I think I need to get a proper grasp on the basics of classical and enlightenment philosophy before I can really have any proper understanding of all this structuralist/post-structuralist business. Learning to walk before you can run and all that. I'm still trying to get my head around some of Nietzsche's ideas.
So ... instead, in the meantime, continue to ridicule it?
Dial said:
but it wouldn't hurt to give Swears some serious suggestions if the poor man really feels he has to work his way through the history of philosophy.
The Sopranos and Philosophy, Harry Potter and Philosophy, The Beatles and Philosophy, The Simpsons and Philosophy, Seinfeld and Philosophy, Star Wars and Philosophy, and The Matrix and Philosophy, and many more [all 2001-2007]. Or perhaps, "Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!", to assist the "poor man" on his way to enlightenment:
An emblematic approach can be found in Gary L. Hardcastle's article "Themes in Contemporary Analytical Philosophy as Reflected in the Work of Monty Python," a chapter in Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!, a 2006 book in the Open Court series. Hardcastle, an assistant professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, unpacks the 20th-century epistemological debate between verificationism (logical positivists like M. Schlick, R. Carnap, and A.J. Ayer), and semantic holism (W.V. Quine, Thomas Kuhn, and the later Wittgenstein) by using the famous Python parrot sketch and the Black Knight dismemberment fight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In the parrot sketch, John Cleese (Mr. Praline) attempts to return a dead parrot to the pet store where he purchased it, and Michael Palin (the shopkeeper) uses an infuriating casuistry to deny the deceased state of the parrot. Hardcastle has to do a fair amount of real philosophy before we can appreciate this point, and when he analyzes the sketch, it actually sheds some light on the philosophical debate.
Hardcastle explains that "Mr. Praline, the man attempting to return the parrot, is our verificationist, as is evidenced by his attempt to verify the death of the parrot by reference to experience, such as seeing that it's motionless, its falling to the ground when sent aloft, its being nailed to its perch, and so on. The shopkeeper is our philosophically more sophisticated holist. He knows that maintaining the truth of other statements, concerning for example the bird's strength and its affection for the fjords, will allow him to maintain that the parrot is alive."
Notice that the shopkeeper is like the famous Black Knight from Holy Grail, who, despite having his limbs successively chopped off, continues to define himself as the victor in his battle with King Arthur. The holist shopkeeper need never accept that the parrot is dead, if he keeps explaining the observation of its motionless state by appeal to increasingly elaborate theories.
Maybe like this thread, not dead, alive at the zero level ...