What is the point of studying Western Philosphy?

[Jamshyd]

I'll start by saying that I know very little about western-philosophy. I mean sure, I have an idea of what most of the prominent philosophers were talking about, but I have not actually gone and read most of the actual texts. This was mostly a matter of choice, as I found that western philosophy, besides being extremely ineloquent (Kant?), seems totally and utterly pointless (Heidegger), or more recently, very ineloquent and pointless treatises ON the above (Derrida?).

I think, at one point, a very long ago, the purpose of philosophy was finding The Truth™.

Today, this is very clearly not the case. These days, the western philosophical tradition, having deconstructed itself and so calling itself "Theory", has been reduced to nothing but mere Academic masturbation. I apologize for attacking Derrida again, but... liberally quoting untranslated Greek in your main paragraphs? Who the fuck does that anymore?

That, or "Theory" now takes a paradoxically practical roal, presenting itself as "Social Theory" or "Film Theory", thus limiting its scope to giving "software" to a particular Hardware (a subject of Academic Interest).

So yeah, I puzzle at the necessity of even having philosophy anymore, seeing that Eastern Thought and Mystical Thought (of all traditions) now fill what used to be Philosophy's goal.

p.s. As you may have guessed, I am almost exclusively confined to the "Spirituality" section of my mod title

 

[Belisarius]

I strongly disagree, for several reasons:

1.) Derrida is not representative of the Western philosophical tradition; he was (and remains) an acquired taste who was never wildly popular, and probably would himself have rejected said tradition (without rejecting it, of course; deconstructionists never, ever choose to be pinned down). Nor is Western philosophy today any less concerned with say ethics or ontology, or more concerned with postmodern laxity. Some people just love Kant, or Derrida, or Plato, Sartre, etc.

2.) Western and Eastern philosophy are beholden to their separate cultural origins; neither is more valid than the other. Western philosophy, for all its diversity today, can be essentially traced down to ancient Greek culture: fractious, urban, loose, skeptical, and experimental. Eastern philosophy--though my knowledge of its background is admittedly weak--seems to come from a more agricultural, centralized, spiritual (or at least animistic) and hierarchical society.

3.) Let's be honest: organized philosophy, Eastern or Western, has always been the province of settled, "academic" elites. I think it's safe to say that the average Greek, Chinese, or Indian peasant (the majority of the population anywhere until very recently) didn't know or care about virtue ethics, Moism, or the Noble Eightfold Path--at least not farther than it affected officials they had to deal with. Only with the rise of a literate middle class has it been possible for most people to indulge in philosophy if they so choose--and especially to choose whether they prefer the Eastern or Western tradition.

That said, I still think most people's attitudes toward philosophy--Eastern or Western--can be summed up by the following comic.

4.) On a more personal note: I don't believe in an ideal philosophy. Yes, there are some that jive more with me than others, such as Kant's duty ethics, or Popper's falsification criteria, or Aristotle's golden mean, but rare indeed is the philosophy that I've read about (and understood) that didn't have some aspect or idea that if I didn't like, I at least found intriguing. Sometimes you want sweet and sour chicken, and other times a pizza.

5.) Implying that Eastern philosophy is the ne plus ultra of the art is itself a philosophical statement.

 

[Roger&Me]

I think the necessity of having western philosophy is to keep a large number of woolly, over-caffeinated philosophy professors employed. :D

Haha just kiddin'.

I used to be a philosophy major, and I changed my major for exactly the reason you describe: because it wasn't aimed at finding "the truth." I was just getting fed up with all these contemporary philosophers who I don't agree with, but I can't refute them because they are so linguistically clever.

I think the main drawback of philosophy is that its rooted firmly in language, and language is a rather blunt tool for exploring the nature of reality. The mystical experience transcends the need for the spoken word and can be directly experienced.

I would also definitely assert that science's mathematisation of the physical world is a step in the right direction, because mathematics (especially physics) is an experiential language that describes events empirically. (But that's another issue entirely.)

Now, that's not to say that I don't think philosophy has a valid place in academia; its certainly a valuable academic exercise, and I feel my thinking is sharper and more logical for having been trained in it -- but as for whether or not philosophy, as a discipline, is really contributing to our understanding of reality: I think the answer is a very firm "maybe!".

 

[Jamshyd]

I strongly disagree, for several reasons:

1.) Derrida is not representative of the Western philosophical tradition; he was (and remains) an acquired taste who was never wildly popular, and probably would himself have rejected said tradition (without rejecting it, of course; deconstructionists never, ever choose to be pinned down). Nor is Western philosophy today any less concerned with say ethics or ontology, or more concerned with postmodern laxity. Some people just love Kant, or Derrida, or Plato, Sartre, etc.

Please don't get me wrong, I never put Derrida out to be representative of the western philosophical tradition. I assaulted him twice because I think he is a horrible writer .

That said, the whole of post-modern thinkers are more relevant to us than, say, Aristotle taken in isolation, since the whole academic institution of Philosphy (err, or its lack thereof!) has been shaped by said post-modernist, and thus when you learnt philosophy, it was their version (and therefore yours will be post-post-modernist if that makes any sense. Already the term "post-structuralism" is in common parlance).

2.) Western and Eastern philosophy are beholden to their separate cultural origins; neither is more valid than the other. Western philosophy, for all its diversity today, can be essentially traced down to ancient Greek culture: fractious, urban, loose, skeptical, and experimental. Eastern philosophy--though my knowledge of its background is admittedly weak--seems to come from a more agricultural, centralized, spiritual (or at least animistic) and hierarchical society.

First I'd like to say that I don't think eastern philosphy in and of itself is superior to western. I think Mysticism is superior to philosophy at approaching what philosophy had originally set out to do (and it was back then as it is today). The difference is that, at least a large portion, of eastern philosophy has remained open to Mysticism while western philosophy, in its "enlightenment" (ie. religiophobia), lumped mysticism with religion, thereby choosing explicitly to deny a very powerful and real part of human experience.

3.) Let's be honest: organized philosophy, Eastern or Western, has always been the province of settled, "academic" elites. I think it's safe to say that the average Greek, Chinese, or Indian peasant (the majority of the population anywhere until very recently) didn't know or care about virtue ethics, Moism, or the Noble Eightfold Path--at least not farther than it affected officials they had to deal with. Only with the rise of a literate middle class has it been possible for most people to indulge in philosophy if they so choose--and especially to choose whether they prefer the Eastern or Western tradition.

That, I completely agree with, though I do not see its relevance (I assume you were addressing my point of philosophy being academic masturbation, in which case I'd say that it still is academic masturbation even when the commoner engages in it, because it no longer attempts to do what it was originally devised to do).

4.) On a more personal note: I don't believe in an ideal philosophy. Yes, there are some that jive more with me than others, such as Kant's duty ethics, or Popper's falsification criteria, or Aristotle's golden mean, but rare indeed is the philosophy that I've read about (and understood) that didn't have some aspect or idea that if I didn't like, I at least found intriguing. Sometimes you want sweet and sour chicken, and other times a pizza.

I understand.

5.) Implying that Eastern philosophy is the ne plus ultra of the art is itself a philosophical statement.

As said above, that was absolutely not what I was implying. In fact, I personally actually think that everything that ever came out of China-proper (Ie, Not Tibet or Xinjiang) is complete garbage (but am definitely open to being convinced otherwise).

What I am actually explicitly saying is that Mysticism - both eastern AND western - is far superior at accomplishing philosophy's original task than philosophy itself.

It seems to me that, after centuries of unending rumination, Philosophy has finally come to the startling conclusion that there is no such thing as philosophy .

I think the main drawback of philosophy is that its rooted firmly in language, and language is a rather blunt tool for exploring the nature of reality. The mystical experience transcends the need for the spoken word and can be directly experienced.

I totally agree

 

[Psyduck]

Can you elaborate what you mean with "Mysticism". I interpret it (in the context of this site) as related to Near-Death-Experiences, Out-of-Body-Experiences, DMT-like-states, paranormal events,...

My very little knowledge of Eastern's practice probably misses your point. I can think of 'yoga', however I don't know squad about that either

As for Western philosophy. For me it has only put certain existentialistic/ethical questions more in the light. It has not shown me (yet) any way to resolve them or how to implement the theory "in my life". It didn't make me any more 'wise', only more knowledgeable. On the other hand, I can't think of any more pleasurable activity for my mind than studying philosophy.

 

[Jamshyd]

Mysticism: the collection of schools of thought (whose texts alone amass just as much, if not more, than those of philosphy), eastern and western, that give esoteric interpretations of religion, philosphy, and life in general. NDE, OBE, and DMT are not necessarily what said traditions revolve around, although a few of them do.

I am talking of schools of thought such as (for example) the Sufis, the Hermeticists, the Gnostics, The Upanishads...etc. (notice that three out of those are western ).

Again, please don't think that I imagine eastern thought is superior to western thought simply because it is eastern. In fact, if I were to list my spiritual influences, I am two 3rds western and only one 3rd eastern .

 

[BurnOneDown]

I think, at one point, a very long ago, the purpose of philosophy was finding The Truth™. Today, this is very clearly not the case. These days, the western philosophical tradition, having deconstructed itself and so calling itself "Theory", has been reduced to nothing but mere Academic masturbation.

I think the problem is that no objective truth exists. Objective truths may be declared, but they will never be truly The Truth as you put it. The only worthwhile truth to be found is subjective truth, aka spirituality. I think that the remaining value of philosophy lies in understanding the knowledge found in studies of science, mathematics, etc. Which is quite simply the academic masturbation you mention.

So yeah, I puzzle at the necessity of even having philosophy anymore, seeing that Eastern Thought and Mystical Thought (of all traditions) now fill what used to be Philosophy's goal.

I think the role of philosophy will be to make individuals more efficient thinkers. I've heard that the student who major in philosophy produce the highest MCAT scores

LOL. More like the futility of any philosophical argument ever. Nevertheless, it's by far the best way to understand your own thoughts.

4.) On a more personal note: I don't believe in an ideal philosophy. Yes, there are some that jive more with me than others, such as Kant's duty ethics, or Popper's falsification criteria, or Aristotle's golden mean, but rare indeed is the philosophy that I've read about (and understood) that didn't have some aspect or idea that if I didn't like, I at least found intriguing. Sometimes you want sweet and sour chicken, and other times a pizza.

variety is the spice of life. It's the wide range of views that make any particular view worthwhile. However, all my favorite philosophical beliefs are strongly influence by Buddhism.

Now, that's not to say that I don't think philosophy has a valid place in academia; its certainly a valuable academic exercise, and I feel my thinking is sharper and more logical for having been trained in it -- but as for whether or not philosophy, as a discipline, is really contributing to our understanding of reality: I think the answer is a very firm "maybe!".

Who's reality? I don't think there is really anything to contribute. We all understand reality. However, simply describing it with language subjectifies it. And that is why spirituality will always be more appropriate for answering ultimate questions than philosophy.

But ya, I certainly notice a significant improvement in my thinking after each philosophy class I take. And I think that is precisely the value of philosophy. It's like all other subjects heighten my cognitive awareness. But philosophy actually makes me a more efficient thinker.

 

[yougene]

I'm not sure exactly what your stance is. At one point you are making claims about Modern/Post-Modern philosophy and at other points you are making claims about Western Philosophy as a whole. I agree with your observation on Modern/Post-Modern Philosophy's stance on mysticism but I don't think it extends to Western Philosophy as a whole.

Western philosophy at its roots is mysticism. The original issues were resolving the logical contradictions between the One and the Many. This duality was integrated in Plato's Hierarchy of Forms and was the foundation of all western philosophy for at least a thousand years. Before Aristotle's work was rediscovered in the west.

Although the foundations of philosophy are Greek, it has mostly existed under a veil of Christianity. This put a limitation on the direction of thought. In the east there were no cultural barriers to embodying Oneness. In the west there was only one man that could be one with God and his name was Jesus. "Heretics" like Meister Eckhart learned this the hard way. This is probably why Platonism and Christianity mixed so well together. Platonism gave a 3rd person account of the non-dual ground as a chain of being. The language of eastern thought tends to speak in 1st person.

This set Christianity/Platonism on a different path from other traditions. Eastern traditions tended to cultivate their knowledge and connection to the One. The west tended to cultivate its knowledge and connection to the Many.

Up until the Enlightenment the Many was still explored within the context of Platonism that acknowledged a Oneness to the world. The Enlightenment began the process of differentiating and specializing knowledge. Knowledge was seperated into three broad spheres of knowing, Art, Morals, and Science( Plato's Beautiful, Good, and True ) which were differentiated into sub-fields which were also seperated into sub-fields. This chain reaction of differentiation turned into fragmentation, any connection the One had to the Many had been buried by history.

I wouldn't say that the philosophy of the West lacks truth and the East has it. Observation of the manifest world is still truth. They just excel in different domains of knowledge.

 

[Belisarius]

That said, the whole of post-modern thinkers are more relevant to us than, say, Aristotle taken in isolation, since the whole academic institution of Philosphy (err, or its lack thereof!) has been shaped by said post-modernist, and thus when you learnt philosophy, it was their version (and therefore yours will be post-post-modernist if that makes any sense. Already the term "post-structuralism" is in common parlance).

Can't argue with that.

First I'd like to say that I don't think eastern philosphy in and of itself is superior to western. I think Mysticism is superior to philosophy at approaching what philosophy had originally set out to do (and it was back then as it is today). The difference is that, at least a large portion, of eastern philosophy has remained open to Mysticism while western philosophy, in its "enlightenment" (ie. religiophobia), lumped mysticism with religion, thereby choosing explicitly to deny a very powerful and real part of human experience...that Mysticism - both eastern AND western - is far superior at accomplishing philosophy's original task than philosophy itself.

An interesting point, and one that I'm stuck on. Though can definitely see your POV on this, and maybe this is just my Western upbringing talking, I think mysticism and philosophy are separate but equal. A philosopher will tell you about the spectrum, and a mystic will tell you how beautiful a rainbow is; it depends on what you want to focus on. I guess it comes down to whether intuition or logic is more valuable--or whether logic is itself intuitive--a morass that I'd do well to stay away from today.

 

[Jamshyd]

I'm not sure exactly what your stance is. At one point you are making claims about Modern/Post-Modern philosophy and at other points you are making claims about Western Philosophy as a whole. I agree with your observation on Modern/Post-Modern Philosophy's stance on mysticism but I don't think it extends to Western Philosophy as a whole.

If you check out my responses to Bel, you'll find a lot of explanations for points you don't find clear. That said, I'll try to reply with repeating myself as little as possible.

As I mentioned above, you simply cannot divorce any given philosopher from the post-modern situation of Philosophy, since that is where the entire philosophical tradition culminates, and your understanding of philosophy, like mine, is necessarily post-modern, since you were born in a post modern times and were taught by post-modernists.

Western philosophy at its roots is mysticism. The original issues were resolving the logical contradictions between the One and the Many. This duality was integrated in Plato's Hierarchy of Forms and was the foundation of all western philosophy for at least a thousand years. Before Aristotle's work was rediscovered in the west.

Although the foundations of philosophy are Greek, it has mostly existed under a veil of Christianity. This put a limitation on the direction of thought. In the east there were no cultural barriers to embodying Oneness. In the west there was only one man that could be one with God and his name was Jesus. "Heretics" like Meister Eckhart learned this the hard way. This is probably why Platonism and Christianity mixed so well together. Platonism gave a 3rd person account of the non-dual ground as a chain of being. The language of eastern thought tends to speak in 1st person.

This set Christianity/Platonism on a different path from other traditions. Eastern traditions tended to cultivate their knowledge and connection to the One. The west tended to cultivate its knowledge and connection to the Many.

I agree with you insofar that philosophy has its root in mysticism. Again like I mentioned above, it seems to me that since the so-called Enlightenment, philosophy has diverted from said path and became a sort of beating-round-the-bush about nothing in particular. It has abandoned what it originally set out to do, and seems to have no real purpose now, IMO.

Up until the Enlightenment the Many was still explored within the context of Platonism that acknowledged a Oneness to the world. The Enlightenment began the process of differentiating and specializing knowledge. Knowledge was seperated into three broad spheres of knowing, Art, Morals, and Science( Plato's Beautiful, Good, and True ) which were differentiated into sub-fields which were also seperated into sub-fields. This chain reaction of differentiation turned into fragmentation, any connection the One had to the Many had been buried by history.

Exactly, so what is the point of studying it?

When I say study, I mean engage in the post-modern Academic enquiry into it, most likely at an Academic institution.

I wouldn't say that the philosophy of the West lacks truth and the East has it. Observation of the manifest world is still truth. They just excel in different domains of knowledge.

Like I said more than once above, I do not necessarily see eastern philosophy as better simply because it is eastern.

 

[Jamshyd]

An interesting point, and one that I'm stuck on. Though can definitely see your POV on this, and maybe this is just my Western upbringing talking, I think mysticism and philosophy are separate but equal. A philosopher will tell you about the spectrum, and a mystic will tell you how beautiful a rainbow is; it depends on what you want to focus on. I guess it comes down to whether intuition or logic is more valuable--or whether logic is itself intuitive--a morass that I'd do well to stay away from today.

First off, thank you for reciprocating understanding, but then again you are Bel and I expected no less

Someone telling me about the spectrum - does that not make him necessarily a scientist?

As a note - I do not think Intuition and Logic are mutually-exclusive. However, I admit to not having gone too deep in my study of logic.

But from studying history - it was the same people who helped develop logic in the libraries and Fora of Ptolemaic Alexandria who were the mystics who expounded Hermetic and Gnostic thought. In fact, "The Logos" becomes an important conception in both traditions.

 

[Shakti]

I got a few thoughts...

I think there is no reason to create an argument between mysticism/spirituality and philosophy, they both are highly valuable and essential aspects of human wisdom. The philosopher without direct apprehension of Reality is adrift. The mystic without adequate conceptual development is largely ineffectual.

I think that both relativistic knowledge (philosophy) and absolute knowledge (mysticism) are essential. Deriding philosophy in favor mysticism is a failure to recognize TRUTH in all things (ie weak mysticism). Deriding mysticism in favor of philosophy is a failure to recognize the cause impetus and aim of their conceptions (ie bad philosophy).

I think the problem is that no objective truth exists. Objective truths may be declared, but they will never be truly The Truth as you put it. The only worthwhile truth to be found is subjective truth, aka spirituality.

BOD, denying objective truth for subjective truth is just as great of an error as to do the opposite. Ultimate reality is beyond subject or object. Existing at the point where they differentiate is where everything really interesting happens. Absolute subject is no different than absolute object. Truth lies in their union.

 

[h.a.]

Western philosophy is dead. First the scientific paradigm presented a much better means of exploring a vast part of what had been philosophy's domain. Then, trying to seem "respectable" to the new scientific paradigm and not smack of religiousity and superstition, philosophy laid down it's "laws" as a formal mathematics of logic. Since logic is inherently circular there was simply nowhere for philosophy to go after that but in continuing spirals around arguments put forth before it went tits up.

The enlightenment was great, but they threw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[toa$t]

many people often forget that there's a lot more to western philosophy than metaphysics. ethics springs to mind...

 

[h.a.]

Who listens to philosophical ethics? What can logic say about ethics other than to examine our psychological and sociological reasons for them? Most philosophical ethics that influence people are based on a metaphysics; burning in hell for not following them for example (and even that doesn't work).

Ethics that influence us are based on experience or conditioning, not logic, IMO.

 

[toa$t]

wow, could you ever not be more wrong

 

[h.a.]

^ Highly likely. We'll see where my mind ricochets to on the matter after some thought.

 

[satricion]

Don't you think it's a little, you know, arrogant and short sighted to argue that 'Western Philosophy' (something so broad that your failure to properly define it is undermining the discussion in this thread) is just a waste of time?

Firstly I think you need to narrow your critique: You are taking aim at something so broad that your argument is made almost meaningless. Just what exactly do you think is a waste of time? But anyway, like many undergraduate philosophy students (many of whom end up dropping philosophy) you seem to be basically irritated that Objective Truth is impossible to achieve...and you feel that thinking about the consequences of this is a waste of time? Nothing but 'academic masturbation'? Is that right?

From what you say, one of the things you don't seem to like is a certain strand of contemporary continental social theory drawing on some usually French thinkers who started writing in the 1960's (Derrida, perhaps Foucault and Deleuze as well?) So I'll defend that first:

The point of these thinkers is the acknowledgement, drawn from thinking in epistemology, history, sociology and politics, that 'the truth' (the end of the search for which you so lament) is in fact unattainable. Reaching objective, ahistorical, atheoretical truth is impossible. The reason for the importance of social theory today is the fact that we have to acknowledge that knowledge is fundamentally a product of human (social) action in a given historical moment. Now, instead of giving up, the reason that philosophy and theory continues is that in coming to terms with this acknowledgement, the task now is to think through what it means for us today in terms of ethics, politics, and science. The acknowledgement that knowledge, even scientific knowledge, is on some level constructed by social relations makes social theory the most important vehicle of confronting these questions.

The outcomes of this strand of thought have been enormous and important. Deleuze's work on the 'logic of sense' is an attempt to think through epistemology without the humanist ahistorical subject that has hitherto been the premise of epistemology (Deleuze's later work draws on empirical work across all of the sciences, from sociology to theoretical physics). Foucault's work on the way that power constitutes knowledge has had an enormous impact on the (non-positivist) human sciences and has made them infinitely more reflexive about their methods, leading to more ethical work which is alive to the possibility that scientific work can work to reproduce relations of power. "Post-modern" thought as a whole has, in many aspects of the human sciences, revolutionised the way we think about issues as diverse as gender, the nation state, and what we can really confidently say about anything after giving five hundred people a survey. So to argue that all of this is just intellectual masturbation is arrogant and seems willfully blind to the achievements of social theory today. Incidentally, the answer to what we can really confidently say about anything after giving five hundred people a survey is not 'nothing.'

So yes, modern philosophy has given up on 'the truth' (although since Wittgenstein those in the know had given up on it way before 'post-modernism.') But the questions now are about the nature of knowledge, the effect of truth in different historical periods, the practice of science and political action in an era where the certainly of something like Kant's ethical precepts has been undermined (although you don't seem to like Kant either, despite the fact that he offers the certainty you seem to be after.)

Incidentally, we can use an approach which acknowledges the social construction of philosophical texts to answer the question of why Derrida is so hard to read: Derrida is a 1960's French intellectual and thus came through a highly stratified education system in which the best of the best (like him) go to prestigious "grande ecole's" and get a 'gentleman's education': philosophy, history, classics, etc etc. So the fact is that in Derrida's intellectual millieu, most people (in Derrida's audience) would not have had to look up that Greek text that irritates you so much. This pattern is reflected in a lot of French thought from that period, which irritatingly tends not to footnote or cite anything, and give examples from Greek dramas and shit like that. It doesn't make it intellectual masturbation, it's a product of it's time same as everything else. Incidentally, Deleuze and Guatarri's political texts (which are in the must read 'post-modern' canon), are among the most well cited texts of theory and philosophy I've ever read. Finally, the fact that something is hard to read doesn't make it a waste of time. Heidegger is very, very difficult, but that's because he was basically doing something that nobody had ever done before. That's why he needs his own fairly opaque vocabulary. The same goes for Deleuze, whose philosophical project was an ontology of difference (the opposite of Plato), and the epistemological, political, and ethical implications of that.

So basically in summary I think you need to read more and think a little more seriously about implications of the thought of the people who you seem to be criticising before make the claim that 'Western Philosophy' is a waste of time.

 

[toa$t]

edit: for h.a.

^^ok, proper reply now. I got pulled away.

logic has a lot to say about ethics. for example:

utility is the good.
the good should be maximized.
therefore, one should maximize utility.

one can disagree with the premises (and yes, I concede, one would argue about the first one on metaphysical turf. but metaphysics doesn't mean religious, if that's what you are trying to say), but it sounds like logic plays a pretty central role here. the use of logic is the very essence of philosophical ethics. even religious ethical theories which appeal to a deity or higher power often include a certain amount of logic, although though this logic tends to be founded on illogical premises. I think that to confuse this particular branch of 'ethics' with philosophical ethics is to fall victim to your own location ("amerikan hegemony," that is). 'Western' ethics is most certainly not limited to religious dogma, in the US and elsewhere.

and as to who listens to philosophical ethics? well, my clients seem to!

and I'm not sure what you mean by the "ethics that influence us are based on experience or conditioning."

 

[Jamshyd]

Satiricon: I think you make too many assumptions.

1. I think I made it clear that "western philosophy" is the occidocentric institution of the academic study of the subject known as "philosophy". What more needs to be said?

2. I am done with university, so no I'm not "like other undergrad students".

3. And speaking of which, I graduated in Sociology with almost all my courses in Social in Literary theory, so you need not extol their virtues for me (although I do not for a minute think I know more about them than you do - my point is that you have not provided anything new in your explanations).

4. I never implied that postmodernism was the point at which philosophy parted with its main objective. I actually mentioned several times that I think it was during the so-called "enlightenment" that this has happened. What I do think is that post-modernism marks the death of philosophy as such, and its corpse has been carved out into many "theory" disciplines as you have so generously shown. And so, what is the point of studying philosophy, again?

5. I realize why Derrida is so difficult to read. What I'd like to know is what is it's point. You say it is not intellectual masturbation but a product of it's time. What I am saying is that, like other products of it's time, ALL are academic masturbation (or more precisely, circle-jerks). It is an exchange of whimsical little self-aggrandizing expositions that try to out-self-aggrandize the other's, limited to a few select academics of the time. You have not given me a reason why it is good to read, yet.

6. Need for opaque and confusing language is a telling sign that the system you're working with is simply not suited for what you're doing. Why is it that a Sufi poet can, in a single verse, completely obliterate Hiedigger's entire corpus of works?

Philosophy's main (and indeed, ONLY) tool is language. If you cannot use language properly to get your message across (which is what "great" philosophers like Kant and Sartre seem to be suffering from), does that not make you bad at your craft?

It seems to me that, today, the academic study of philosophy is actually all about trying to out-decipher the texts of past with your fellow scholars.

That said, I do agree with you that the offshoots of philosophy, (ex. Social Theory) have had their importance. But I had agreed with this since my first post, i do not see why you seem to think you need to refute it.

p.s. I would have probably given a less back-handed response had it not been for your arrogant tone, which is very typical, unfortunately.