From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 18:26:52 GMT
Wim,
Wim said:
Well, taking Wilfrid Sellars' definition of philosophy, which you appropriated, philosophical analysis differs from non-philosophical analysis by keeping in sight how everything hangs together.
Matt:
If the only difference between philosophical analysis and any other kind of analysis is subject material, then pragmatists don't know how any of them differ from plain ole' analysis. Philosophers, like scientists, have tried to get mileage out of the thought that they are doing something special, something different in kind, then other people, that there is a special method which separates them from the riff-raff. If you don't have any truck with that thought, then you are already pragmatist enough and my only suggestion is to unhook "philosophical" from "analysis".
You try to cut the difference as between that which cuts into parts ("analysis") and that which keeps the whole in mind ("philosophical analysis"), but I don't think that really makes much of a difference. Seems to me people alternate between the two when they are analyzing something, for instance a text or a motorcycle. Or you could make it a continuum between cutting into fine parts and looking at big things. But I don't think there is a difference in kind.
Wim said:
If you would be so kind to also agree that a lot of social problems result from losing from sight how people and societies hang together, you might appreciate that a shared philosophical vocabulary could be of use.
Matt:
I think I'm a little confused by what you are asking me to do. I'll put my point this way: if you take a philosophical vocabulary to be the way you see everything hang together, then part of everyone's philosophical vocabulary will be a subpart that we can refer to as a "political vocabulary" includes how people and societies hang together. For liberals like Rorty and myself, part of what you could call our philosophical vocabulary is that only a shared political vocabulary is needed for a society to hang together. So, in a very, very limited, stipulated sense, yes, we do need to share a piece of our philosophical vocabularies, i.e. we need to agree on liberal philosophy (which under most circumstances, I don't take as a philosophy).
Now, you say that I might "appreciate that a shared philosophical vocabulary could be of use" for keeping societies together. I would say, yeah, if everyone were Catholic or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, we would have a lot less social problems. Everyone would already agree on Pro-Life issues, covering-up-women issues, untouchable issues, etc. But that's not what liberal society promises us. It promises us that we can be free in certain respects to disagree with our fellows. It creates a private sphere in which to do this. Madison said it right when he suggested in one of the Federalist Papers that, sure, it would be easier to all agree on all things of importance, but we in America have to deal with the fact of diversity because to not would be to lose our freedom, and therefore America.
In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Rorty offers a fleshed out philosophical picture of language, the self, and the community that jives with liberalism. He says that the picture he is offering would be great if you are the type of person who wants a picture of these things. His main point is that not all people want or need a picture of the self, how it philosophically hangs together. All we need for a functioning society is a shared political vocabulary. He basically says, "But hey, if you are like me and like having one, here's one to think about." I don't think philosophy is sitting, waiting behind everything and that thinking about philosophy will necessarily help your life. If it does help, that's great. If it doesn't, try psychoanalysis. If that doesn't help, try meditation. If not that, try exercise, try romance novels, try whatever. For pragmatists, whatever works, whatever helps, is the good. For me, yeah, philosophy has helped a lot in my life. But
I don't think reading Plato and Kant are for everyone, I don't take my personal experience and try and read it up into the stars (which is what philosophers have traditionally been employed to do). And I don't think thinking about "How can we know?" or "How can we know what we should do?" are going to help everyone (nor, as a pragmatist, do I think those 2nd-tier questions actually help in knowledge production or ethical activity, respectively).
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 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 18:28:35 GMT