Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by nyonchung »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:34 pm
nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:23 pmProviding Foucault has a consistent "système de pensée", his research had been proved poor if not manipulated or irrelevant (specially on the 17th cent. data in "Histoire de lafolie ...)
Oh come on. Nothing has been "proved" that invalidates his thought as such (which is not to say that his thought is unproblematic, of course). Some of the anthropological data he used has been questioned. New data has been provided to support his readings, and questioned in turn, etc. All the while new readings of his thought have been put forward, etc. The dance goes on, as always in all philosophy and science. Difficult to sink ships for good in such battles.
nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:23 pmAnd I consider (I'm not the only one, some much better qualifed than me) that he is (and Derrida) an obscurantist.
Yes, you clearly do not appreciate them, that much is clear. You do not help your case by your repeated appeals to either your experience or the authority of the "better qualified" others. Plenty of professional philosophers love Michel and Jacques. Plenty do not. All this, however, is

:offtopic:
He had a remarquably negative effect on the quality of academic production here. But you probably have no idea of how the academic systems works here, the state-sponsored publishing systems
Professional philosophers? a strange category.

Yes you can prove that research is poor (that what PhDs are about, in France at least) ... as for "Histoire de la Folie ..." it's not about anthropological data, but much more about archival research or the lack of it.

"better qualified" others. Plenty of professional philosophers love Michel and Jacques." - is exactly what you do :rolling:
:focus:

This is somehow related to the topic ... the illusory gurus of academia?
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by nyonchung »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:41 pm
nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:23 pm "patriarchy" is a gimmick of sorts...
Well, certainly supporters of patriarchal relations and social systems based on them would have one believe this. But I suspect you just don't like the feminist critique of patriarchy because it is primarily coming from American scholars, and you are French, and you are still mad about Quebec. :consoling:
:good:
Remarkable logic :rolling: Never mind, we'll send our president there to fix that.
A great part of the US scholarship in the 80's drawn heavily on Foucault, Derrida (again, badly translated at times), that they read their work in detail is another question, but they figure massively in bibliographies, sometimes in areas where these references seem a bit irrelevant for an educated French speaker.
And I think "French theory" - also a gimmick, I agree - is part of the process that led to some present definitions of "patriarchy" and to its mediatic use ... (do'nt take ofense, not about you) :namaste:
I'm relatively familiar with the origins of "French theory" (at least we produced something other than wine), I mentionned that Tel Quel was available at home (my father worked years next office to Sollers'), I read Barthes at 15 I think. Operates mostly by "glissements sémantiques".
I studied litterature in full structuralist / post-structural period (ah, Kristeva) - still, in linguistics, I prefer Chomsky ... an American, no?
Genette pretty useful ...is a practical thinker

as for
"a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line"
societies and governement are alas not the same thing, and the male line is another story, how to conflate things even in a dictionnary
Bhutan has a (limited but well-documented) system of inheritance through the elder sister. That may sound strange, but this is one of the reasons of troubles experemented by the present Kalu Rinpoché.
As for France, all children share equal inheritance since 1793 or so formally and clearly since Napoleon codes (1804) and we're lucky to get at the same time compulsory military service, this saw millions of males exterminated ...
Last edited by nyonchung on Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:01 pm A great part of the US scholarship in the 80's drawn heavily on Foucault, Derrida (again, badly translated at times)...
No serious philosophers (i.e. Anglo-American analytical philosophers) paid any attention to those guys, since the Anglo-American tradition has written off everything in Europe from Hegel onward as a waste of time.

The folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by nyonchung »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pm
nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:01 pm A great part of the US scholarship in the 80's drawn heavily on Foucault, Derrida (again, badly translated at times)...
No serious philosophers (i.e. Anglo-American analytical philosophers) paid any attention to those guys, since the Anglo-American tradition has written off everything in Europe from Hegel onward as a waste of time.

The folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
American exceptionnalism? hope not, but if what you say is factual, then all the best. But this is not the impression one gets sometimes in academic circles, or what's left of them. Your definition of Barthes et al. as "literary critics" is perfectly fitting, you may have missed my reticences "This is somehow related to the topic ... the illusory gurus of academia?". Based on both reading and experience. :bow:
Anglo-American material tradition, on the other had bombed the hell off a few countries (well, France too, but now clearly under Anglo-American leadership) so this mention of exceptionnalism with a ? . No offense implied, is there a connection between the two?
We live in strange times.
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:42 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pm
nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:01 pm A great part of the US scholarship in the 80's drawn heavily on Foucault, Derrida (again, badly translated at times)...
No serious philosophers (i.e. Anglo-American analytical philosophers) paid any attention to those guys, since the Anglo-American tradition has written off everything in Europe from Hegel onward as a waste of time.

The folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
American exceptionnalism? hope not, but if what you say is factual, then all the best.
My late father was a "professional" philosopher, a colleague of Jay Garfield at Smith. He was an analytical philosopher and in his opinion, guys like Foucault. Derrida, and so on couldn't frame a coherent argument even if their lives depended on it. Guys like Heidegger, etc., are just not that coherent, what need to mention Nietzche? Basically, for the analytical tradition, the European contribution ends in Kant. He was a bit distressed that what was passing for philosophy in some peoples mind's was this mishmash of continental incoherence, especially with 80's faddism around deconstruction and Derrida. There are some universities in which this stuff gained a foothold, but not so much in the Ivy League schools, at least not when I was of college age, forty years ago.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pmThe folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
The first bit of this is just inaccurate. The second part is grossly unfair, and I am truly sorry to hear it coming from you.

Yes, there is a split between the analytical tradition and the continental tradition -- although in recent years it has been healed to some extent, and the healing continues (most philosophers writing in the areas which I follow have been mixing both voices since the 1990s).

I stand firmly with the continental camp, but I would never parody the analytical philosophers' attitude along the lines of your crass mischaracterization.

Both sides in the debate have made their choices. They have made it for good reasons, to the best of their knowledge and ability. Both choices open up paths that lead into problems. Both try to do their best to sort them out.

There really is no need to throw feces across that border.
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by nyonchung »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:09 pm
nyonchung wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:42 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pm

No serious philosophers (i.e. Anglo-American analytical philosophers) paid any attention to those guys, since the Anglo-American tradition has written off everything in Europe from Hegel onward as a waste of time.

The folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
American exceptionnalism? hope not, but if what you say is factual, then all the best.
My late father was a "professional" philosopher, a colleague of Jay Garfield at Smith. He was an analytical philosopher and in his opinion, guys like Foucault. Derrida, and so on couldn't frame a coherent argument even if their lives depended on it. Guys like Heidegger, etc., are just not that coherent, what need to mention Nietzche? Basically, for the analytical tradition, the European contribution ends in Kant. He was a bit distressed that what was passing for philosophy in some peoples mind's was this mishmash of continental incoherence, especially with 80's faddism around deconstruction and Derrida. There are some universities in which this stuff gained a foothold, but not so much in the Ivy League schools, at least not when I was of college age, forty years ago.
Well, you late father was stating the obvious. Here nobody will listen, as there is a crass ignorance of Anglo-American philosophical and logical production (few translations).

One of the points Mandosio demonstrates about Foucault is precisely that: lack of coherent arguments. I found early in my life that Barthes has no reasoning but his "thought" is a play of semantic shifts taken as a proof (the top in this area being Lacan). Derrida's language theories are often contradictory and, according to me, are in fact a form of obscurantism in disguise. Deconstruction is precisely about this (the impossiblity of positive knowledge, soem times ago I read cursorily a Tibetological piece equating Nagarjuna to descontruction)

I'll pass the fad about Heidegger, a lot of pompous stupidities written about him - one interesting point is how left-leaning thinkers (maoists in a few cases!) managed to overlook the obvious nazi past of Heidegger.
Nietzsche (that I read closely) is obviously not an analytical thinker - a literary visionary on occasion maybe. A typical case of Germany "fantastic realism". Overquoted and often "hors contexte"

My father (a poet) worked for years in one of France's major publishing and much to his credit, managed to stay away from this strange little world of "intellectuals" a real "panier de crabes" as we say.

Here the faddism goes on and on, one of my good friends told me that now it deeply took root in Oxbridge itself.
Here many academic areas have been fully damaged (I attended 2 years back a few sessions of Master 2 level methodology class in Social Sciences ...), bad, we had excellent historians, good archeologists.

Mention of Jay Garfield is pleasing, I had some interesting discussions with academics about one "Asian studies" cursus in a major isntitution here.
And the patronizing side of it. This can be another topic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/opin ... ly-is.html

Read the post in between:
So we fell into "crass mischaracterization" and are throwing strange things over the oceans :cheers:
I absolutely support Malcom's quote about "literary critics", this is supported by evidence.
Being an actual continental , I have maybe some clear ideas about what passes here as "philosophy". And this being a Buddhist forum, I doubt that Barthes, Foucault, Derrida et al. will be able to help anybody progress an inch on the path.
At worst, it may have you circling around or drawning in doubt. "Illusory Gurus"
Buddhism has a strong taste for strong locical articulation. If I may remark.

Note
Mandosio is an excellent latinist and a specialist, among other things of the history mathematic and scientific developments in the Middle Ages and is a bit on the left of the political spectrum
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pmThe folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
The first bit of this is just inaccurate.
It's accurate.
The second part is grossly unfair, and I am truly sorry to hear it coming from you.
I admit it was gratuitous, but it was fun to write. :-)
Yes, there is a split between the analytical tradition and the continental tradition -- although in recent years it has been healed to some extent, and the healing continues (most philosophers writing in the areas which I follow have been mixing both voices since the 1990s).
There is a place for literary criticism, certainly philosophical texts are not immune from literary critique. But in general, I find western philosophy logorrheic, and this isn't helped when we have people mistaking Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud for philosophers, or worthy of attention from philosophers.
I stand firmly with the continental camp, but I would never parody the analytical philosophers' attitude along the lines of your crass mischaracterization.
It's basically a question of excluding evidence that is worthy of investigation, the analytical tradition has a much more narrow criteria for what they think is worth investigating or even deemed "philosophy." As Buddhists, our criteria is even more narrow.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 7:22 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pmThe folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
The first bit of this is just inaccurate.
It's accurate.
Foucault was a historian cum philosopher and had precious little to say about the literary canon. Derrida had a lot to say about it (as well as about the canon of philosophy, indeed two of his three breakthrough books consist of analyses of both), but he still was not a literary critic. They are both theorists, the theory in question being the capital-letter Theory aka literary theory aka cultural theory -- which is not literary criticism but "theory" as in the Frankfurters' Critical Theory (which indeed is in many ways Derrida's, but not Foucault's, starting point. Foucault's non-historian roots would be Bachelardian philosophy of science, arguably as analytical as anything in the Anglosphere). Some people prefer to blur the boundary between the theorist and the critic, but if you do you catch your Derrida but not your Foucault.

I will leave it here, and do some practice.
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:13 pm
they are both theorists, the theory in question being the capital-letter Theory aka literary theory aka cultural theory -- which is not literary criticism but "theory" as in the Frankfurters' Critical Theory (which indeed is in many ways Derrida's, but not Foucault's, starting point.
Having theories does not make one a philosopher. Having a theory of literature is little different than literary criticism, pumped up on self-importance.

Careful argumentation, grounded in logic and rationality, makes one a philosopher: example, John Rawls.
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:24 pmHaving theories does not make one a philosopher. Having a theory of literature is little different than literary criticism, pumped up on self-importance.
Theory has nothing to do with having theories. It is related to the Greek theoria, interpreted the way Frankfurters did (after Kant), i.e., laying bare that which is hidden, i.e., one's preconceptions, necessary blindnesses, ideological involvements, conditions of possibility, etc.

(As such, it does not make one into a philospher, but has certainly been a major area of philosophy, both sides of the great divide, since the Koenigsberg bloke started his joyful rampage.)
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Malcolm »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:24 pmHaving theories does not make one a philosopher. Having a theory of literature is little different than literary criticism, pumped up on self-importance.
Theory has nothing to do with having theories. It is related to the Greek theoria, interpreted the way Frankfurters did (after Kant), i.e., laying bare that which is hidden, i.e., one's preconceptions, necessary blindnesses, ideological involvements, conditions of possibility, etc.
Oh, I quite like Adorno's take down of Heidegger.

I just found very little of substance in Derrida, for example. Just yawn, add to this of course his and Foucault's support for sex with preteens...just not worth bothering at all. Freaking perverts.
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by nyonchung »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:24 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:13 pm
they are both theorists, the theory in question being the capital-letter Theory aka literary theory aka cultural theory -- which is not literary criticism but "theory" as in the Frankfurters' Critical Theory (which indeed is in many ways Derrida's, but not Foucault's, starting point.
Having theories does not make one a philosopher. Having a theory of literature is little different than literary criticism, pumped up on self-importance.

Careful argumentation, grounded in logic and rationality, makes one a philosopher: example, John Rawls.
Derrida's opinions about language don't stand analysis, "parole" and "texte" cannot be opposed.
Posing the (written texte) his is typical of the French "intellecual", posing a "thesis" in the context of "concours"
He seems to be probably first to be following Husserl (his first degree was on Husserl), that had for a time a strong following here in the Continent, including among Marxists (or pseudo-Marxists like Sartre), and Freudians, like Lacan.

Foucault pretends to be an historian, but he has not the training, and this is much too obvious. His "Histoire de la Folie ..." has no serious research behind. Lots of theorie sure - these people uses semantic proximities (association) as proof, and are ready to any textual manipulation for that.
"L'Archéologie du savoir" uses "discours" instead of the Derridean "texte" but, regarding "discours", Malcom is right in saying "literary criticism", we are in the realm of literary theory posing as social science.
He ended up in complete subjectivism - if this is not obscurantism? at least confusion eand the pleasure to confuse.

For a Marxist (if that still exist) this would be the epitomè of "pensée petite-bourgeoise".

This from L’Ordre du discours, pp. 29-30

« […] dans l’ordre du discours scientifique, l’attribution à un auteur était, au Moyen-Âge, indispensable, car c’était un index de vérité. Une proposition était considérée comme détenant de son auteur même sa valeur scientifique. Depuis le XVIIe siècle, cette fonction n’a cessé de s’effacer, dans le discours scientifique : il ne fonctionne plus guère que pour donner un nom à un théorème, à un effet, à un exemple, à un syndrome. En revanche, dans l’ordre du discours littéraire, et à partir de la même époque, la fonction de l’auteur n’a pas cessé de se renforcer : tous ces récits, tous ces poèmes, tous ces drames ou comédies qu’on laissait circuler au Moyen-Âge dans un anonymat au moins relatif, voilà que, maintenant, on leur demande (et on exige d’eux qu’ils disent) d’où ils viennent, qui les a écrits ; on demande que l’auteur rende compte de l’unité du texte qu’on met sous son nom ; on lui demande de révéler, ou du moins de porter par devers lui, le sens caché qui les traverse ; on lui demande de les articuler, sur sa vie personnelle et sur ses expériences vécues, sur l’histoire réelle qui les a vues naître. »

He's wrong on everything, specially on "Middle Age" this is purely "littéraire" (there is no "discours scientifique" in the Middle-Ages, this is a complete anachronism) and on this Mandosio could give a long list of counter examples.
What changes precisely is a retablishment of what I would call Greek rationality - that was, through the predominance of Aristotle in scholastic studies, never completely lost.
The systematic use of "on" - a neutral/collective is strange - you can't assign a specific subjet ... on is "nobody"

Translate and comment

We'll not add ad hominem - but why would they be justified for any Tibetan Lama but not for Western scholars? :sage:
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
User avatar
nyonchung
Posts: 256
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:33 pm
Location: France

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by nyonchung »

Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:05 pm
treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:24 pmHaving theories does not make one a philosopher. Having a theory of literature is little different than literary criticism, pumped up on self-importance.
Theory has nothing to do with having theories. It is related to the Greek theoria, interpreted the way Frankfurters did (after Kant), i.e., laying bare that which is hidden, i.e., one's preconceptions, necessary blindnesses, ideological involvements, conditions of possibility, etc.
Oh, I quite like Adorno's take down of Heidegger.

I just found very little of substance in Derrida, for example. Just yawn, add to this of course his and Foucault's support for sex with preteens...just not worth bothering at all. Freaking perverts.
Thank you for teaching Malcolm classical Greek :thumbsup:

Malcolm was probably mentioning the infamous petition of 1977, signed by "intellectuals" requesting the complete decriminalization of pedophilia - ... at least one of them is now a neo-con, most others are by now Dead White Males, including Deleuze.
One of them, also gone, was a literature teacher in my high school - he was notorious for his taste for underage boys, but had a connection to relatively high placed co-signatory - who became later an Education Minister - no joke.
Predating on students was common among Foucauld' and Barthes' associates (I had one as a XIXth Century Literature teacher in University, saw the thing going on - attempt failed on me) - Guru Chela BDSM relationship?
A recent scandal and general uproar concerning the still-alive initiator of the "lettre ouverte", Gabriel Matzneff, had led some of the surviving signatories (including the above-mentioned minister) to express some regret as this may have been an "excessive approach
Maybe adhom, but worth mentioned. Theory and ethics should never be too distant.
:focus:
This being a Buddhist forum - where are they (or will be) reborn?
"Me and the sky don't hold views - Me and the river have no fixed practice
Me and the madman don't have a guide- Me and the rainbow have no experiences
Me, the sun and the moon have no certitudes - Me and the jewel bear no fruit" - Dampa Sanggyé as quoted by Domar Mingyur Dorjé (born 1675)
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by tobes »

treehuggingoctopus wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:26 pmThe folks you are talking about are just literary critics, fashionable among people who don't like to think.
The first bit of this is just inaccurate. The second part is grossly unfair, and I am truly sorry to hear it coming from you.

Yes, there is a split between the analytical tradition and the continental tradition -- although in recent years it has been healed to some extent, and the healing continues (most philosophers writing in the areas which I follow have been mixing both voices since the 1990s).

I stand firmly with the continental camp, but I would never parody the analytical philosophers' attitude along the lines of your crass mischaracterization.

Both sides in the debate have made their choices. They have made it for good reasons, to the best of their knowledge and ability. Both choices open up paths that lead into problems. Both try to do their best to sort them out.

There really is no need to throw feces across that border.
:good:

The attitude you are criticising here is pure dogma, ungrounded from the actual unfolding of ideas. Which is not to say it does not have traction in many anglosphere departments: dogmas can get a lot of traction.

For example, 20th century analytic philosophy is unthinkable without Husserl, Wittgenstein & Frege: all European, and the former two very influential in the so called continental tradition.

There were influential analytic Hegelians, and in fact he's having a bit of a resurgence in (analytic) logicians.

The problem with French theory is not in the ideas/thinkers themselves (of course, there is much that can be criticised), but rather the way that they are unreflexively deployed as unquestionable dogmas. And this happens almost completely outside of philosophy departments. It is a disease, which has infected many parts of the social science/humanities body.

For example, Derrida has interesting things to say about the impossibility of justice, as does Rawls about how we might accomplish it; they are two radically different takes on the same problem. The issue is not what Derrida writes, it is in the army of Derrideans, who take him as a kind of guru, and make no effort to read or think outside of his paradigm. Same with Foucaldians et al.
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Matt J »

Post-structuralism was all the rage in the 90's. The truest believers would argue that gravity was merely a social construct. Relativism abounded. I remember clearly thinking, "What if this stuff gets out of the academy into the public?"

Thirty years later, Trump.
Malcolm wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:09 pm There are some universities in which this stuff gained a foothold, but not so much in the Ivy League schools, at least not when I was of college age, forty years ago.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by PeterC »

If the 19th century continental tradition was the thesis, the post-structuralists the antithesis, what is the synthesis? Is it the current wave of political philosophy, which combines autocracy with incoherence?

(Insert emoji of bearded academic smoking gauloises ironically)
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Norwegian »

Matt J wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:52 amPost-structuralism was all the rage in the 90's.
The truest believers would argue that gravity was merely a social construct.
Please share some names, who said this? Are these people relevant, as in, are they actual representatives of the continental school, or are they just random anonymous people from the streets sharing whatever thought comes to their mind, much like what happens all the day, every day, like usual, with any topic, regardless if it's sensible or not?
Relativism abounded. I remember clearly thinking, "What if this stuff gets out of the academy into the public?"
Good heavens. Yes. Imagine if the public takes something out of context. What would happen then? Maybe they would conclude that continental philosophy is nonsense because it doesn't mean anything since it's clearly incomprehensible. At least that is what great great grandpa Noam Chomsky claims, and he's at least over 200 years old and understands everything. No way he's intellectually lazy and decided one day that he refused to figure out what French theorists were saying, and so sat down in his chair with folded arms and went "Not listening! Not listening!" in his exquisite old man shaking fist at cloud moment, his screaming at kids to get off his lawn moment. But analytical philosophy? Everybody understands that.

Here's a picture showing a very easy to understand simple example from analytical philosophy:
Image
I am sure everybody will readily agree to its contents and definitely not claim that it's taken out of its context. Probably kids can understand the above picture too. Continental philosophy however? Wow. Makes no sense. Nobody can understand what any continental philosopher is saying. Nope. Not a single person.
Thirty years later, Trump.
Yes, I suppose this is an excellent argument for why continental philosophy is meaningless, incomprehensible, and whatever else buzzword one would like to ascribe to it. Something something postmodernism something something poststructuralism something something French people something something AND THEN TRUMP HAPPENED! Boo! Continental philosophy sucks!

:roll:
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Matt J »

Judging by where Gen Z is going, absurdism.
PeterC wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:06 am If the 19th century continental tradition was the thesis, the post-structuralists the antithesis, what is the synthesis? Is it the current wave of political philosophy, which combines autocracy with incoherence?

(Insert emoji of bearded academic smoking gauloises ironically)
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Some Observation on the Guru-Chela Relationship by Tulku Sherdor

Post by Matt J »

Norwegian wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:10 am Please share some names, who said this? Are these people relevant, as in, are they actual representatives of the continental school, or are they just random anonymous people from the streets sharing whatever thought comes to their mind, much like what happens all the day, every day, like usual, with any topic, regardless if it's sensible or not?
Angry U of Chicago grad students taken in, no doubt, by the Sokal affair.

Of course, this is not a thing of the past:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

What a turn this thread has taken!

I should add, I never said Continental philosophy was incomprehensible or such. That was Malcolm.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”