Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Rather, philosophy is a destructive phenomenon in agnosticism.
Agnosticism is an attitude. Normal — “we don't know”, extreme — “and we won't find out”.
And philosophy as a whole is a critique of any position, a clash of positions, a willingness to assume that this or that position does not make sense, going beyond any position.
For example, philosophy may assume that we have known everything for a long time, just do not know about this knowledge. Or that you don't need to know anything, because knowledge is evil. Or that the very word “knowledge” is a meaningless self-deception, a language game that leads us in circles. Or that there's no one to know.
When they do not fully understand the nature of philosophical work, they invent terms like: “irrationalism”, “intersubjectivity”, “materialism / idealism”,” agnosticism”,” dualism ” and other pseudo-problems with pseudo-concepts. An example of such stupidity and pseudo-problems. Kant is called an agnostic because he coined the term “thing in itself”. And this term supposedly means something unknowable. Yes, Kant has this term. But with this term, he only indicates (refers) something that is not the content of what is understood ( but is related to the conditions of understanding. And these conditions are always, as it were, “in the shadow”of objective perception. Or background images). To be more precise, we are talking about transcendental consciousness. And you need to learn to talk about it not in the same way as we talk about objects. Well, etc. Each pseudo-problem can be dealt with. In okolofilosofii (popular philosophy), a lot of idiocy has accumulated. Don't play with words. Look at how it works in your life. If it works.
No. One might as well say that the fatalist movement is a folly, that the claims of stoicism are a relic of the past, that Nietzsche's work is Nazism, and so on. There are many movements in the human culture, and we may disagree with them and think they are stupid, but not giving them a place to exist is really stupid. Perhaps tomorrow you will write a fundamental work that will turn the minds of the planet, but due to the fact that critics will decide that this is a destructive element of culture, it will be banned from publication(an analogy to your question).
Agnosticism is usually understood as a position that has more to do with theological disputes. Agnostics in this sense are those who do not find convincing evidence for the existence or non-existence of God, and prefer to consider this question fundamentally open. Is this kind of agnosticism destructive? No, because God is often not the central problem for philosophy at all.
In philosophy itself, it is more common to use the term skepticism, which means about the same as agnosticism, but in relation to all human knowledge as a whole. The skeptic believes that there is no reliable knowledge available to people.
Skeptics have been known since antiquity, and they are usually associated with the end of a certain period in the history of human thought – the extinction of tradition. In this sense, the words of skeptics can really be considered destroyers-destructors. Skepticism, on the other hand, is generally honest, and therefore has an intellectual appeal and beauty. The most striking example here is David Hume, who completed the tradition of British empiricism by demonstrating that it is impossible to show the existence of causal relationships between different facts in reality, outside the human mind, and therefore-no knowledge based on experience is possible in the most fundamental sense of the word.
A more recent example of the destruction (or rather, deconstruction) of the Western intellectual tradition is presented in the texts of Jacques Derrida, for example, in “On Grammatology”. Derrida's task is to demonstrate the baselessness of all the knowledge accumulated by the West since the time of the first Greek philosophers.
At the same time, all skeptics face a number of traditional problems, the simplest of which is the problem of self – applicability of their theses. If no knowledge is possible, how can I know? I would say that the final trace of skepticism in philosophy is rather positive: doubt is the companion of all free thought, and without it we would not be able to free ourselves from dogmas and move on. In the history of philosophy, for example, this is represented by the famous example of Kant, whose critical philosophy was hardly possible without the seemingly destructive influence of Hume.