Philosophers, most of them, share a fondness for technical vocabulary. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with that: in some cases it is very helpful to stipulate a term that will make it clearer what one is trying to express. But philosophers have usually drowned themselves in technicalities, forgetting how employment of technical terms (pre)determines the form & direction of the discussion in which they are engaged. It is clear that quite a few philosophers hang on to technical terms and technical descriptions as a result of a general mistrust of ordinary language (take a look at the concept of "folk psychology" and you'll know what I mean). Ordinary language is considered inexact, fuzzy, unscientific and not suitable for the type of discussion philosophers are involved in.
Here are my
top ten "worst technical expressions employed in analytic & continental philosophy":- desire
- "ascribe something to somebody"
- context
- value
- convention
- norm
- act
- behaviour
- discourse
- construction
bubbling under: heteronomy, body, lack, difference, power, subject
See you in philosophers' hell!
2 comments:
Är det roligt eller tragiskt att återfinna "handling" på sjunde plats med tanke på att du har en kurs i handlingsfilosofi?
både och, tror jag!
Post a Comment