I tend to go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_minimalism

> But many scientific models are based around philosophical theses.

Not really? Philosophy of science certainly informs science, but it's still philosophy.

> In sociology for example, the ground concept for the tragedy of the commons to work , is the assumption that humans rather act in the way that they have the most individual utility, rather than acting in a way that makes everyone benefit from it.

Economics is not really sociology, but nonetheless utilitarianism is just a constraint you put inside a game theoretical model. Whether that applies to the real world in a given situation is a totally different thing.

> What is beneficiary for the collective is always better for the individual (pareto optimum).

The principle you are talking about is enlightened self-interest.

Pareto efficiency can totally mean "less" for a given single individual (and again, it's just a super handy tool for theory.. there are no imperatives in science)

> This entire theory though is an excerpt of reality that ignores its causes and consequences, it is based around metaphysics.

Ethics is metaphysics, by all means.

> Philosphy itself may not be scientific, but it influences sciences a lot.

Nothing to add there (except perhaps that there's still too little of it).

But put aside the criticism specific to that particular video. Even if it's buried inside a wall of text (and that's the recap) dialectics in this sense is just a disingenuous way to claim a win by dispensing with logic.

And I meant for you to read my comment there.. it's just that it's basically impossible to explain this in brief, without accusations of having missed "something".

https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateaCommunist/comments/u5nna9/dialectics_the_methodology_of_hegel_and_marx/

It somehow tries to have its hegel blattering cake, and then pretends it's not wishful idealist thinking too.

Except it isn't dialectical and it isn't even material.

The assumption here is that most people will be comfortable and halfway knowledgeable of themes being treated.

Of course if every man was their own independent separate island, you'd have a far more tentative and shy approach.

"Harsh" in the way you can interpret it. You totally understand it how I meant, or it won't click at all, like a semiconductor (and nicely enough, another user below took up on the possible incomprehensions)

Not "harsh" from a point of view of respect.

> Are you denying the Hegelian dialectic as a process for uncovering truth and reaching understanding?

I mean, even throwing everything in your basket at the wall hoping that it sticks could be "a way" for discovery, so.. I'm denying nothing in such an all-around fashion. Was it Feyerabend to say anything goes?

> the impossibility of totalizing signification and recognition

That has also a name, and thanks to actually well-defined terms I believe there is at least some rough boundary of what the limits could be or not.

> Is there something to be gained by denying the limitation of symbolic thought (aside from grasping for symbolic authority)?

I'm not denying the limits (some of which I'm sure somebody way smarter than me already demonstrated).

I'm criticizing hypocrites that just handwaves that ex post and call it a day, as if something this fundamental (and definitively unorthodox) shouldn't be in the first pages of their work, and especially as if "pointing out there's a problem" was the same of how proving it from first principles.

A failure that it's even more stark considering that a certain man a century ago spent 360 pages just to explain how 1+1=2 in the most dead cold way possible, and another nuked the provability and consistency of mathematics itself in a tenth of that.

I'll grant though that I was taking more of an issue with users of this sub here, more than specific philosophers.

> 'Progess' is ideological in the most unproductive sense.

As in "scientific progress" it does not seem particularly bad. Even though yeah, I can see how there may be a waaay better word to make my point.

> Historicism is for fools and capitalists.

Nothing to add there.

It's part of the package if you ask me.

Be as "harsh" and "bold" as possible, in order for even the slightest rough edge to be visible (and thus readily debatable).

"Logic" didn't take an issue with metaphysics.

Hell, you could argue the thing itself is, together with the sacred epistemology.

But when anything can mean everything (and why not, also its opposite while we are at it) then you aren't on a quest for knowledge. Poetry seems indeed quite a fitting label for the remainder.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.139543/page/n9/mode/2up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_language_philosophy

Philosophy can also be awe then (try to explain the raven's paradox with the indoor ornithology metaphor, and people will be blown away) but jesus christ.. it shouldn't be the alpha and omega, and an excuse to write bullshit (in the sense that whatever somebody understands, you don't give a damn as long as they are "impressed"). To the point that I have read the worst scoundrels wiggling away from any responsibility towards their work, by claiming that the very damn language that they were using to convey such information is just too limited to actually know the world.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the guy too far up his ass ended up being a self-absorbed closed society guy, while the one standing up for "facts" eventually ended up being one of the dearest grandpas of philosophy of science.

And btw it's quite disingenuous to affirm that Carnap and other logical positivists failed. They set the basis for Popper's theory of truth, in what could be considered the biggest example of "progress" that there probably ever was in philosophy.