|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Special Feature |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
INDEX:
E-mailed to the Academy: Dear Sir, As a teacher, I was baffled to note that your organization adheres to the belief that thinkers such as Foucault and Derrida have made no positive contributions to society and have created "philosophies of nonsense." This is simply not true. Both of these writers have made great contributions to the field of literary analysis. Moreover, they have drastically changed the way many people think about culture and the world at large. Foucault has impacted many fields besides philosophy and literature. Economics and other social science disciplines rely on his theories of discourse to explain such phenomena as development and other international relations. Perhaps these thinkers have not had a positive impact on you, but I believe it is unfair to mislead students to that extent, when they could potentially be relying on your web page for unbiased information. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, E.B.
Dr. Dolhenty's reply: Thank you for contacting me and for stating your thoughts regarding Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Please let me at outset clear up a few misconceptions on your part. First, the Center for Applied Philosophy does not intentionally mislead students regarding philosophers or philosophical positions. One must always make the critical distinction between providing "information" and providing "evaluation." The "information" we provide regarding any philosopher or philosophical school or position is pretty much the standard or traditional presentation of that philosopher or school, one that would ordinarily be presented in any introduction to philosophy course or history of philosophy course. We believe insofar as possible to let the philosophers speak for themselves. If our presentation of any philosopher's position regarding a topic is mistaken, and this fact is pointed out to us, we immediately correct it. So far, in over five years on the Internet, we have not been accused of misrepresenting a philosopher's position. In this case, we stand by what we have said about the philosophy of deconstructionism or postmodernism or whatever one wants to call it, including what we have said about Foucault and Derrida. Now, the information we present is one thing. Our evaluation of a philosopher or a philosophical position is something else. We clearly state on our website, on the introductory page to Adventures to Philosophy, that we evaluate philosophers and philosophical positions as to their contribution to the continuing development of the "Perennial Philosophy," that is, Classical Realism in the tradition of Aristotle, Aquinas, Adler, and Wild. The tradition of Classical Realism has been the dominant force in philosophy for over two thousand years and is, in fact, the philosophy of common sense, critically examined. Furthermore, it is the philosophy that most people adhere to, although they may not be able to articulate it and defend it. Secondly, we do have a bias -- there is no secret about that. On our entry page, it says "Welcome to Classical Realism and Classical Liberalism on the Internet." On our homepage, it is clearly stated that we are Classical Realists and our page called About the Academy clearly states our philosophical position regarding most of the major issues. We are upfront and honest about where we stand. However, when it comes to evaluating a philosopher or a philosophical position, we will ask the question (and, again, it is stated clearly): "What contribution has this philosopher or philosophical position made to the Perennial Philosophy?" Notice that we are not concerned about the "influence" a philosopher has had on philosophical thought, or on society, or on politics, or on literature, etc. We duly recognize that many philosophers have had a tremendous "influence" on thought and practice (Karl Marx, for instance), but that is not what we are concerned about in our evaluation at the end of each discussion. It is the "contribution" to the tradition of Classical Realism (the Perennial Philosophy) that we are addressing. In the case of Foucault and Derrida, as well as the other so-called postmodern thinkers, it is our evaluation that they have made no contribution to the Perennial Philosophy at all. In fact, I would argue, that those "philosophers" in that stream of "thought" are antithetical to the Perennial Philosophy or any genuine Realism at all. Foucault and Derrida apparently do not accept objective truths or principles. Since objective realistic principles constitute the foundation of Classical Realism, their ideas or theories are considered to be philosophical "nonsense." Furthermore, in my own analysis, their ideas and theories fall under the category of what I call "intellectual insanity." Why "intellectual insanity"? Well, simply, because anyone who denies the possibility of any objective truth ends up denying any objective reality at all. And what do we call ordinary people who are out of touch with reality or who deny reality? Psychiatrists call them "psychotic" and the law considers them "insane." When philosophers or other thinkers deny any objective reality, or are out of touch with objective reality, what are we to call this phenomenon? I call it an "intellectual insanity." This philosophical position basically involves two very important issues: Epistemological Subjectivism on the one hand, and Moral Relativism on the other. In the simplest terms, what this means is that both "truth" and "morality" are strictly subjective and/or relative. There is no "objective" truth and no "objective" principle (or standard) for determining the goodness or wrongness of any human act. Both of these philosophical positions are wrong. Both of these philosophical positions are detrimental to the individual and society. Neither of these philosophical positions can actually be lived out in the arena of the "real world." The life represented by both of these philosophical positions can only be lived in college classrooms and in textbooks. I would submit that any teacher promoting these doctrines is misleading his or her students and being, at the least, intellectually dishonest. These positions lead ultimately to a Metaphysical Idealism. The philosophical positions taken by the postmodernists not only are antithetical to philosophy and lead to philosophical nonsense, but they also are antithetical to empirical science and lead to scientific nonsense. In other words, postmodernist philosophy destroys not only a genuine realistic philosophy, as we understand it, but also any possibility of a modern empirical science. See The Alan Sokal Hoax on our website for documentation regarding that. By the way, you might also be interested in my essay about A Theory of Public Nonsense, which might be relevant here. Now, let me break your e-mail up into its parts and respond to each part separately. Your remarks are in red. As a teacher, I was baffled to note that your organization adheres to the belief that thinkers such as Foucault and Derrida have made no positive contributions to society and have created "philosophies of nonsense." This specific point has been addressed above. But let me say that nothing is said on our website about their contributions to society, only about their contribution to the Perennial Philosophy. Careful reading would have rendered this point null. This is simply not true. Both of these writers have made great contributions to the field of literary analysis. Nothing was said on our website about their contributions to literary analysis, either positive or negative. Literary analysis is not per se a philosophical discipline, although that branch of philosophy called "philosophy of literature" may have something to say about it. Moreover, they have drastically changed the way many people think about culture and the world at large. I just have to ask: What many people? The ordinary common person or the academic? Changed the thinking in what way? To what effect? Based on what empirical premises? I could go on, but I won't since we are dealing here in generalities. Foucault has impacted many fields besides philosophy and literature. Economics and other social science disciplines rely on his theories of discourse to explain such phenomena as development and other international relations. Where has Foucault impacted philosophy? He may have impacted literature departments in the universities, for a time. Economics? Where? International relations? Where? Outside of a few rather obscure "intellectual" books and journals, Foucault seems to be invisible to the general public and most economists and geopolitical experts seem to have never heard of him according to the sources I contacted today. Also, in regard to empirical science in general, be sure to see The Alan Sokal Hoax. Perhaps these thinkers have not had a positive impact on you, but I believe it is unfair to mislead students to that extent, when they could potentially be relying on your web page for unbiased information. It does not matter one whit whether or not a thinker has had a positive impact on me personally. Neither I nor the Center for Applied Philosophy evaluates a thinker on the basis of personal impact or influence. As I explained above, it is the "contribution" to the Perennial Philosophy (or Classical Realism) that matters. That -- and I really hate to say it -- is the "objective" standard we use to evaluate any thinker. And, to repeat....we do not give unbiased "information" about philosophers or philosophical positions. We do give "evaluations" which, of course, are biased in the sense that we have criteria by which we judge the contribution or the value. So, really, your accusation regarding that is unfair. Nevertheless, I am pleased you contacted us and allowed us to explain our position regarding these matters. Thank you. Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. ------------ A reply received from EB on September 26, 2003 to my response: Dr. Dolhenty: I thank you for your prompt and informative reply. In response to your questions: Where has Foucault impacted philosophy? He may have impacted literature departments in the universities, for a time. Economics? Where? International relations? Where? I suppose I have not studied Philosophy in the extent that you have, and my first remark was based on the fact that I first heard of Foucault as an undergrad in a social philosophy seminar at an EXTREMELY conservative institution. It was my particular professor's opinion that Foucault had drastically changed modern processes of thought. This is abundantly clear in the literature department (and continues to be so in many, if not most Universities). His thinking has created or spawned several new ways of looking at texts, including post-colonialism. When one is breaking down unfair dichotomies (is there any other kind?), it is important not to let oneself become involved with the notion that "objective" thought exists, because one's thoughts are a product of one's surroundings. ("Objective thought" is one of the things that led to unfair dichotomies in the first place.) And many approaches are beginning to look at "non-traditional" texts, including sociail institutions li ke the media. In the field of economics and political science, Arturo Escobar (and Kate Manzo, and Marc DuBois, and Arun Agrawal, and many others) has used Foucault's theory of discourse to break down the unfair and downright faulty presumptions (considered at the time they were instituted to be "objective truth") regarding economic development of the Third World. In _Encounter Development_ Escobar makes a strong case for his thesis, that the first world created the third world through discourse. This idea is beginning, (here I allow you) in the academy at least, to impact how people think about international relations. Sorry for my brevity and lack of examples in my previous email... I am very busy. E.B.
E-mailed to the Academy: From Jessie, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada Husserl and Heidegger were not existentialists, they were phenomenologists. They would both be greatly insulted by this indiscretion. Dr. Dolhenty's reply: Thank you very much for contacting us and expressing your opinion. Please let me respond to your concern. I do not know what you are using as a source for your opinion, but let me try to explain my position regarding this matter. It is true that both Husserl and Heidegger were phenomenologists. It is also true that Husserl is considered the founder of "Modern" Phenomenology. However, the philosopher against whom Husserl hurled his greatest criticism was Immanuel Kant, who also was a phenomenologist, although not a "Modern" one. Husserl was Heidegger's teacher and Heidegger accepted his teacher's phenomenology "in general." But Heidegger is also considered to be the father of modern Existentialism (see The Oxford Companion to Philosophy under Heidegger). In many contemporary histories of philosophy Husserl is placed in the general category of existentialism (small "e") because of his relationship to the problems the existentialists dealt with. (By the way, Neitzsche is also placed within this group by many for the same reason.) The term "existentialism" is a rather generic term for the most part, although there is a specific sense in which Existentialism is accepted within philosophy. There were even "existentialists" before Heidegger became the supposed father of it (think Kierkegaard, for instance). The Academy includes Heidegger under the category "Existentialism" for good reason; that is what he was. We also include Husserl under that category while also including him within the category of "Phenomenologiy" (see our diagram of the history of philosophy). Husserl is also considered by many historians of philosophy to be a "neo-realist." On the other hand, Jacques Maritain, whom we consider to be a preeminent Classical Realist, is considered by some to be a closet existentialist. Can you see the problem? It is very difficult to properly categorize any philosopher but we must do so sometimes for brevity and understanding. Is Plato, for instance, a metaphysical Idealist or an Extreme Realist? Well, it depends. Is George Berkeley a metaphysical Idealist or a Radical Empiricist? Well, it depends. Now, as to whether Husserl or Heidegger would be insulted by the labeling, well, that is truly debatable. Heidegger would most certainly not be insulted, since that is what he was most definitely and the father of the "Modern" form to boot. Regarding Husserl? Who knows? I have found no evidence anywhere which would lead me to believe he would have been "greatly" insulted. Do you have evidence from him that he is? If so, I would sincerely like to hear about it. In fact, I would really like to hear your entire argument regarding your assertion that both of them would be "greatly" insulted to be considered existentialists. Indiscretion on our part? I don't think so at this time. Best regards, Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.