Listen. Certain aspects of modern philosophical discourse are really just fucking abyssmal. The one I am thinking of is characterized by a recurrent rhethorical move where one position describes its opposition's stance using words that are deliberately exagerated, extremely strong, and defeasible. To illustrate lets take realists vs non-realists of whatever variety. You have probably heard the phrase "view-from-nowhere." It is used almost exclusively by non-realists and for the sole purpose of painting realists as silly people. It is silly because, as they will tell you, a view from nowhere literally does not exist. It is nothing. So, who would believe in it? This stance, however, is also a phantasm; since realists will also say that, yes, a view from nowhere does not exist and what they are seeking is more like a privileged viewpoint of reality situated within it.This is a recurrent pattern that occurs in many more discussions other than this one specifically, I can hardly recall all of them off the top of my head, but it is pure sophistry. It is nothing more than using elevated language for your own stance (e.g. compatibilist materialists using terms like "creative emergence", "genuine source of action" or just "agency" to describe their own stance on free will while describing their hard determinist kins with words like "predetermined", "merely passive cause", or "mechanical." The other side might in turn reach for the very popular word of "magical," a particular favorite for many).Again, this is pure sophistry and quite rage-inducing to the point where... well, I suppose I'd prefer to believe in some kind of divine punishment for these people. Has anyone else written of this specifically?
Sadly true anonLanguage was supposed to provide us new ways to think, but it lends itself to thought ending clichés and kills nuance
I'm starting to hear and read certain expressions from people I used to only see on chatgpt and it's driving me nuts.
>>25283415Like what?
>>25284028'unpack this', 'falls apart for me', 'it's not X it's y'
>>25283257Yes, I have thought this for years as well. There's a heap of academic philosophy cliches which are all misleading and stifle discourse. My least favorite is an argument being said to 'pull itself up by its own bootstraps.' The image presupposes a notion of proof that I think is completely false, that a proposition can only be proved by something external to it. I would say all proofs are circular and ratiocination is parasitic on intuition. It's also just lazy writing, you would think academic philosophers wouldn't be so reliant on cliches to get their points across.>Has anyone else written of this specifically?Me. I just did.
>>25283257This is why Fichte rejected the use of any fixed terminology in his speculative works. He thought words like 'substance' and 'causality', or any philosophical word at all, had the effect of killing thought. Obviously, the man had to use words to get his points across, he just completely changed the entire nature of his vocabulary and his 'stance' every few years to keep his readers and auditors on their toes. Sometimes he will do this within the same work without explaining anything, which is quite disorienting as you can imagine.
that’s why I’ve resolved to accumulate occult literature
>>25283257Yeah i feel as if introducing the idea of a point of a view at the top of a hill and of view point from that hill would not help because either side seems like they pant while eyeing their foe and looking for the nearest cause of argument that would allow them to advance over the opponent they have have in argument which is also them and ourselves cast into tr’s sordid arena of life as we seem to find ourselves as you claimed just now locked in the hot press disputing, disputing about things that are like the vaguest of phantasms, as locke or another essayist like that might claim or something like that, i agree with you, this is all a tabula rasa, why go introducing ideas like that of ‘view-from-nowhere’, especially when there are ‘views-from-somewhere’ like the view from the top of a craggy chaparral hilltop or the view looking at the clouds dispersed by the blast of the sun during the suns risings that disperses wispy nimbus of sea clouds that hug coasts in the night and early morning like a marine layer and then are dispersed in the morning and that is definitely a view-point, sitting on a sea cliff watching the clouds disperse in the cast of early morning light in the plain air or something like that
>>25284452"Unpack" at least was common around 10 years ago among woke types.
