RE: what does a philosopher do?

["Bernie Doeser" <bernie@doeser.org>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


I wonder if this discussion is getting too detailed, and also if it is
fuelled by the need for some form of identity label. We are all used to
employment labels teacher, plumber, magician. It used to be a big thing to
decide what to put in your passport in those days when we had to specify our
"profession". When thinking of philosophers as a employment group I cannot
help myself thinking of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, when the
philosophers challenged the great computer "Deep Thought" which was
programmed to come up with the answer to "the ultimate question" and was
therefore trespassing on philosophical territory.

The dialogue goes...
"We," said Majikthise, "are Philosophers."
"Though we may not be," said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the
programmers.
"Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are quite definitely here as
representatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries
and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off
now!"

But in all comedy there is a nugget of truth, and my reading of this is that
what sets philosophers apart is that they think. Not think as in "I think
I'll have a bath", but think as in assessing the arguments employed for
promoting alcohol whilst prohibiting heroin, for example. My example is
chosen carefully - such questions often have an emotional momentum which
philosophers have to be able to discard instantaneously. The thinking of a
philosopher is objective, does not stop when an "answer" is found, looks for
anomalies and contradictions, but when it has been through the mind of a
philosopher the thought has had irrelevances filtered out and it has been
untangled to some degree. In my experience the only people who are
comfortable taking time to think about a question before answering it are
philosophers - only in philosophy lectures have I seen teachers spend maybe
30 seconds in quiet contemplation in front of a class before answering a
student's question.

Having had a career in science and engineering and having collected a whole
list of letters to add authority to my opinions, and having come to
philosophy late in life, I can see that for philosophers all this is
unnecessary. Your qualifications come out of your mouth as you speak (or
your pen as you write). Therefore the need for a job description or some
form of "certification" are superfluous and probably distracting. I rather
think that philosophers are best to give themselves free reign to think
about whatever they want, to question everything and to make the world a
better and safer place by challenging anyone who makes decisions that
affects others on the basis of faulty thinking. To have some effect though
they need to get into positions of influence and so perhaps are best being
teachers, plumbers or magicians, and keeping quiet about their real
profession.

Bernie Doeser
Sandiway, Cheshire, UK.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Alice Evans
Sent: 26 August 2005 09:48
To: bups-dis@bups.org
Subject: what does a philosopher do?

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org


** For Your Eyes Only **

no, no no, its not about the way philosophers work, the only thing which
defines philosophy is the subject matter rather than approach to subject
matter. the approach to literature and history is much the same, its
analysing concepts and exploring propositions. So when one studies "why
truman dropped the atomic bomb" one will look at competing hypotheses,
explore inconsistencies, use logical and valid arguments and then come to
one's thesis, before criticising this, making a synthesis etc etc. Same
method as a philosopher, but different topic. In addition, when studying
roger mcgough's poetry we explore his use of sound, visual layout on the
page, line length, sentence length, punctuation, metaphors, rhythm etc etc

similar method, different content.


So what makes 'philosophical' content different?


surely it's fairly simple,

a philosopher attempts to analyse the nature of the world and grasp the
truth without studying the physical properties of their subject matter.

now for a bit of rhetoric, if this definition is to work it must not be too
liberal as to include that which isnt philosophy and musnt be too chauvinist
so that anything we want to term as philosophy is left out.

ok, so does it work according to this criterion?

well let's take some alternative disciplines to see whether it is to
'liberal':

1. physicists, psychologists and sociologists attempt to analyse what's
going on in the physical world but they rely on experiential data, so no,
they fail this test, hence are not philosophers (well at least not when they
are solely engaged in this activity but may well 'philosophise' after
tea...)

2. historians use data and past happenings, so if we put 'spacial-temporal'
under the category of 'physical properties' then such persons are also ruled
and out and are excluded under this definition

3. english literature, well ok, make the definition a little looser...
dangerous waters perhaps. non-fiction relies on the physical properties of
the world (in that it refers to them hence is termed 'non-fiction') so
fails, and fiction is also an attempt to replicate and explore the physical
world (ok a bit tenuous but actually if u think about it, fiction purports
to be a conceivable physical world and hence also relies upon it)

ok, so i think my defintion passes the 'liberal' test

but is it too chauvinist?

is anything we would term as 'philosophy' left out?

1. well, first, what do i mean by 'analyse' - i mean to grasp a concept,
make a hypothesis about causal relations, ask questions, explore
inconsistencies etc..

so let's take a few test cases,

political philosophy; yes, i think that works, chats about rights, desert,
merit, justice, yes it refers to what we do in the physical world but it
doesnt actually require a physical subject for discussion. whereas chats
about truman kinda require for him to have used the bombs to 'scare' the
soviet union etc... atomic diplomacy etc and chats about why characters do
certain things. ok, yeh with philosophy, we do study plato's stuff - so it
requires him to have done something but thats not my point, all disciplines
study 'past masters', what differs is what such persons do. in philosophy
they do not use spacio-temporal data

ethics; oooh, dangerous turf, cos maybe it's a bit like fiction,
hypothesising about what could happen if x did y... umm... yeh, but
theoretical not 'data'.

relation mind/ body ok - yes maybe science is used, so thats a stickler...
but "the more science is used the less it becomes philosophy" is my escape
route.. does that work? yeh... ish.

i could go on, these i selected as i thought they were the most contentious,
i didnt want to lose u all in my rambling...


so philosophy is the exploration of that which cannot be explored by a study
of the physical world, hence a philosopher does not use spacio-temporal data
in his quests for truth. a philosopher will, however, apply much the same
method as historians etc.

ok, trash at will,

alice

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm