The most dangerous are those who think they know more than they really do. Science without philosophy is blind => Analytic philosophy has Narrow Focus & cannot possibly reach the view of multidimensional Critical Thinking of Slavoj Žižek.
Fair point. I personally think the chasm between analytical and so-called continental philosophy is superficial. As you point out, philosophy as such should have "multidimensional Critical Thinking" immanent to it.
@@RahulSam Thanks. Western thinking lacs the Holistic components from the non-Quantified (Analytic/Mathematical) components of Philosophy. We do NOT fully understand the Qualitative parts, let alone those we cannot perceive due to undeveloped senses, Bias, or just immaturity of Critical Thinking/Reasoning/Culture. The West has fast-tracked Technology but ignored the growing complexity of (multidimensional) Social interactions that are a higher priority in the non-West.
Zizek is provocative, but ultimately his discourse doesn't land on any cogent idea. Never any aha moment after listening to him. To keep it super meta, I guess that's his point.
@@RahulSami'm not the person that wrote the comment but just to add to the conversation, i havent read his books but it also buggs me that when You Heard Zizek speak he jumps from one subject to another without ever saying anything concrete. It's impossible and annoying to keep track of his line of thinking.
@@RahulSam I also feel the same and agree that he kind of confuses me. Honestly, I am from a metaphysical line where I believe and feel that we are always taking about the same thing, how to integrate us, close the circle with one another, but for some fucking reason we keep torturing our selves wanting to compete and be right about everything over many people except our clicke. In other words (see...). So, what the heck are we going about being one is allele is one, so we can end this bullshit of the 20% above society, can be in abundance, while the 80% struggle without health insurance, no subsidies to get a decent place to iive that doesn't completely kill your soul because is a micro studio with shared kitchen and bathroom for 1,500 plus utilities, parking, living expenses
The trouble with continental philosophers to me is not that they’re talking nonsense, it’s that they’re saying trivial things in a wilfully obscure manner. What’s new in their thinking is not significant and what significant is not at all new. An analytic philosopher engaging with them is more like one interacting with a pretentious freshman than a peer. As you can see here, it’s not difficult for a capable thinker to instantly see through the jargon and make more interesting cogent arguments than Zizek ever could.
@@mememachine6080 Indeed, but we're not talking about literature. Conveying ideas is the name of the game here and if the ideas aren't really all that complex, I don't know why you'd couch them in layer upon layer of jargon in the continental manner, aside from maybe to mask your mediocrity. I'm not cynical enough to assume that of course. 😂 Luckily, I'm well within my comfort zone in talking about this as I have graduate degrees in Continental philosophy and Lacanian psychotherapy from European universities. A game I like to play is I get someone to provide me with a paragraph of their favourite Continental thinker and I summarise it in two plain English sentences that a child could understand. Would you like to play?
@superdeluxesmell for someone who supposedly has "graduate degrees in continental philosophy" you seem to have limited scope of so called "continental philosophy". Yes, lacanian psychoanalysis and hegelian philosophy are written in a very tedious manner and heavily rely on "jargon". This however, is not a refutation of any of the points they are trying to make. Deciphering their writing is difficult but there are genuine philosophical claims they are trying to make. I do not agree with anything they say but calling their writings "wilfully obscure" does not refute their arguments. There are countless so called "continental philosophers" who neither write nor think like lacanians or hegelians and would be more in line with so called "analytic philosophers". If you would like an example look into the work of French philosopher Henri Bergson. He writes in a very straight forward manner and engaged heavily with the scientific advancements of his time. It is bad practice to treat "continental philosophy" as some homogeneous entity with uniform methodology.
@@mememachine6080 The term “Continental Philosophy” in contemporary usage, is typically understood to refer to thinkers in the French tradition from the existentialists to the present day. It doesn’t refer to all philosophy from the continent of Europe at any time. It doesn’t generally include people like Hegel and Bergson, though they are both large influences on the movement. It also generally isn’t taken to refer to contemporary thinkers from France or broader Europe who engage in other styles of philosophising. I suspect we’re talking at crossed purposes here and I’m not interested in that. Have a good day!
I see your point, but sometimes, the purpose of philosophy isn't merely to convey ideas but also to problematise existing frameworks, ideas, questions, etc., and frame them differently from the existing ideology. I think continental philosophers like Žižek do this better than most analytical ones (generally speaking, of course).
The most dangerous are those who think they know more than they really do. Science without philosophy is blind =>
Analytic philosophy has Narrow Focus & cannot possibly reach the view of multidimensional Critical Thinking of Slavoj Žižek.
Fair point. I personally think the chasm between analytical and so-called continental philosophy is superficial. As you point out, philosophy as such should have "multidimensional Critical Thinking" immanent to it.
@@RahulSam Thanks. Western thinking lacs the Holistic components from the non-Quantified (Analytic/Mathematical) components of Philosophy. We do NOT fully understand the Qualitative parts, let alone those we cannot perceive due to undeveloped senses, Bias, or just immaturity of Critical Thinking/Reasoning/Culture.
The West has fast-tracked Technology but ignored the growing complexity of (multidimensional) Social interactions that are a higher priority in the non-West.
Zizek is provocative, but ultimately his discourse doesn't land on any cogent idea. Never any aha moment after listening to him. To keep it super meta, I guess that's his point.
Have you read his books?
@@RahulSami'm not the person that wrote the comment but just to add to the conversation, i havent read his books but it also buggs me that when You Heard Zizek speak he jumps from one subject to another without ever saying anything concrete. It's impossible and annoying to keep track of his line of thinking.
so his books@@gonx9906
Perhaps you ship read him. His is a very systematic and complex philosophy
@@RahulSam I also feel the same and agree that he kind of confuses me. Honestly, I am from a metaphysical line where I believe and feel that we are always taking about the same thing, how to integrate us, close the circle with one another, but for some fucking reason we keep torturing our selves wanting to compete and be right about everything over many people except our clicke. In other words (see...). So, what the heck are we going about being one is allele is one, so we can end this bullshit of the 20% above society, can be in abundance, while the 80% struggle without health insurance, no subsidies to get a decent place to iive that doesn't completely kill your soul because is a micro studio with shared kitchen and bathroom for 1,500 plus utilities, parking, living expenses
The trouble with continental philosophers to me is not that they’re talking nonsense, it’s that they’re saying trivial things in a wilfully obscure manner. What’s new in their thinking is not significant and what significant is not at all new. An analytic philosopher engaging with them is more like one interacting with a pretentious freshman than a peer. As you can see here, it’s not difficult for a capable thinker to instantly see through the jargon and make more interesting cogent arguments than Zizek ever could.
you can have a preference of writing style without reducing everything outside your comfort zone as being "wilfully obscure"
@@mememachine6080 Indeed, but we're not talking about literature. Conveying ideas is the name of the game here and if the ideas aren't really all that complex, I don't know why you'd couch them in layer upon layer of jargon in the continental manner, aside from maybe to mask your mediocrity. I'm not cynical enough to assume that of course. 😂 Luckily, I'm well within my comfort zone in talking about this as I have graduate degrees in Continental philosophy and Lacanian psychotherapy from European universities. A game I like to play is I get someone to provide me with a paragraph of their favourite Continental thinker and I summarise it in two plain English sentences that a child could understand. Would you like to play?
@superdeluxesmell for someone who supposedly has "graduate degrees in continental philosophy" you seem to have limited scope of so called "continental philosophy". Yes, lacanian psychoanalysis and hegelian philosophy are written in a very tedious manner and heavily rely on "jargon". This however, is not a refutation of any of the points they are trying to make. Deciphering their writing is difficult but there are genuine philosophical claims they are trying to make. I do not agree with anything they say but calling their writings "wilfully obscure" does not refute their arguments.
There are countless so called "continental philosophers" who neither write nor think like lacanians or hegelians and would be more in line with so called "analytic philosophers". If you would like an example look into the work of French philosopher Henri Bergson. He writes in a very straight forward manner and engaged heavily with the scientific advancements of his time. It is bad practice to treat "continental philosophy" as some homogeneous entity with uniform methodology.
@@mememachine6080 The term “Continental Philosophy” in contemporary usage, is typically understood to refer to thinkers in the French tradition from the existentialists to the present day. It doesn’t refer to all philosophy from the continent of Europe at any time. It doesn’t generally include people like Hegel and Bergson, though they are both large influences on the movement. It also generally isn’t taken to refer to contemporary thinkers from France or broader Europe who engage in other styles of philosophising. I suspect we’re talking at crossed purposes here and I’m not interested in that. Have a good day!
I see your point, but sometimes, the purpose of philosophy isn't merely to convey ideas but also to problematise existing frameworks, ideas, questions, etc., and frame them differently from the existing ideology. I think continental philosophers like Žižek do this better than most analytical ones (generally speaking, of course).