[ SECRET POST #2872 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2872 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 019 secrets from Secret Submission Post #410.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Apropos of trolling myself by reading a series of continentally-inflected blog posts (of the SPEPy variety), here is my current--curmudgeonly--impression of that philosophical ecosystem:

It has all the essentially terrible features of pragmatism--endless, content-free peans to the irreducible complexity of multi-faced singular experiences etc. etc., which never terminate in any interesting conclusions on first-order matters. But, unlike the pragmatists, they've so completely sociologically separated from the analytic mainstream that they no longer even feel the need to engage with people who believe in e.g. states of affairs, classical logic, share-able mental content, and so on. But the only good thing pragmatists ever did was engage with non-pragmatists! At least some of those critiques were interesting. By contrast, when it's just left alone by itself, anti-theory eats its own tail forever. When you're only talking to other deconstructionists, you deconstruct deconstruction, and argue about how theorizing the untheorizability of the particular illicitly attempts to occupy a universalizing space; we need a more thorough revolution of the revolution, and so on, forever.

There's a particular irony in the fact that they often bill themselves as sensitive to the particularities of, and motivated by the significance of, some radical notion of the struggle against the man--but I can think of few things more useless to the struggle than endless navel-gazing debates about who's the better anti-realist.

[feotakahari]

I only understood one word in three there, but this sounds like Soviet philosophers if they were useless instead of dangerous.

[kaijinscendre]

[(Anonymous)]

Yeahhhhhh. I haven't been super engaged with any of that stuff recently, so I'm not competent to judge whether you're correct re: current status of the field, but it's not an unfamiliar picture either. Which really sucks as someone whose interests fall very much into that space.

I mean, if you want to talk about sociological separation from the analytical mainstream, that's primarily a sociological problem and a result of academia as an institution etc. It's a deeply unfortunate state of affairs but you could as easily talk about snooty analytical people as much as you could wild-eyed continental romantics. But I do think there is an element of it that's simply a result of the methods of the field: falling into those abysses of critique is simply one of the vulnerabilities of that mode of inquiry. Which of course doesn't make it invalid.

Just out of curiosity, what blogs were you looking at? Anything decent?

[(Anonymous)]

...I stopped reading after "continentally-inflected" but nice try. You certainly got the I'm-so-over-educated-and-everyone-around-me-is-not jingoism down pat, OP!

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

I don't think anything they said is jingoistic in the slightest? They aren't aggressive or contemptuous of anything. It's just a thing that happens to be written in a more formal, academic register - that doesn't mean that they're sneering at everyone else. This response seems a little strange to me, honestly.

[ill_omened]

Pls don't be hateful and project so incredibly hard anon.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, their post is pretty overwrought.