"Philosophy should give up its claim to be a strictly academic discipline as its contributions are more to Belles-lettres and it's closer to poetry than to academic discursive writing... So there's a certain playful and a freedom from the unduly strict standards of science and logic."
Hans Johann-Glock, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Zurich
What books further elaborate on this concept?
He said that because he is super Wittgensteinian, I don't think you catched that.
I don't think anyone missed that user
And that implies when someone brings some concept of Rorty, Gadamer, or Derrida on relation of poetry and philosophy, it became bifurcated and it should talked like two branches.
>it became bifurcated and it should talked like two branches.
Like analytical and continental?
I think it should be more like Understanding to Dilthey and Understanding to Heidegger.
Yet this faggot who's lived his whole life in a sterilised upper-middle-class shiny modernist philosophy equivalent of a FIFA/world bank boardroom ain't gonna give up tenure and go freelance write ex tempore uncited and unindexed poelotlosophy. Full of shit.
Why would he quit based on what he said? Sounds like his input is required in the academia to wake up delusional philsoophy grads
Then he would clearly think institutional philosophy (I guess one could even say, "as an academic discipline") is necessary and prescriptive. In which case he can't even say what he means. Pisspoor Wittgensteinian. But, to be fair, he probably sees the remark as progressive and marks him as the "fun uncle" of the philosophy department. (It's not that, either, since a lot of philosophers have abandoned academics in order to write poetry--lots of Romantics, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and before that plenty of Greeks and Romans. The philosophes of the enlightenment all dabbled in different literary genres etc etc. So I'm not even sure what his point is, come to think of it... whether it's an old one or a pointless one.)
>Then he would clearly think institutional philosophy (I guess one could even say, "as an academic discipline") is necessary and prescriptive.
No, his input is required in institutional philosophy, but institutional philosophy is not required. His input wouldn't be necessary if insitutional philsophy didn't exist, but it does
Even if he weren't reiterating a point already well-established in institutional philosophy in the late-20th century by say Rorty (and in every era beforehand), there is no reason to exist within those confines if philosophy is better done as some wandering Goliard--in fact if it is better done in that manner as he claims (in his academic manner) he'd be more effective doing it that way. But he clearly sees the academic manner and institutional setting as the better way to espouse the idea, undermining the whole notion. To out it in these fighting the institution from within, Wittgensteinian terms: the ladder has already been thrown away by many others before him, so why's he still clinging to it? (That's if it were a new or unusual idea, and it's not even that.)
Lol philosophy departments exist because of people like this twat, not despite him.
>Even if he weren't reiterating a point already well-established in institutional philosophy
I don't think he ever claimed his arguments are original
>-in fact if it is better done in that manner as he claims
I also don't think he ever implied he'll take the most efficient route possible at all costs. Academia pays and is good enough for him even if it may not be optimal according to this views
Philosophy departments would exist just fine with or without him and his likes
Or maybe we should be more selective about what we consider 'philosophy'.
He's a caricature of Wittgenstein. This dude's a soulless and mindless cretin, a child who wants to live out its immature, hedonistic fantasies while cruising through life off of tenure bucks. It's unfathomable how somehow who dedicates his research to Wittgenstein manages to ignore the latter's deeply mystical elements.
Ok user tell us what should be considered philosophy?
>I don't think he ever claimed his arguments are original
Ah, the superfluous man. Thanks for bringing this non-entity to our attention.
Supporting views has value just like generating views has value
How cutting edge. The social media theory of value. You're like the instagram Marx
>How cutting edge.
It's actually a greek principle
Did anyone make a respectable attempt at refuting this?
Why would anyone even bother?
Generating views is a Greek principle? Interesting.