  Nonetheless, this hairsplitting has made the paragraph less readable.  Phiwum 17:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't think it is less readable.  i repaired the journal issue.  ideologicaly isn't obfuscatory either, it is not meant to obfuscate, or otherwise make confusing, it is to determine a relationship to ideas that in this case is not philosophical.  as i said, rand has both a philosophy and and ideology, here we are talking about her ideological elements that are oft confused for philosophy.--Buridan 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ideology is not philosophy 

message: The citation given for this statement ( ) does not seem to justify or explain the statement.  The book itself seems to only to be a critique and defense of objectivity, not Ayn Rand's Objectivism.  One would have to read the majority book to understand why the editor believes it is evidence of Objectivism being a pseudophilosophy.  Does anyone know a particular page and/or can give us a quote that explains why this book is a valid citation for Objectivism's pseudophilosophy?
I suggest the citation is removed until it can be validated or replaced.
Kukyona 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion is perfectly reasonable. Phiwum 01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The book does not discuss Ayn Rand, so I removed the citation. Endlessmike 888 05:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayn Rand's Objectivism is often cited as a pseudophilosophy, for several reasons. 

message: The sentence "One must recall that philosophy has taken various institutional forms over the centuries, starting from the Epicurian' gardens and other Schools. " Seems to be false as the Epicureans came after the Academy which was a school of philosophy if I'm not mistaken.
KurtFF8 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually they were contemporaries.  the academy existed for many centuries. was the academy first, is that your argument?  I don't think we can make that argument really.  socrates talks about the naked wise philosophers in the east at least once as i recall.  and athen's saven sages seems to be a bit greaco-centric or great-traditon history... possibly fictitious in many ways. thus  i'd tend to ascribe this line to literary allusion more than statement of fact.  --Buridan 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One must recall that philosophy has taken various institutional forms over the centuries, starting from the Epicurian' gardens and other Schools.  

message: There is a strong POV in this article. Particularly the parts which imply that academic philosophy is like some sort of secret society which used the term "pseudophilosophy" to exclude people they disagree with. Perhaps it would be reasonable to mention that people have made this accusation (if indeed they have and a source can be provided), but the article shouldn't assert it as fact. I am going to delete some of these insinuations. Misodoctakleidist 18:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV