From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 18:39:45 GMT
Platt,
Let me be a bit more concrete about what I mean by audiences. I consider
philosophy to be a particular hobby. Hobbies have there own rules. It is
unfair to assume that everybody does or should know the rules of any
particular hobby. For instance, one of the critiques of standardized tests
in the 60s was that they refered to things unfairly that particular
minority groups would have no knowledge of. One test made an analogy to
football and the "gridiron." The person couldn't answer the question
because it hinged on an analogy she didn't understand.
So, is it fair to assume that everyone understand particular words in
philosophy, like metaphysics or epistemology? I'd like to think that
people are silently thinking, "No." However, can philosophy people talk
about philosophy without using the words metaphysics or epistemology.
Possibly, but not when they are talking about metaphysics or epistemology.
So it comes down to a particular audience you are addressing.
As such, I think Platt is absolutely right when he says, that "No one is
obliged to read what someone writes, much less figure out what he means."
It should be obvious given my recent statements that I agree with this.
However, he follows with, "Clarity in writing ... is a sure sign of high
intellectual quality." The most common objection to this is "Clarity for
whom?" Platt might answer "the average newspaper reader." But why should
the average newspaper reader be at all interested in philosophy? Platt is
raising this standard called "Clarity," but it has never been clear in
philosophy what clarity means. That's the simple lesson we take from
Descartes who said that the foundation of our knowledge was on "clear and
distinct ideas." No one's ever been able to make that pan out. So,
clarity goes from a universal standard to being contingent on the audience.
What's clear about American football to American football fans is not at
all clear to those who have never heard of American football. One can
explain football to the non-fan, but the efforts will start with a good
deal of oversimplification until they start to feel comfortable with the
main concepts. As they become comfortable with the rules, they can begin
to learn the more sophisticated concepts.
I agree when Platt bashes over-jargonizing. That doesn't help the
layperson and it doesn't even necessarily help the specialist. But if a
field like physics didn't develop some jargon to be specific about what it
is talking about, then the discipline would stagnate. True, sometimes the
jargon stagnates so that they appear as "cultural immune systems." But
that's why we keep evolving our words and meanings. Its why I find the
insistence on a singular meaning for a word, at all times and all places,
to be boggling. I think the same applies to other disciplines like
philosophy. Some sophistication isn't bad. When you are addressing an
audience that does philosophy on a regular basis, you can feel a bit more
legitimate to take a few conceits, like assuming they know who Kant and
Plato are. This isn't to badmouth writers who write for laypeople. Those
are good. The best thing Pirsig has done is get people interested in
philosophy. However, if they dive right into heavy philosophy, they are
likely to get the impression that all current philosophy (even the
philosophers we like and think are crystal clear) is degenerately
over-jargonized. But I think this is more of a wrong step and attitude,
then a necessary truth. You simply have to read some more intros to
philosophy, become acclimated to the scene. If you are still interested
after the intros, maybe try the actual philosophers themselves.
Matt
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 : Tue Mar 11 2003 - 18:42:20 GMT