From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 19:04:33 BST
Robin, David,
Thank you for your thoughts. I had the original/creative vs static/others thoughts distinction down but where the line starts to blur is more applying it to examples. Maybe if you could apply your ideas using specific examples I would better understand where you think the line is drawn at. When you talk about his or her "truth" that sounds very postmodern to me and that is no no around here....so we want "original" thinking without the subjectivity of postmodernism
Another thing I would like to explain is the meaning of perennial philosophy. I have looked it up in the dictionary but am wondering if you have "expanded" the definition to where it is no longer recognizable (like empirical). The dictionary defintion I am going by is
per·en·ni·al
Appearing again and again; recurrent. See Synonyms at continual.
With the idea of perennial philosophy where is the "original" thoughts---the "clear" line between philosophy and philosophology?
Erin
Robin Brouwer <rsbrouwer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Erin et al.
>
>To me philosophology is when the writing is very static and offers nothing
>original;
>merely rote regurgitation of someone elses ideas without having made any
>real thought
>as to the quality of those classifications. A lot like the activity which
>one is
>expected to do in school. But that's not to say there is zero creativity
>in
>philosophologists or in schools either, it is just that they won't admit to
>being
>aware or are not aware (in the zen sense) to the creative qualitys'
>existence. I think
> this is where the line should be drawn.
>
>David
>
Hi Erin, David and all,
In my opinion I'd say that any philosopher that follows or counters another
philosopher in his or her "truth", and creates its own philosophy based on
the contradictions or similarities he or she finds with the existing
philosophies could be called a philosophologists.
Any philosopher that does not blindly follow the "truths" found by someone
before him, but instead questions them and afterwards chooses to either
embrace them or to come up with a different opinion can be called a
philosopher. And as in Pirsigs example any person that comes up with a
genuine new idea would indeed also qualify to be a philospher.
Further in my opinion a philosopher that counters someone else's "truth"
with the "truth" of another philosopher could also be called a
philosophologists.
There is indeed creativity in quoting several previous philosophers to make
your own point, or counter someone else's, however I would not call such a
person a philosopher.
Robin
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Webmessenger doet het altijd en overal http://webmessenger.msn.com/
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
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 : Wed Apr 06 2005 - 19:08:19 BST