Analytic Philosophy and McCarthyism

H

Hume

Verified User
How to explain the analytic turn in American philosophy? One thesis is that analytic philosophy’s dominance is a product of McCarthyism. On this view, anti-communist repression forced philosophers to abandon socially-engaged, humanistic modes of inquiry, and to a replace them with a technical, ‘politically neutral’ approach.

dailynous.com

Analytic Philosophy and McCarthyism: A New Look (guest post) - Daily Nous

To what extent is the “the story about the analytic turn” in philosophy a story about politics? There’s been an increased discussion in recent years […]
dailynous.com dailynous.com
 
Hume said:
How to explain the analytic turn in American philosophy? One thesis is that analytic philosophy’s dominance is a product of McCarthyism. On this view, anti-communist repression forced philosophers to abandon socially-engaged, humanistic modes of inquiry, and to a replace them with a technical, ‘politically neutral’ approach.

dailynous.com

Analytic Philosophy and McCarthyism: A New Look (guest post) - Daily Nous

To what extent is the “the story about the analytic turn” in philosophy a story about politics? There’s been an increased discussion in recent years […]
dailynous.com dailynous.com
Click to expand...
That has to be one of the most vacuous and erratic articles I've read in a long time.

Take this opening paragraph:

How to explain the analytic turn in American philosophy? One controversial thesis, regularly discussed in the blogosphere, is that analytic philosophy’s dominance is a product of McCarthyism. On this view, anti-communist repression forced philosophers to abandon socially-engaged, humanistic modes of inquiry, and to a replace them with a technical, ‘politically neutral’ approach. John McCumber develops the theory in two of his books and the hypothesis recently resurfaced in publications by Christoph Schuringa and by Robert Hanna, who likens postwar analytic philosophy to “McCarthy-style anti-communist, big-capitalist politics”.

He starts with a question and never explains in the slightest what "analytic philosophy" is. The general tenor is set as one of being from the radical Left and Marxist. He lists Christoph Schuringa, a dedicated Marxist Communist academic in London, and Robert Hanna, a radical Leftist academic whose work is mostly the usual sort of gibberish academics in the liberal arts seem to publish these days as sources for his, whatever he's talking about.

The whole of this paragraph is just intellectual sounding rubbish. It explains nothing. It sets no real thesis or question.

He uses typical academic gibberish in the article to sound smart as well:

Before discussing the evidence, let us get clear about the explanandum.

Yes, explanandum is a word. It's Latin. Rather than plain English, he chooses this to give an academic air to his language. It's nonsense.

The whole paper is almost incoherent in content. In a word, it's rubbish.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That has to be one of the most vacuous and erratic articles I've read in a long time.

Take this opening paragraph:

How to explain the analytic turn in American philosophy? One controversial thesis, regularly discussed in the blogosphere, is that analytic philosophy’s dominance is a product of McCarthyism. On this view, anti-communist repression forced philosophers to abandon socially-engaged, humanistic modes of inquiry, and to a replace them with a technical, ‘politically neutral’ approach. John McCumber develops the theory in two of his books and the hypothesis recently resurfaced in publications by Christoph Schuringa and by Robert Hanna, who likens postwar analytic philosophy to “McCarthy-style anti-communist, big-capitalist politics”.

He starts with a question and never explains in the slightest what "analytic philosophy" is.
Click to expand...
He mentions specific analytic philosophers in the article.
But this article is for philosophers who all know what Analytic philosophy is.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Before discussing the evidence, let us get clear about the explanandum.

Yes, explanandum is a word. It's Latin. Rather than plain English, he chooses this to give an academic air to his language. It's nonsense.

The whole paper is almost incoherent in content. In a word, it's rubbish.
Click to expand...
The author is an academic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top