Section 1: Philosophy in the XXth century. Is it a theory or a practice? Is the concept of truth still important?
Section 2: What is modernity? What is our relation to it? What is post-modernism?
One who defines themselves as post-modern necessarily relies on modernity as a marker.
Section 3: What is language and is there a non-linguistic world?
Section 4: What is alterity? What is the Other? What is the philosophical importance of the Other in XXth century philosophy?
Section 5: Criticisms of capitalism.
Section 6: What is gender identity? What is desire and is it male? How to become a woman?
We shall be inundated with thoughts and concepts and will emerge from the noyade with the ability to swim.
What is “Philosophy” in the 20th century
What is continental philosophy?
Continental/analytic divide is something that only makes sense to academics in philosophers. It’s a term of art!!
“continental” was invented by brits after WWII, as a negative (¬) term for logical interpretation of language (i.e., existentialism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, philosophy of life, German idealism etc.).
Has a somewhat pejorative undertone.
“Continental philosophy is literature,” according to Brits/Americans.
The label came from the British, while the separation comes from the Wiener Kreis, a community of philosophers under the direction of Moritz Schlick. They were actually staunch Marxists, so all left when Hitler took power.
Were critical to philosophers who were not dedicated to logic/epistemology/stuff like that.
(Rudolf Carnap) “Overcoming metaphysics through logical analysis of language” written in 1931, directed against “What is Metaphysics?” by Heidegger.
By writing this, Carnap created a style of philosophical critique based on the structure of our language. Every philosophy that makes logical mistakes, thereby, is improper and merely suggestive thinking. Not proper argumentation, but trying to convey a certain conviction in the other without properly showing the reasons or giving reasons to others. A suggestive rather than a properly argumentative method.
Carnap calls such statements “pseudo-statements,” as they are unverifiable and obscure.
“The Nothing nihilates,” thus, is a meaningless statement, because “Nothing” is the logical operator of negation, not a subject.
Analytical philosophy began as a return to the logical structure of our thinking, and believes that only from there can we access the problems of philosophy truly.
Analytical philosophy, as such, denounces the things that cannot be said (the unspeakable, irrational, un-logical), rejects the non-empirical, as well as limit phenomena of human experience (suicide, mental illness, etc.). Continental philosophy, on the contrary, is interested in these categories.
Continental (Contemporary) Philosophy
Basically the classification is vibe/style-based lol
Heavily influenced by witnessing WWI and WWII, the flip side of industrialization, globalization and civilization.
“Contemporary” thought is marked by catastrophe, “the catastrophe.”
Karl Marx, Nietzsche and Freud inaugurated the contemporary continental philosophy.
Three crises and their solutions
Is the knowing subject still a firm ground for the establishment of a philosophy?
Started from Descartes, in 1630, who create the knowing subject - res cogitans.
This question is discussed in Marx & Engels, Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger.
The epistemic crisis.
Maybe the knowing subject is not actually knowing at all, and knowledge is accidental, only created to hide its innermost feelings?
Are the notions of truth and knowledge still central?
Is philosophy necessarily a reflection of the function of our knowledge? Should we strive to get closer to the highest truth? Maybe there is not truth, maybe there is no knowledge to be grasped!
The crisis of truth. The epistemological crisis.
What is philosophy’s relationship to practice? To non-philosophical fields and disciplines?
Maybe shooting a capitalist is much more important than inventing concepts? What if the truth of philosophy is revealed in political struggle? What kind of practice is important for philosophy?
The crisis of the philosopher or “sociological” crisis.
The crisis of knowledge
KILL YOURSELF!!!!
After Kant explained how difficult knowing anything is, German Idealism brought his ideas into very lofty dimensions, where they basically just speculated, and overall had some strange ideas (though very appealing and powerful). This brought philosophy under quite a lot of scrutiny, and resulted in people wanting to reform philosophy in a matter closer to empirical inquiry.
This resulted in philosophy being shifted much closer to psychology, as a practical way to continue existing.
The practical renewal looked to outside fields of practice (such as political, social, scientific or artistic) for inspiration.
Marx & Engels chose the way of socio-political practice. Philosophical insight is true so long as it leads to a good, efficient, political result.
Nietzsche renewed it through aesthetics and artistic creation. The thinker invents forms, by wishing only for their own success they are able to obtain power. Philosophical activity becomes a mask behind which a philosopher hides their true intentions.
Freud renewed it through a psychology of the unconscious, which produces things that we are unaware of, that are often contrary to our own opinions of us.
The 1st and 2nd crises are what fed these renewals, interacting with “non-philosophy”.
The theoretical renewal, meanwhile, wanted to return to “philosophy itself.” This is seen in phenomenology with Husserl and Heidegger, who tried to look into philosophy and philosophical activity.