A good review of the shocking disparities between "professionalized" philosophy within the narrowly defined sub-sections of the analytic tradition and philosophy as such. The prejudices of a small band of "professionalized" philosophers in this sub-section, in its oddly navel-gazing mode is very sad to see in Oxford. The over-indulgence in technical verbosity at the expense of clarity and genuine demystification makes the so-called analytical philosopher relevant only to creatures of like-minded prolixity. Peter Hacker's succinct review of Williamson's book in the Philosophical Quarterly sums up what has gone terribly wrong with this increasingly mystifying sub-branch of the Oxford analytical tradition.
1 comment:
A good review of the shocking disparities between "professionalized" philosophy within the narrowly defined sub-sections of the analytic tradition and philosophy as such. The prejudices of a small band of "professionalized" philosophers in this sub-section, in its oddly navel-gazing mode is very sad to see in Oxford. The over-indulgence in technical verbosity at the expense of clarity and genuine demystification makes the so-called analytical philosopher relevant only to creatures of like-minded prolixity. Peter Hacker's succinct review of Williamson's book in the Philosophical Quarterly sums up what has gone terribly wrong with this increasingly mystifying sub-branch of the Oxford analytical tradition.
Post a Comment