Many discussions on tribes focusing on French and German philosophy seem to reflect the problem that many French and German philosophers of the twentieth century are not always considered "philosophers" by the Anglophone academy. Instead of absorbing the more interdisciplinary (and often politically-motivated) work of writers such as Benjamin, Adorno, Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, etc., philosophy proper has become predominantly "analytic," relegating such work to the category of "continental."
One way to start thinking about the status of this divide is by tracing the Frankfurt School distinction between philosophy and critical theory. We might look at Marcuse's 1937 essay in _Negations_ to start marking distinctions. Whereas philosophy takes itself for granted as a mode of approaching the "truth," critical theory questions its own methodological conditions of possibility at every step.
I want to get feedback from people who call themselves continental philosophers (or people who are interested in French and German thought grounded in figures such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc).
What are some of your experiences in the academy? To what extent is your work influenced by the analytic/continental distinction? What is the future of continental philosophy (especially in America, where it is relegated to a disintegrating category of "theory" in literature departments)? For those of you outside of the academy, how do you experience the distinction between philosophy and critical theory?
One way to start thinking about the status of this divide is by tracing the Frankfurt School distinction between philosophy and critical theory. We might look at Marcuse's 1937 essay in _Negations_ to start marking distinctions. Whereas philosophy takes itself for granted as a mode of approaching the "truth," critical theory questions its own methodological conditions of possibility at every step.
I want to get feedback from people who call themselves continental philosophers (or people who are interested in French and German thought grounded in figures such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc).
What are some of your experiences in the academy? To what extent is your work influenced by the analytic/continental distinction? What is the future of continental philosophy (especially in America, where it is relegated to a disintegrating category of "theory" in literature departments)? For those of you outside of the academy, how do you experience the distinction between philosophy and critical theory?
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Fri, February 9, 2007 - 3:24 AMAberration of thought.
Thoughts can't be devided, they can be inherently incoherent or inconstistent though.
But. If your in ethics go study Moore and Wittgenstein but also Nietzsche and Schiller, Dante, Heidegger.
I think some just need a formal guidance and others a formal tag on their head to succeed in life. Others just keep barking up the most beautiful crap in existence, those genius out their will find their way either post mortem as discourse or as hyped person.
A non acedemician speaking. (going to be one though)
-Justin -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Fri, February 9, 2007 - 3:29 AMTo continue my thought:
www.friesian.com/poly-1.htm
www.friesian.com/poly-1b.htm
www.friesian.com/poly-2.htm
I find this ironic somewhere.
Aesthetics and Ethics are the same in some camps.
This gives you the proper privilege to delve into the subject of Aesthetics.
What I mean by "Aberration of thought" is that your description is (mis)-leading others just by the definitions.
Shouldn't we all come to the conclussion that: "Its all just a childish word game"? -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Fri, February 9, 2007 - 1:04 PMI'd be interested to hear why one should study Heidegger if you're interested in ethics, since in addition to being a pretty dreadful human, he never mentions ethics in Being and Time or treats it at any length in any of his later writings. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Fri, February 9, 2007 - 2:39 PMI think Justin is trying to outclever us by exposing our "childish language games"; however, you can't just paste up some links and be all "here's the answer" or call the original post an "aberration" as if you're the philosophy police (maybe your English is not 100%?).
The definitions preexist the post, and I think there is more to the analytic/continental divide than "childish language games." It's very easy to dismiss as language game (and insulting to call it "childish": Justin's pretentiously oracular style seems a tad more "childish"); it's a lot harder to provide constructive terminology for different branches of philosophy. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 2:18 AMWow! Haha, nice nice! I like to foster my brain! So here we go:
Well... I agree with you Patrick on some points that is not on your method but I suppose each psyche has its ways to cope with the world.
My excuses for that.
I like to be honest on my first impressions which helps me (in my eyes) to become more critical or foster my analytical faculty (if there exists one indeed).
I suppose that trying to be oracular isn't the way to become oracular, I just like to see things intuitively and observe them as evidently and unchangably true. That way I'm certain of myself and am progressing on my way, my intuition helps me to keep my senses sharp for new impressions like the one you are proposing in some ways.
"It's a lot harder to provide constructive terminology for different branches of philosophy.", Indeed! But this could be regarded as a sophism because this doesn't rule out the quality of my reasoning only the feelings about it change from the person reading yours on mine.
I agree with you though, that it is harder to define the proper vocabulary, but I don't accept it as argument.
I also suppose that training myself to integrate the vocabulary of philosophers and using it like its my own helps me grow my capability of attacking problems. Because there is no psychological distance between the Other and myself.
To conclude. Indeed I suppose that labeling it "childish language games" is to much of a reduction, I would say: "language games should be treated as the childs of our language but as serious as seriousness can be".
Best regards,
Justin
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 2:22 AMHeidegger and ethics?
Well he was describing and judging the world most philosophically.
He talked about the average dailyness of the Dasein. Doesnt that implicate that he fostered his thoughts implicitly?
That said, I would say that Heidegger wasn't interested in Ethics Directly but wanted to (consciously or unconsciously) at least "effectively" attack his world and let it world his daily judgements.
Best regards,
-Justin -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 7:27 AMJustin, is English your first language? I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to misuse quite a few words. Maybe you should stick to those that you are more confident with, rather than trying to dazzle us with your vocabulary. One does not have to use difficult words to explain difficult ideas. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 7:42 AMNo it certainly is not my first language.
I'm going to study english autodidactically next year, just the same with Dutch, Maths and Physics, just for one year.
I just read a lot of english philosophy books in english. The connotations are wide ranging. Just like the pumping of connotations that Heidegger likes to do in his German. Misusage of words is NOT possible if you ask me.
Though I USE the English indeed for my thoughts. I'm of the conviction that if you're familiar with Heidegger then my thoughts should be somewhat familiar (qua word usage). But indeed, is a direct translation of Heidegger into English justified?
I'm not sure. I know that its all in the head.
I just want to increase my capacity to read english without grammatical mistakes but indeed with the trics I can and will play with it.
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 8:33 AMAh, I understand. I might suggest you hold off on using tricks in the language until you have a better handle on it. Otherwise your readers will not undertstand your argument.
For example ..I can't think of a time when "world " would be used as a verb. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 8:54 AMhmmmm.....why don't you guys have a little more understanding....not everobody is a native speaker of English in this world...it is so easy to criticise someone...but does it REALLY lead to anywhere ? ...i thought this tribe was dedicated to philosophy and when i came here i came across some 'witch trial' wink....i think philosophy is way BEYOND the language as such and you as smart people can easily understand the point....if not, you can always ask someone to elaborate on a given subject, or to provide more appriopriate premise...but don't jump on a person...cuz it takes a lot OF COURAGE to speak one's mind in the first place :)
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 10:11 AMMonika ..I was not criticising, I was trying to find some common ground so the meaning would be clearer. I understand that there is a language barrier and that is why I do NOT use terminology that is easily misconstrued ....
That is why I used the example I did. How is one supposed to answer a statement that used "world" as a verb? Can you?
I do believe that difficult subjects can be discussed with simple words, though I do also think some philosophy aficionados like to show off their vocabulary and confuse others. That's just gamesmanship, not friendly debate.
I'm here for education and friendly debate.... -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 10:18 AMif so, then im sorry....ha, i can't hear the tone of your voice so all i have is just words and I might have misinterpreted them....and you are right, i know what you mean when you write about using DIFFICULT words to make some issues sound SO ACADEMIC....my prof was laughing SO hard when he was talking about some papers that lacked any sense at all but they were considered very academic just cuz they were awash with difficult words....and I wholeheartedly agree with you, the more difficult subject, the easier words we should seek to talk about it....
sending you a HUGE smile :D -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 10:40 AMThat's alright...it is a problem with text. In fact, a problem with discussing philosophy in text. We can't ask dead people to word things differently to clear up confusion . Each person comes away with a different meaning. This is exciting but text is so linear ...conversation allows threads to develop in many directions at once while the participants are agreeing on meaning.
I'd love to see some of your prof's students' papers on tribe ...we could have fun -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 12:57 PM> That said, I would say that Heidegger wasn't interested in Ethics Directly but wanted to (consciously or unconsciously) at least "effectively" attack his world and let it world his daily judgements.
I wish it would have worlded his daily judgment out of endorsing the Nazi party, which in my view disqualifies Heidegger from ethical philosophy. He gets an F. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Wed, February 14, 2007 - 1:43 AMWell. I suppose your not conscious of using a sophism.
As I recall from Nietzsche's Nachlass (my translation):
"Critique. The decadence betrays itself in the preoccupation with its "luck" (i.e. soulpraising, i.e. experience your situation qua being as dangerous).
The fanaticism that the Greek Philosophers attached to "luck" shows a pathology that lies underneath: it was imperative to life and of vital importance. Being reasonable or being destroyed where their options
the moralism of the Greek Philosophers shows that they felt they where in danger."
Your using a reductio ad Hitlerum for example. And as Nietzsche quit strongly shows, why shouldn't you busy yourself with the true intuitions of life? Why busy yourself with moralism? Which is more like practices philosophy if you ask me: "fun for when you've lost your inspiration, to fill your time with".
Best regards,
Justin -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sun, March 11, 2007 - 7:50 PMBack to Heidegger and ethics, with a nod to Hitler: Heidegger left ethics out of Being and Time because discussions of ethics would contribute nothing much to the project of laying out a fundamental ontology. But his remarks on falling provide a general key of sorts for understanding Heidegger's own trajectory in the Hitler period. (Ontology can explain ethics but not the other way around, just as you can (tediously) explain Windows from assembly language but you cannot explain assembly language from Windows.)
That Heidegger did not babble about his innocence the way some did is often taken as an admission of guilt. It is, I believe, better understood as solitary ownership of thoughts the world was in no mood to understand during his lifetime. Understanding this has been made no easier by some of his German apologists, who seem to understand the construction of concrete life preservers better than the construction of ontological explanations.
Before giving Heidegger an F in ethics, be sure to study the actual record and bear in mind that there was no precedent in history for what the Germans experienced with Hitler; the most reprehensible acts of the Third Reich occurred in a span shorter than the reign of the Bush-Cheney administration, which will continue to be compared to it in various respects for the rest of our lifetime at least. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Mon, March 12, 2007 - 12:16 PM> That Heidegger did not babble about his innocence the way some did is often taken as an admission of guilt.
One could say that. Or, one could more accurately say that in the 30 years after WWII, Heidegger produced dozens of books, but said virtually nothing about Nazism or ethics.
It seems a little strange to me that in your eyes the fact that Nazism was historically novel in some way mitigates the obvious fascism and murderous intolerance that were central to its ethos since day one. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Mon, March 19, 2007 - 5:51 PM“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” ~ Dalai Lama
“The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it.” ~ Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." ~ Confucius
“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” ~ Abe Lincoln
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, March 20, 2007 - 2:33 PMbarnaby wrote: "It seems a little strange to me that in your eyes the fact that Nazism was historically novel in some way mitigates the obvious fascism and murderous intolerance that were central to its ethos since day one."
The dark side of fascism was always obvious to a few people, but the majority either didn't have enough to do with politics to notice until they were knee deep in the big muddy or they liked the newly-galvanized spirit of the society so much that they would put up with what they perceived to be a little thuggery. Remember, almost nobody who was not a Jew or Gypsy knew or cared what was happening to the Jews and Gypsies until very late in the war. There was no "melting pot" mentality in Germany in those days.
I am not defending Heidegger's judgment in his support of the Nazi project, but we should note that after his initial enthusiasm in 1933, the year of his appointment as rector at Freiburg and Hitler's consolidation of power, he was one of the first to step back from that enthusiasm by resigning his position in 1934. I am not suggesting that he experienced a revolutionary political turn of the order of his philosophical one, but I also don't think it is irrelevant that he takes on the topic of the danger of technology in that same period. Re-read Die Frage nach der Technik; I think it is as mordant a condemnation of the mentality behind Nazi adventurism as you will find. I don't think Heidegger ever stopped wishing for a realization of what the Nazis talked about, but couldn't bring about, a new German consciousness.
Utopianism as discontent with the complexities of modern (i.e., beginning with the rise of the bourgeoisie) Europe was already a well-worn theme by the time Heidegger joined club. I think he wanted Germany to overcome modernity and recover something like an ideal purity and simplicity so much that all else faded into the background. And he thought his philosophy would do the trick. This is one of the great ironies of Heidegger's life; in the post-war years, his dream of German innocence always came back to the question of his personal guilt. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Wed, March 21, 2007 - 11:51 PMHowdy
The Question Concerning Technology was published in 1953, after Heidegger had been banned from teaching for several years, and after he had been re-instated by Occupation forces. Heidegger's support for Nazism did not diminish in his published work under Nazi rule as far as I can see. Indeed, his most blatant endorsements of National Socialism to ever appear in written work were published in "An Introduction to Metaphysics", based on lectures he gave in 1935. In that work Heidegger averred that Germany has a special destiny with regards to the history of Being in a way that aped the party line.
Whether or not Heidegger was a hard core Nazi or just sort of a Nazi is for me not really the point. Heidegger condemns idle chatter and inauthenticity in Sein und Zeit, but says nothing about brutality, violence, or murder, in that work or anywhere else. And on its face, given how he lived and what he said, we have no evidence that he would condemn these things. He showed himself much more concerned with the destruction of the history of metaphysics than the destruction of his own people, and in my view, that is a calamitous and unforgiveable lack of discernment.
This is not to say that there is no value in Heidegger - I studied him deeply at a certain time in my life, and his work is absolutely integral to my thinking. But we should also call a spade a spade. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Thu, March 22, 2007 - 3:28 PMWhile "The Question Concerning Technology" is a post-war piece, its roots are evident in the critique of technological manipulation in the mid-thirties work of Beitraege zur Philosophie. In my reading, the critique of manipulation is an ontological stand against violence generally. In any case, it is clear that Heidegger was in the middle of big transitions in the mid-thirties.
I think he truly believed that the best way to save the German people was by dismantling traditional metaphysics. Consider how dependent on traditional metaphysics the language of social philosophy has been. The direct route would have eventuated in another version of that famous Vietnamism, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
It is not that I am unwilling to call a spade a spade, just that identifying the spades in this case seems to get harder as one looks closer. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Thu, March 22, 2007 - 11:11 PMCome on, man! :) You're really saying that if he wanted to take a stand on violence the only way he could do it was through an abstruse phenomenological argument? For god's sake! The times demanded more! People were dying by the millions, and it wasn't because of a forgetting of Being!
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Fri, March 23, 2007 - 12:02 AMWell, I don't think that existential phenomenology was his only option. He could have joined the French resistance, for example.
But the historical record is what it is. That was evidently what made sense to him, knowing what he knew, hoping what he hoped (another whole story there), and falling as he fell. There's so much I don't know about all of that, but what I do know makes me very hesitant to second-guess Heidegger.
While it sounds perverse, I personally do think that those millions of people died because of a forgetfulness of Being. But I will also say that if people are dying because of a forgetfulness of Being, I wouldn't want to put all of my response eggs in the recollection basket. I'd say that an adequate grasp of time for existent beings has to include the concept of time-utility. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sun, March 25, 2007 - 9:49 AMFair enough. In my eyes, Heidegger's outspoken endorsement of Nazism and his total failture to subsequently repudiate that position are obvious, serious problems. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. :)
cheers,
B~ -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sun, March 25, 2007 - 6:24 PMOne thing I don't disagree about at all is your statement, "...Heidegger's outspoken endorsement of Nazism and his total failure to subsequently repudiate that position are obvious, serious problems."
I do think I may disappoint you in not having a more decisive position on these problems, but I hope my limitations are not so disagreeable as to foreclose future conversations. :) -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sun, March 25, 2007 - 8:10 PMNot at all! You aren't the first person to point out that there is something deeply ethical about the Question Concerning Technology. Look forward to further discussions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Mon, February 12, 2007 - 3:22 PMRelated note: I'm reading Derrida's _Specters of Marx_ right now, and he provides a critique of Heideggerian "justice" with regard to the logic of the gift.
Derrida, Jacques. _Specters of Marx_. New York: Routledge, 2006. 27-33.
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 6:56 PMI am delighted you are bringing up links to Kelley Ross' friesian.com site which is neo-Kantian. Return to Kant is to me the necessary step to formulate roots of 20th century philosophy esp. existentialism. I find the Friesian site very interesting and instructive. Another thread on this tribe is dedicated to Kantianism but looks down on it.
But I dont know why you are bringing this up. The original intent of this thread si to examine something of the sociology of philosophers. There are divisions between people on the basis of how they think, those barriers become "petrified" in social structures and then may influence thought. I wish I could contribute to this discussion.
-
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sat, February 10, 2007 - 7:58 PMThere are a lot of divides in the Western intellectual world; the Analytic/Continental one is I think perhaps on the surface shallow or petty or childish, but its roots run deeper, particularly in two ways. One, the divide between Catholics and Protestants. Anglo-American analytic philosophy tends to be popular in historically Protestant countries, whereas continental generally has a more Catholic flavor to it. Second, there is the divide caused by the division of Europe after World War II and the Soviet Union. Those countries closer to, or behind, the Iron Curtain, or, as in the case of France and Italy which are technically socialist, seem to favor continental philosophy, perhaps because political praxis had a much more urgent meaning. In Western Europe and the United States, political thought was not so revolutionary, or was expressed in other ways such as music. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sun, February 11, 2007 - 11:46 AMThese are very interesting observations, Patrick, though I can't think of many countries in Europe that are dominated by Analytic philosophy other than England. Do you have another candidate?
I hope that this specious continental/analytic schism is ultimately relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas - particularly the impulse on either side to dismiss the other. This is unspeakably tedious.
In my view the ultimate difference amounts to interest in different kinds of problems, and the application of different conceptual tools for problem-solving. Heidegger has little to add to fine-resolution analyses of logic, while existential problems are much to complex to be resolvable by appeals to logico-linguistic analyses. Different problems require different levels of analysis.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Mon, February 12, 2007 - 3:05 PMHello, all.
Thanks for all the great feedback. It's hard to talk about these issues with people who share one's native language -- so I can understand how there is misunderstanding/misinterpretation.
I like how we're troubling the sharp distinction between analytic and continental philosophy. I am certainly not advocating such a divide -- but noticing it. In general, though, the two institutional discourses ask different questions. I am more interested in the questions asked by continental philosophers, but sometimes I find it hard to find someone with whom to be in dialogue due to a general preference for analytic questions.
This is my particular experience -- I'm wary of generalizing.
A related question that interests me, both apropos the way this thread evolved and the notion of "asking different questions":
What is the difference between misunderstanding and disagreement? -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Mon, February 12, 2007 - 6:29 PMI'd say the analytic people are more interested in Truth with a capital T - something the continental people abandoned a long time ago. Richard Rorty persuasively argues that the analytics are people who believe that philosophy shoudl be more like science, and the continental people believe that philosophy should be more like poetry.
Insofar as that is true, I've found that one important way to understand subdivisions in philosophy is to look at who finds a particular thinker useful. People dealing with AI and information theory are much more interested in analytic philosophy. People involved with social policy read and think about the Frankfurt school. And people interested in human issues read Nietzsche and Foucault. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 12:11 AMwhat a preposterously divisive generalization!
You are forgetting that Copernicus, Kant and Godel produced their groundbreaking results on the continent - in Eastern Europe more or less. Goedel's theorem had been announced in Koenigsberg in 1930 - Kant's Koenigsberg - one day before mathematician Hilbert's famous positivist speech - "wir werden wissen, wir muessen wissen." Schopenhauer was the first European thinker to seriously study Indian thought. The continent got of course opiumated, so to speak, by the fumes of Marxism for about 150 years - which made some judge the truth by the criterion of who is speaking. This again produces the kind of fragmentation you are trying to deal with using the criterion of usefulness. Efficiency as the determinant of truth is pretty Marxist.
Analytic philosophy set rather limited goals for itself and so determined to remain a purely academic discipline. I really dont know why. Philosophy should go all the way to the limits of rational discourse - whcih means to the boundary of poetry. Existentialism does that but has had trouble operating in the fumes of Marxism. Analytic philosophy isolates itself from real important questions and so fails to produce interesting answers. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 5:01 AMnot sure who "you" refers to here. but yes, i think when institutional boundaries get created, they leave out the complexity you describe. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 9:57 AMsorry - "you" was the previous poster - barnaby. And I am also guilty of sweeping generalizations unleashed by a few previous posts.
This discussion could be focused as a conversation between leading figrues - maybe Karl Popper and Hayek - ie Anglo-Saxons who had range and respect for the continent and vice versa.
-
-
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 12:13 AM>>What is the difference between misunderstanding and disagreement?
This is just a logical tease - isnt it? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 4:45 AMperhaps, but not on purpose or in order to be pretentious -- i've been thinking about the question in terms of differences in discourses or contexts lately. it seems that when we speak about different institutional disciplines having incommensurate ideas, we should address this question at some level. -
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Tue, February 13, 2007 - 11:16 AMI'm not aware of having made any divisive generalizations. Obviously I'm speaking in general terms, but any distinction between Philosophy and Critical Theory, or Analytic/Continental Philosophy, is by necessity general.
It seems odd to me that you would characterize my distinction was "divisive" when I carefully identified a role for both.
-
-
-
-
Re: Philosophy v. Critical Theory
Sun, April 15, 2007 - 12:06 AMScratch Nietzsche off the list. Nietzche was a nihilist blathering and a proto-relativist NOT a philosopher . Relativism be it from Nietzsche or Richard Rorty is NOT philsosophy; it is obscurantist ANTI-philosophy . At best , Nietsche was a sometimes interesting provocoteur , NOT a philosopher.
And NO it is NOT all "language games" . Distinctions do matter .
Furthermore, my deal lady Palma , NOT all difficult concepts can be described rightly with simple words. Few of them actually .
Justin, should NOT be faulted for using oracular language...that is ahrdly a vice ! Instead the fault lies in that he is willing to gloss over distinctions in the name of so-called "langauge games" .
The notion that philosophy is mere langauge games has been well discredited by Ronald Dworkin in the essay titled ' Objectivity and Truth and in many other writings :You better believe it' . (Although even Dworkin get's a little tto soft on relativism/anti-foundattionalism --when he ought to be even more thoroughly vehement !