#analytic philosophy

[tagitables]

4 March 2026,

I haven't actually got the time to complete this tbr ～ today is the day! :) 📚

[theidealistphilosophy]

Learn your theories as well as you can, but put them aside when you touch the miracle of the living soul.

Carl G. Jung, The Development Of Personality, Collected Works Vol. 17, 331.

[schibborasso]

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein philosophy of mathemathics

[iscariotblues]

doing my analytic philosophy homework. i am not gonna lie, this shit is difficult. but i wanted to show off my glow purple twsbi with my newly refilled and beloved eggplant purple uni ball one. the large moleskine depicted here can’t take fountain pen ink for shit but does great with gel, so that’s all my uni ball baby

[1000rh]

…the rejection of “theory” itself by juxtaposition with “history,” a peculiarity in some of Hanegraaff’s recent work, is perhaps the most puzzling of all. The argument is again intimately tied to the emancipatory agenda of the rejected knowledge model: the worry is that coming to, or even selecting, the material with an explicit theoretical framework in mind will end up looking only for specific things with the end result that sources not considered relevant will once again “disappear.” The problem with this argument is that there is only one alternative to departing from explicit theorizations, namely, departing from implicit, hidden, or even unrecognized ones. One does not have to be a “radical theorist” to make the point that all scholars, no matter how big the pretention of meeting the world with a “theory-free” open mind, carry with them assumptions about what is relevant and what is not prior to even selecting one’s sources. It is a basic epistemological point recognized from the hermeneutics of Gadamer in the humanities to the post-positivism of Popper, Quine, or Kuhn in the natural sciences. The rejected knowledge model, as I have argued, appears to come with heavy layers of unexamined theoretical baggage about what “esotericism” is (what are its sources), which versions of it are relevant in the first place (who speaks for it), and how it ought or ought not to be studied (methods, research questions, analyses). If those unreflective assumptions lead to a suspicion of theoretical reflection in general, and a rejection of certain lines of theorizing in particular, we are at risk of creating an insular field. While the rejected knowledge model had sought to strengthen the legitimacy of the field, it is precisely that wider legitimacy that is at stake if the inflated version of the model takes hold. We should not reject theory to save our sources from oppression; what we need is more sophisticated and systematic theories in order to select and understand them better.

– Egil Asprem, “Rejected Knowledge Reconsidered: Some Methodological Notes on Esotericism and Marginality” in New Approaches to the Study of Esotericism (2021) Link

[vionerd]

[wittgensteining]

when you remember that whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

[victusinveritas]