[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 29 KB, 475x356, 1541805317644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12075642 No.12075642 [Reply] [Original]

Why do modern philosophers not write dialogues to explain their arguments?

>> No.12075647

Because it's all about rhetoric now

>> No.12075650

my uncle works at the philosphy industry and he told me every philospher writes a dialogue before writing the actual book

>> No.12077007

>>12075642
Dialectic is the short-hand form of this, anon.

>> No.12077017

>>12075642
read Robert Dahl. He was writing the 80s, I think, but that's still modern

>> No.12077020

1) too difficult
2) lots of philosophers nowadays are big stuffy academics who are too far removed from the way people really think and understand things to know how to appeal to them. 'If you want to be a philosopher, write novels'.

>> No.12077044

>>12075642
Because dialogues are basically just "smart guy says my opinions, dumb guy says opinions I disagree with but concedes by the end"
Even Plato stopped bothering making them like actual conversations in his later works and just has the interlocutors as a cooperative audience

>> No.12077135

Because it requires literary talent to do well and is excruciatingly boring, cringey, and contrived when done not-well. How many philosophers have any literary talent at all?

Check out Timothy Williamson's Tetralogue published in 2015. It is far too close to a reddit-cringe thread even though he's a competent philosopher (by current standards).

>> No.12077322

>>12077044
But Socrates doesn't always say Plato's exact opinions

>> No.12077350
File: 45 KB, 960x540, 1516417495725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12077350

>>12075642
Too easy
Your "opponent" could be any way you like them to be, and in dialogues there is a critical moment where if the opponent had disagreed the entire argument would fall apart.

>> No.12077382

>>12075642
>modern philosophers
What new arguments do they have to offer that would benefit the common man? They don't appeal to the masses anymore because they are not the intended audience of their work.

>> No.12077406

>>12077350
if you don't have the ability to harshly scrutinize your own ideas you're not a philosopher to start with.

>> No.12077416

>>12077406
>By Zeus, Socrates, you're right!

>> No.12077539

>>12077416
well, yea, at some point you arrive at a conclusion, so you might as well have the opponent concede. Why would you write it so that he leaves unconvinced? It would come across as you saying "my opponents aren't reasonable people and can't recognize it when they're wrong"

>> No.12077578

>>12077539
Makes for better clickbait headlines though: "Socrates destroys idiot Hippias with facts and logic!"

>> No.12077611
File: 185 KB, 847x1200, 1514083066316.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12077611

>>12077539
well when they agree with everything you say from small things to a big ass claim that can really be torn apart then you aren't making an honest attempt to simulate debate. Making dialogue arguments is "fun", but are not an actual foundation to make a claim.

>> No.12077650

I don’t know. The idea of the dialogues expressing and setting the stage for something with grander philosophical meaning is itself a statement. It’s lost on many people these days, but no one really grasps what it means to plan ahead or even have a divine statement to make.

These days, God can be there with you as well, and the conversations can serve for a greater purpose. Perhaps all literary tradition and philosophy owe Plato, and primarily Socrates, this thanks

>> No.12078080

>>12075642
Did anyone do this well besides Plato? I think not.

>> No.12078104

>>12077611
okay, what's so fucking difficult about this?
You let the opponent scrutinize, provide counter-arguments, cross-examine, anything. In this you are relating your own process for arriving at your conclusion.
And when you get there, the opponent concedes graciously.

and that's it. How is that so impossible to conceive of?

>> No.12078280

>>12077135
His dialogue is shit I agree but to call him 'a competent philosopher (by current standards) downplays his genius no? He is the most important logician since Quine and Kripke.

>> No.12079545

>>12078280
>Anglo intellectuals
There has not been a worthwhile logician since Tarski, and especially not quine and kripke.

>> No.12080245

>>12075642
Because it's shit. Formalized logic is part of the philosophical debate for a reason.