The Reflexive Problem in Analytic Philosophy: Illogical Logicians

consciousness

Analytic philosophers either accept or regard as perfectly reasonable two philosophical contentions that violate logic and common sense: determinism and the denial of consciousness. Arguing for determinism implies free will and in denying the existence of consciousness the philosopher is using the very thing he says does not exist. In this article published by the Sydney Traditionalist Forum, I argue that this is a result of certain interesting psychological and emotional deficits, a commitment to materialism and atheism, the “philosophy as the handmaiden of science” notion and the very methods and approach used by analytic philosophers. These methods include conceptual analysis and arguments considered as words on a page or monitor – looking at internal coherence and validity – but overlooking the reflexive implications for the person doing the analysis.

This results in risible performative contradictions; a notion absent from the logical toolbox of analytic philosophers as far as I know.

The Reflexive Problem In Analytic Philosophy: Illogical Logicians

7 thoughts on “The Reflexive Problem in Analytic Philosophy: Illogical Logicians

  1. Pingback: The Reflexive Problem in Analytic Philosophy: Illogical Logicians | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. Pingback: The Reflexive Problem in Analytic Philosophy: Illogical Logicians | Reaction Times

  3. The various Leftisms are the ideologies of the frenzied and bloodthirsty, the morally self-righteous witch-hunters, who, intoxicated by their own puffed up egos, wish to be the masters of the human herd that they deplore so that they can order other people around. (That’s as close as they ever come to happiness.) The various Postivisms are the ideologies of the unimaginative and reclusive. I’d characterize Positivism as a self-made “safe-space” for people who are too frightened to think, but who like crossword puzzles, doing which they believe to be the same thing as doing philosophy. The Positivists are useful to the Leftists because in nine cases out of ten the Positivists, being also conformists, endorse Leftist agendas, pusillanimously, of course. The Leftists can then point to the Positivists and say, “Look, we’re not frenzied or bloodthirsty at all – we’re those people, and we spend our time doing crossword puzzles.”

  4. There are a number of philosophers who are counter-examples to your claims about analytic philosophers. Alvin Plantinga is surely an analytic philosopher, but he would deny both of the the propositions you mention above. Peter van Inwagen, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Alexander Pruss, Michael Bergmann, William Alston, Richard Swinburne, Jonathan Kvanvig all come to mind.

    Perhaps you mean to criticize logical positivists, or eliminativists? My sense is that logical positivism is much more alive among philosophically naïve scientists than it is among philosophers, other than hard-core eliminative materialists.

    • This is one of the situations where I would absolutely LOVE to be wrong. Are you yourself a professional philosopher? Check out any textbook used in philosophy courses and you can verify my assertions for yourself. If you can find a single textbook in, say, Introduction to Philosophy, or Philosophy of Mind, where the philosophers are not as I describe, I would very much like to know about it, because I have been unable to locate any. At no point do I say ALL, just most professional philosophers. I teach at a perfectly ordinary little school with a fairly representative department, I think. I don’t think any of them take reflexive implications seriously. Continental philosophers are just as bad – with post-moderns making egregious errors in this regard too. Because we are talking percentages, like smoking, pointing to your elderly aunt who smokes three packs a day and is cancer and heart disease free is not going to cut it.

      Richard Swinburne is explicitly Christian. Christian philosophers are anathema to the mainstream. I good guide is to look where the “smart” philosophers are thought to reside. In the 1980s it was philosophy of mind and materialism ruled the roost and materialism suffers from reflexive problems necessarily.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s