Philosophical Mental Health and the perpetuation of intellectual dysfunction.

I have apparently been taken to task for a truncated citation from my blog, so I wish to dispel any confusion. The full sentence in my post reads I …

OOO, ACADEMIC SNOBBISM, AND NEWCOMER SYNDROME: Andrew Cole as rare exception

—– Being fair.

Contrary to what most contemporary philosophers would wish: “It is the copying that originates.” 

We are always rewriting the past in our own image, so it is the noticing and then either accepting or rejecting of this ontological maxim which we are dealing with by a realist Object Ontology, and not so much some subjective interpretation of authors.

Call it snobbery, it’s what you will. One of the first tenent of dealing healthily with a bad relationship is to recognize when you are part of the perpetuation of the dysfunction, and to leave, walk away, stop engaging with the dysfunction until either you have a firm grasp on your reality and boundaries, but as well that the other person is evidencing at least some coming to awareness of the reality of the situation.

It seems like philosophers want to live in Freudian 1925 where everyone Hass to confront everything in Order to be healthy.

That is so anachronistic and out of date so far as a way to approach the truth of the situation, it is like philosophy just wants to live in the past forever. Never encountering what is actually really occurring nor the reality that is a part of them. And I don’t know, I’m constantly finding irony in all sorts of authors that no one ever uses the word in context of.

Cole, And probably others, appear to have or make good points, but they are really re-creating what is, the past authors argument in the image of what is currently fashionable. And this is not to say that fashion in a negative sense, but that what is fashionable is often missing what is actually occurring, even as what is fashionable indeed looks good and occurs in the time that the argument is being made. 

But indeed we must contend with the reality of how such philosophers behave, for sure.

X

i
might even go so far as to say conventional philosophy is the re-institutionalisation of the past, a religious apology or justification of a particular cosmology.

This is less a critique and more just a statement of the facts. It is a denial of the facts which aggravates problem.