I think of philosophy as something I pick up and put down as and when I
like.
If you're worried that philosophy departments might close down, then maybe
this indicates that people could get on with life without philosophy. So
much the worse for that kind of 'life' says the philosopher, well no... how
about, so much the worse for philosophy.
When explaining philosophy to skeptical others, I compare it to football, or
crosswords, it can be fun and I enjoy it, but its neither the best nor most
important thing in my life.
Andrew Turner
On 8/21/06, Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
>
> I get the feeling that the public opinion of philosophy is that it deals
with
> profound questions about the nature of the universe, sweeping
generalisations
> about good and evil... the 'meaning of life' and so on. This perception of
> philosophy really gets me, but when asked 'what is philosophy?' its all
too easy
> to start spouting this poetic nonsense.
>
> But I get the feeling that this is not peculiar to philosophy, I believe
the
> fault is in the question. If you ask a physicist 'what is physics?',
you're
> bound to get an equally grand explanation: 'the classification of the
> fundamental properties of the universe via the experimental method'. A
pure
> mathematician or a theoretical computer scientists would have an even
worse
> time trying to answer such a sweeping question. The fact of the matter is
that
> philosophy, like physics, maths, engineering etc... refers to large
collection
> of specialisations and the fact that there is only a very general
methodology
> linking the different areas is what is responsible for the high-flown
> explanation.
>
> So in terms of explaining to the non-philosopher what philosophy is I
think
> examples are the way to go. I find the problems of diachronic identity, or
> bundle theory and Max Black's balls or paradoxes of infinity are always
easily
> accessible problems, and more importantly, easy to find interesting. I've
tried
> to explain the issues between truth-conditional semantics and use-based
> semantics, or my interest in anaphoric pronouns to my mum, but its hard
unless
> you understand the implications of these problems to see what is
worthwhile in
> studying these things.
>
> Having said this, I often say my main interest is philosophical logic to
avoid
> having to answer like 'what is the purpose of human existence?'
accompanied with
> dramatic guestures. The drawback of philosophy, as opposed to physics or
> computer science or maths, is that everyone thinks they can do your
subject and
> people tend not to believe you when you tell them what its actually about.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> In message <44EA1FEA.8040100@ntlworld.com> Nick Jones < nj8@ntlworld.com>
writes:
> > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> >
> >
> > I'm not all that worried about philosophy, Edward. I don't know that it
> > matters too much whether or not a subject/department/library shelf
> > called 'philosophy' survives (though I suspect it will) ... what matters
> > is that what William James called 'an unusually determined attempt to
> > think clearly' survives. And again, despite the prevalence of txtspk and
> > drooling celebrities, I think it will.
> >
> > FWIW, I usually try to describe philosophy by reference to some specific
> > problem or other - the inverted spectrum; the nature of a species;
> > mind/body; sorities paradox; diachronic identity, whatever. As long as
> > people can see that there is an interesting problem, there, they don't
> > mind too much if you tell them that this si the sort of thing that
> > philosophers try to work out. The opening chapter of The Problems of
> > Philosophy is a pretty good example.
> >
> > best
> > Nick Jones
> >
> > Edward Grefenstette wrote:
> > > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
> > > BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Has anyone here enjoyed the experience of having to explain what a
> > > philosophy student/professor/research does to an inquisitive family
> > > member? I'm sure that, to some degree or other, it has. I personally
> > > don't mind discussing my areas of interest for a few minutes here and
> > > there, but sometimes you run into someone with a certain idea about
> > > philosophers (yet not about philosophy) who is going to ask the
> > > ironically philosophical question "Okay, I know what you do, but why
> > > do you do it? What's the point?".
> > >
> > > I found myself in such a situation just the other day, when my sister
> > > and her friends, unsatisfied with my already subservient behaviour
> > > (have you ever tried to taxi 4 teenage girls around shopping centres
> > > all day? It's not the most fulfilling pastime...) set out to torment
> > > me with the invalidation of my (or I should say 'our', since you most
> > > certainly are targeted by proxy, by their cruel endeavour) academic
> > > field. I tried in vain to present philosophy as a sort of "mother of
> > > all sciences" (Jon Lowe's BUPC '05 keynote, anyone?) only to be
> > > countered with the predictable "every academic says that about their
> > > field". I commented upon how philosophical investigation was perhaps
> > > the modern day computer, due to Babbage's will to create an analytical
> > > machine that could compute logic rather than just quantities, I
> > > discussed the rebirth of democracy and right of state through the
> > > ethical and political discussions of the Enlightenment, and about how
> > > rational philosophical thought had always walked hand in hand with
> > > scientific progress in the dispelling of absurd old world concepts of
> > > a flat earth, orderly heaven, and miraculous events, only to be told
> > > that I wasn't talking about philosophy at all. I was merely talking
> > > about science, about psychology and politics, about human nature...
> > >
> > > I was in some way reminded of the example in philosophy of language of
> > > the foreigner who is being shown around oxford, visiting college after
> > > college, the library, the exam hall, only to ask "Yes, but where is
> > > the university?". Kids these days seem to be asking in parallel "Yes,
> > > but where is the philosophy?". And really, you can't blame them. The
> > > modern day concept of the philosopher lives in the minds of the masses
> > > as some toga-draped bearded old man walking along olive-lined dusty
> > > paths, or perhaps some 19th century existentialist, garbed in black
> > > with a frilly mustache, but people have a pretty poor idea about what
> > > a philosopher is today, about what philosophy is today. When I was
> > > younger (in other words, pre-university) I met a french philosopher by
> > > the name of Michel Fattal who for all his interesting things to say
> > > about philosophical thought in the middle east contributing to the
> > > preservation of Aristotelean thought during the middle ages, could not
> > > describe philosophy without using vague poetic sentences such as
> > > "Philosophy... why philosophy is nothing, it is nothing and
> > > everything". With models like this, no wonder the lay public put forth
> > > such challenging queries. Not challenging in that they are difficult
> > > to answer (although they can be as well), but in that they challenge
> > > our vary subject's right to exist.
> > >
> > > At a time where physicists and chemists struggle to woo the younger
> > > masses into a university formation in these subjects, we too must ask
> > > ourselves what image philosophy has in the public's mind. We too must
> > > arm ourselves with tools to seduce, interest and explain. We don't
> > > have flashy lasers or crystalline arrays of bubbles, so we can only
> > > rely on words to explain what we do, why we do it, and why others
> > > should give a damn.
> > >
> > > So I turn to the certainly-more-verbose-than-I mass that is BUPS-DIS
> > > to ask you all: how do you explain these things to your skeptical
> > > sibling? How do you plan on helping keep the subject alive? (For
> > > reference in France more and more universities are closing down
> > > humanities departments do to lack of funding, lack of dynamic
> > > research, and lack of popular interest. Anthropology is going fast...
> > > who's next?)
> > >
> > > - Edward.
> > >
> > >
> > > Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the
> > > mailing list at:
http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
> > >
> >
> >
> > Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
list
> at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
> >
>
> --
> Andrew Bacon
> Lady Margaret Hall
> 07830048336
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lady1900
>
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
>