What End of Thought? On the True and the False Problem of Philosophy

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY
M. Leegsma
{"title":"What End of Thought? On the True and the False Problem of Philosophy","authors":"M. Leegsma","doi":"10.1515/opphil-2022-0242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The end of metaphysics problematizes philosophy, for it implies the end of thought “itself.” Though this raises the question how to think after the end of metaphysics, the question can only be asked on the condition that the “problem of philosophy” is posed, presupposing an answer to the question what the end of thought is. This article critically compares two ways of posing that problem. It argues that one, here called active nihilism, poses the problem falsely: it implies an answer to the question what the end of thought is, even as it makes that question impossible to answer, rendering the very problem unsolvable. The true problem of philosophy, the article argues, is what is here called the entanglement of thought and experience. In order to demonstrate what active nihilism and entanglement actually come down to, the article then presents two cases. One involves a detailed analysis of Meillassoux’s refutation of correlationism, showing how the problem of philosophy is rendered unsolvable in actual fact. The other case concerns what is called catastrophal thought. An effective demonstration of the end of thought, this first answers the question what the end of thought really is.","PeriodicalId":36288,"journal":{"name":"Open Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2022-0242","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The end of metaphysics problematizes philosophy, for it implies the end of thought “itself.” Though this raises the question how to think after the end of metaphysics, the question can only be asked on the condition that the “problem of philosophy” is posed, presupposing an answer to the question what the end of thought is. This article critically compares two ways of posing that problem. It argues that one, here called active nihilism, poses the problem falsely: it implies an answer to the question what the end of thought is, even as it makes that question impossible to answer, rendering the very problem unsolvable. The true problem of philosophy, the article argues, is what is here called the entanglement of thought and experience. In order to demonstrate what active nihilism and entanglement actually come down to, the article then presents two cases. One involves a detailed analysis of Meillassoux’s refutation of correlationism, showing how the problem of philosophy is rendered unsolvable in actual fact. The other case concerns what is called catastrophal thought. An effective demonstration of the end of thought, this first answers the question what the end of thought really is.
什么是思想的终结?论哲学的真与假问题
形而上学的终结给哲学带来了问题,因为它意味着思想“自身”的终结。虽然这就提出了在形而上学的终结之后如何思考的问题,但这个问题的提出,必须先提出“哲学问题”,并以回答什么是思维的终结这个问题为前提。这篇文章批判性地比较了提出这个问题的两种方式。它认为,一个在这里被称为主动虚无主义的人,错误地提出了这个问题:它暗示了对思想的终结是什么的问题的答案,尽管它使这个问题无法回答,使问题本身无法解决。这篇文章认为,哲学的真正问题是这里所说的思想与经验的纠缠。为了证明主动虚无主义和纠缠到底是什么,文章随后提出了两个案例。其中一篇详细分析了梅亚苏对相关主义的反驳,展示了哲学问题是如何在现实中变得无法解决的。另一种情况涉及所谓的灾难性思维。这是对思想终结的有效论证,它首先回答了什么是思想终结的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Open Philosophy
Open Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信