From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 01:26:52 BST
Matt, Anthony and all:
dmb had said:
I don't get it. It sounds like you're refusing to admit that there is a
difference between a film maker and a film critic. These two very different
activities are not mutually exclusive but that does not mean there is no
distinction to be made between them.
Matt replied:
I agree, there is a certain difference between a film maker and a film
critic. ...But us delivering ridicule upon the head of the lame-brained
academic seems to hinge on (Pirsig's) confusing a discursive subject for a
non-discursive one. The reason the art historian seems so silly is that
writing a thesis on art is clearly different than painting. So what about
literature? Though both creative writing and literary criticism are
discursive, the line between the two does seem to be relatively easy to
draw. ...In philosophy, distinguishing between the discipline's history and
its substance becomes nigh impossible...
Now dmb says:
OK. The difference between writing about art history and actually creating
art is more stark and clear than is the difference between philosophy and
philosophology. But I don't Pirsig's point is destroyed by this. In fact, he
is pointing out that its very difficult to teach genuine creativity in the
fine arts as well as in philosophy. I mean, the secondary nature of art
history, literaty criticism and musicology does not just serve as an
analogy. These are problems in their own right. And while "doing" philosophy
is not a physical activity like moving paint brushes or strumming a guitar,
the point is that some activities are creative and some are not. The fact
that both philosophers and philosophologist, as well as novelists and
literary critics, might seem to be doing the very same thing in some sense,
namely sitting and thinking and writing, does not negate the fact that one
involves the production of original work and the other does not.
Matt continued:
I'm not arguing that you can never make a distinction between people who
_do_ something and people who _criticize_ something. But it is specific to
what you are talking about. I'm arguing that you can't make the distinction
in philosophy because of the peculiar (wide) thing philosophy is. It just
seems asinine to say that professional philosophers are only criticizing
philosophy, and not doing it, particularly when only a cursory glance at the
20th century will show you that the logical positivists and their students
got the same idea that the history of philosophy was completely superfluous
to actually doing philosophy.
dmb says:
Asinine? Hmmm. It seems to me that you are a living example of Pirsig's
complaint. It seems to me that all you EVER talk about is the history. Your
approach seems to remove all the content. It seems to me that you have
reduced every major thinker in Western civilization to a adjective as in
"Kantian", "Platonic" and "Cartesian". I don't recall any posts in which you
actually address the substance of what any of these guys are saying except
in terms of slogans. I've noticed that whenever the discussions turn to the
problems we humans actually face in life, you are conspicuously absent. You
don't discuss politics, religion, the culture wars, the social consequences
of postmodern thought. Nada. Nada. Nada. There is a weird, cold,
otherworldly quality to everything you say here. Do you recall my asking
you, "what in the world are you talking about"? I meant that quite
literally. I can't locate your concerns anywhere except in books. I mean, it
seems your philosophy is ABOUT philosophjy and not about life. And it seems
to me that a genuine philosopher is far less interested in categorizing
other philosophers than in addressing the problems of actually living on
this planet. A philosopher might begin with a question like, "what is the
best way to live?" whereas a philosophologist is more likely to ask
something like, "what is the best way to classify and pidgeonhole those who
have actually done philosophy". Don't get me wrong. I love to study the
history of ideas, but not to exclusion of the content and substance of the
matter.
Matt continued:
....................The only way, I'm arguing, you can make a distinction
between criticism/history and substance/problems is by defining philosophy's
substance. And outside of defining it historically ("this is what modern
philosophers took to be their focus"), you have to make it a natural,
ahistorical substance that is conspicuous to all. This is, I think,
completely pointless to do in philosophy (not to mention in general).
Philosophy is a discipline that has changed so much in its history that the
only way to give it a suitable definition that wouldn't just uncharitably
throw out some of its practitioners is to give it something very, very wide:
like "seeing how things, in the broadest possible sense, hang together, in
the broadest possible sense."
dmb says:
See, this is exactly what I talking about. You're talking ABOUT philosophy,
ABOUT philosophers and ABOUT definitions of philosophy. This approach has
always struck me as dull and empty. If you absolutely insist on looking at
everything through a historical lens, I would simply remind that philosophy
did not begin as an exercise in logic or idle speculation. It was all about
a way of life, about how to best live. You are so far removed from this
conception that even after reading your posts for years I still have no idea
who you are or what you believe. It might unreasonable to expect genuine
creativity, but how about a little humanity, a little humor, a little
concern for the world, some personal engagement with the substance of the
matter?
McWatt said to Matt:
Finally, though you don't mention this, I guess the underlying reason that
you are so concerned with the philosopher-philosophologist distinction is
because Rorty essentially perceives himself as being a philosophologist.
....I suppose therefore that you think the philosopher-philosophologist
distinction must be dismantled to prevent Rorty (as a philosophologist)
being considered as being in a derivative and secondary class to Robert
Pirsig and other (original) philosophers.
dmb says:
Uh huh. That's my guess too. What's more, it seems pretty clear to me that
Pirsig's attack on philosophology is directly aimed at guys like Rorty and
Matt doesn't like it one bit. The "Linguistic Turn", the one that Rorty
edited, was assigned to me in college. It still sits on my bookshelf and I
still hate it. If there is any philosophy in it at all, please tell me
where.
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 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 01:33:14 BST