Talk:Antiphilosophy

Untitled

I should note my bias: I am a philosophy graduate student. That said, this is really a quite pathetic article. Is there any useful information on this page that is not mere conjecture? The comments at the end lack all substance, and the page does no justice to Wittgenstein's views. It is also unclear why this page needs to exist. Does anyone have an idea why it should. Braveskid1 (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The term 'antiphilosophy' is reasonably common and therefor warrants a Wikipedia entry, presumably. When the term is used it is often in connection with Wittgenstein. Whether antiphilosophy, or Horwich or Maddy or the therapeutic approach, does justice to Wittgenstein is beside the point. The concern here is what antiphilosophy is. For example the Horwich references are fine manifestos of antiphilosphy, arguably, and therefor used here. (To also answer your justice accusation directly, the therapeutic approach (i.e. philosophical problems are misconceptions that are to be dissolved) to Wittgenstein is common, and increasingly so. I, admittedly, certainly think it's the right one, both as an interpretation of Wittgenstein, and, most importantly, as an approach to philosophy in general.)

By "comments at the end", do you mean the examples? That they are consistent with an antiphilosophical, or therapeutic, view follow from the description of antiphilosophy above. They have also been okayed as such by others. The hope was that the examples would make the abstract metaphilosophy more concrete on a couple of well-known issues.

You don't have to be biased just because you are a philosophy student. Antiphilosophy is philosophy too. It might show though that the term 'antiphilosophy' is contentious. And maybe antiphilosphy is a bit more anti and dismissive than the therapeutic approach. Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the term goes back to the French 18th. c. when everybody styled himself a 'philosophe’ but some reacted by calling themselves anti-philosophes. In the '70s Jacques Lacan launched the term again and today it figures conspicuosly in the title of a book by Alain Badiou Wittgenstein' s antiphilosphy (2009). See for details Bruno Bosteels, "Radical Antiphilosophy," Filozofski vestnik (2008)1 55-87 (online through Google). In the case of Wittgenstein, two other proposals for an antiphilosophical reading adopt, respectively, a psychological and a mathematical approach; see Louis Sass, "Deep Disquietudes: Reflections on Wittgenstein as Antiplrilosopher," Wittgenstein: Biography and Philosophy, ed. James C. Klagge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 ); and Penelope Maddy, "Wittgensteinian Anti-Philosophy," Naturalism in Mathematics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Bosteels has reworked most of his paper as a preface for his translation of Badiou.

I'll try later to add some of this in the article.91.92.179.172 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As it is now, the article sure is slanted toward analytic philosophy. Maddy, who is referenced in the article already, is broadly in the therapeutic, analytic, camp.

To also look at the continental side could certainly be useful. Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted scientism edits

I removed edits holding scientism as anti-philosophical since scientism, in the common faux, unwarranted scientific sense, is antithetical to anti-philosophy, in the therapeutic sense. For example, the scientistic utilitarianism is very much at odds with anti-philosophy (and science [see e.g. Cosmides...]). See e.g. Horwich.

However, you could see books arguing for scientism saying that they are anti-philosophical. But if 'anti-philosophy' can mean anything, it's better to not have an entry for it at all (which might be the case). Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)