the mystery of polemical sobbing

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

the mystery of polemical sobbing

Postby Guide » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:07 pm

Should those dear ones who use the utterly lazy and cheep polemical tags "scholastic" and "existential" be banished from the reflective part of the community? These academic words, which are constantly used in order to let professors have something to rant about (even so in the case of relatively thoughtful ones such as Richard Rorty, abusers of such tags have become much worse, more clockwork like, more philosophy machine than man, since him), are wholly meaningless in philosophic work, since one can not see the thinking in the mere expressions.

Why, for instance, does von Balthazar speak of a "kneeling theology", in contradistinction to a "sitting theology?" Surely this is for the reason of the atmosphere of gigantic sophistic polemic that compels a self-defense of all thinkers. Anyone who makes such an accusation concerning merely sitting at desks announces that they know nothing of thought, or what thinkers are. The increase in the size of the university, year by year, is the same thing as the increase in the number of academics, i.e., not even professors, but persons who can do nothing but rehearse and retail texts. This leads to a constant need to pretend to be something more than a rehearsal of texts through vasty claims. One thinks of, e.g., Cornell West. With his bunk impudent claim to be part of the tradition of the prophets: "existential!".

Yes, this member of the community of reflective persons knows, one will object to the inclusion of the "hot snow" or "metal wood" of theology, which is not philosophy. However, through this analogy, one can see further in the vehicle of overlapping meaning.


Wittgenstein: Imagine a clock face, the hands turning, now turn the face. Such is thought, it is never in the expression positively and fully, though, at the same time, it is never wholly not there.
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users