Re: what does a philosopher do?

[djf500@york.ac.uk]

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


Hello everyone,

Any quotations are from Alice (Evans'?) reply to Bernie Doeser. My
(constructive) point applies to the whole discussion, and my criticisms to
Alice's reply. This is the first time that i have posted, so i apologise if
have done anything against the rules (are there any!?).

The question that we ask 'what is philosophy?' is obviously ambiguous. On
one reading we are asking something along the lines of 'what is university
philosophy?'. This question has an answer - we could (given time that i
don't have) give a catalogue of university based activities that come under
the umbrella philosophy. (possible problem: but how do we tell if each item
considered for the catalogue is philosophical enough? Answer: there is
nothing indistinct about classification; a further rephrasing of the
question makes this obvious - 'what do philosophy departments do?'-problem:
but is department admin. philosophy? Answer: no, neither is brushing your
teeth before a lecture.)

A second and more general reading would require a more general and
difficult answer. It seems reasonable to say that philosophy, given
etymology and general understanding, could be defined as 'the active
pursuit of knowledge'. I think that perhaps 'active' is the only
contentious word in that definition, but it is unimportant to my point if
people want to leave the definition at 'the pursuit of knowledge'.
(Problem:but that makes Art History philosophy! Answer: Sadly, yes.)

So, in the 'university' sense, the answer to 'what is philosophy?' is quite
easy (if time consuming) - it is at least as easy as 'what is Chemistry?'
or 'what is Police work?'. In this sense, it is obvious that '[P]hysicists,
psychologists and sociologists...are not philosophers', but it has nothing
to do with 'data', or anything of that sort.

In the 'general' sense (maybe call it 'real philosophy'?), the answer to
our question is equally immediate, but perhaps a little less homely -
pursuing 'knowledge' is a strange idea (of course we mean by this, try to
get it, attain it etc, but we are not quite sure what 'it' is). In this
sense, History (and the subjects above, and all subjects) is philosophy,
not because of shared method - it can't share with itself, this is the 'is'
of identity. Anything that is going after knowledge is philosophy. Science
is philosophy. If i ever do philosophy in this sense, i don't care what
methods i use, or if i am informed by 'spacio-temporal data', as long as i
get there truely - to knowledge.

Hopefully i have shown the conclusion... 

"[S]o 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."
                      ...to be wrong, and have provided some kind of
constructive answer to the initial question (that turns out to have parts).

If my lecturers next year decide to teach me 'real philosophy', and decide
that high-level quantum theory is the way forward, then i'm out.

Thanks for reading, great to see if i have gone majorly wrong anywhere:)

Daniel (Fairbrother)



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