View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Rant Room
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
The Arrogance Of Philosophers
JDHURF
Sugarfree wrote: Most theories can be understood in and of themselves with perhaps some references here and there and explainations not neccassarily written by the philosophers themselves.


As a long time student of philosophy I can tell you honestly that your perception that this is true is misguided. There’s a lot of philosophy that requires background. Kant’s “Copernican revolution” in philosophy would be incoherent without a background in rationalism, empiricism and phenomenalism. Modern philosophy would be for the most part unintelligible (Zizek’s work, for instance, assumes so much background knowledge that it would be like trying to read Chinese). You for sure couldn't explain Zizek's ontology without quite the background.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
cheshiredragon
General-Pryce wrote:
Remember, the difference between arrogance and confidence is just another person's point of view.


I couldn't agree with this more. I am extremely confident when I talk about computers, networks. Some think I am arrogant and others know that I know what I am doing. I also think that it is a point of perception more so than actual arrogance.

Hitchens on the other hand...I see him as arrogant but, it think it is more tactful rather than the mind set of, "shut up, I am right and you are wrong." He is so mellow when he talks too.
That's right, I said it...
 
Sugarfree
JDHURF wrote:
As a long time student of philosophy I can tell you honestly that your perception that this is true is misguided. There’s a lot of philosophy that requires background. Kant’s “Copernican revolution” in philosophy would be incoherent without a background in rationalism, empiricism and phenomenalism. Modern philosophy would be for the most part unintelligible (Zizek’s work, for instance, assumes so much background knowledge that it would be like trying to read Chinese). You for sure couldn't explain Zizek's ontology without quite the background.

I said most, you do misread things! Zizek's work is very advanced i doubt even upper 6th study his ontology and i must admit i couldnt explain it myself. Ive not covered the Copernican Revolution but Kant is on my curriculum so i may well do, although i always thought of it as more of a scientific theory than a philosophical one.
 
Jump to Forum: