From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 22:09:43 BST
Hi Matt:
I asked what the distinction was between philosophy and philosophology that
you implied couldn't be made.
> This is the
> distinction between philosophy's substance and philosophy's history. The
> only way I can see holding this distinction is by thinking of philosophy
as
> a natural kind.
You've also used the term "natural kind" in your note to Anthony. What does
it mean to you in the context of philosophy?
You continue:
> It's obvious from the way you've been writing that you
> think of philosophy this way, which causes you to boggle at people who
> don't. But what is this fire that people are supposedly circling but
never
> getting warm by, let alone burning themselves on, a fire that is obscured
by
> the bandying about of the names of philosophers?
The "fire" we're avoiding by comparing notes on philosophers rather than
creating philosophy is its *substance*.
Ham also said:
> The *content* of philosophy has to be more than its comparative history,
or
> evolution. If philosophy is reduced to a discipline in which everyone
compares
> his philosophy with another's, ad infinitum, philosophy will indeed have
> come to the "dead end" you speak of.
You replied:
> Then what is it? What did I miss in Phil 101 by Prof. Kay
> Picart? What monkey wrench is this I'm throwing? Because, while I don't
> think anything I'm saying _reduces_ philosophy to one thing or another, I
> can't help but think that the _point_ of philosophy (at least as it has
been
> performed since Socrates) is to compare it to other peoples', that the
> reason we gain wisdom isn't just for us, but to help others.
That, I would suggest, reduces Philosophy to the level of polite,
after-dinner intellectual conversation regarding the similarities and
idiosyncratic tendencies of various philosophers. It is characterizing the
substance without remodeling it or adding new substance.
> And how would
> we know that we'd reached some small amount of wisdom if we didn't bounce
> our ideas off of others?
Again, the place for comparative analysis is in Philosophy 101. As for
bouncing ideas off others, I'd like to think it's what I'm doing here
>
> Matt said:
> I think modern philosophy has shown itself to be a dead end. We need to
> find something else for philosophy to be.
>
> The reason we want to understand the past is to
> understand what the past was up to and that way be able to decide whether
or
> not we want to continue doing it.
This sounds suspiciously like political expediency. Are we to decide what
our personal philosophy should be on the basis of whether it matches the
current trend or not? There would seem to be some lack of intregity in that
approach. (Incidentally, I fear that our friend Mr. Pirsig may have fallen
into that trap.) Do you not concede that a philosopher should march to the
beat of his own drum, regardless of what others do? If I felt that my
thesis had nothing new to offer, I would not have tried to get it published
or put it on the Internet.
> But I'm pretty sure you'll reject this understanding of philosophy because
> it would seem you think philosophy is something eternal and perennial,
> despite it having a natural, terminal end.
Yes, I do. Because ultimate truth is beyond reach of the intellect, the
quest continues in Philosophy, just as it does in Science. To assert that
either discipline has, or must, come to an end is suggestive of the
pentecostal belief system.
> My guess as to what a Pirsig-written treatise would
> contain is: more of what was already in the novels. Which is to say, a
> theory that was a muddled combination of traditional, metaphysical
Platonism
> and Protagorean, antimetaphysical pragmatism, basted with a sauce of
Eastern
> mysticism.
May I quote that last sentence? It's a superb example of philosophology!
> And why they hell are you suggesting that I read Thorn's essay or Ayn Rand
> or anybody else when I'm not supposed to be reading anybody?
Reading is something we all do in our spare time. Matt, I have no aversion
to informed opinions and, in fact, find you extremely well informed in
Philosophy. What I'm challenging is the general reluctance of MD
participants to go out on a limb and stand for something -- whether it meets
with popular/professional/historical acceptance or not. If nothing else, a
philosopher should be autonomous. To the extent that he posited Quality as
the fundamental reality, I credit Pirsig for having made a significant
contribution to Philosophy.
The reason I want your analysis of the Thorn essay is actually a
philosophological one, so you should readily appreciate its benefit to me.
In addition to supporting my view that Rand was a pragmatist, it will tell
me precisely what I need to know about your "pragmatic" position, based on
your empirical observation of a 'mutually experienced' object -- in this
instance, an essay on Objectivism.
And thanks for getting back to me.
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 23:54:58 BST