To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Sometimes I think that the meaning of philosophy is lost in the
generation of mountains of rhetoric and verbosity. So what is
philosophy? Is not just asking questions? Is it not the how, what and
why of just about everything.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com] On Behalf Of Matt A
Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2006 4:31 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Philosophical Problems at home: Explaining "what the
hell you're doing" to your skeptical sibling/mother/father/cat...
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
I find no problem whatsoever in explaining to people that philosophy
is about the 'meaning of life', or anything else we might dismiss as
'poetic'. I think our dissatisfaction with phrases like 'the meaning
of life' comes out of our own disrespect for the kind of statement it
is, and so we try to make 'the meaning of life' sound more like
scientific problem solving, as if we were part of the band of
technicians that people defer authority to in their lives. We want
them to accept that our 'problems' matter to them by introducing them
to the technical nature of philosophy - while avoiding 'poetic
nonsense' - yet this is appealing to their credulousness to technical
rigour (i.e. why they would accept our claims), and the 'philosophy'
we want to convince them matters becomes something quite unlike
philosophy. Our need to persuade people makes our descriptions of
philosophy a political gesture, and to want people to accept
philosophy as a technical science and not disrespect it by calling it
'airy fairy' or 'religion' or 'poetic nonsense' is to tell them that
they do not have to do any philosophy in order to understand it. I am
of the opinion that if we as a society have issues with 'airy fairy'
'poetic nonsense', including us 'philosophers', the only way to
philosophise about it is to take 'airy fairy' 'poetic nonsense'
seriously. If we want to be truthful to our families or the average
joe, we should probably conclude in favour of their common sense
rejection of philosophy. My position is that, yes, there IS
resistance to philosophy. We might want to temper the person's
attitude and introduce them gently into what it means to philosophise,
by setting them 'easy' problems, or allowing them to approach
philosophy in their very 'historical' sense, but they will have to
make the move sooner or later to considering positions that they don't
already trust or respect. As far as I'm concerned, this approach
hasn't worked with you lot.
-Matt Astill
On 8/21/06, Andrew Turner <ajturner.email@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>
>
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date:
21/08/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.4/424 - Release Date:
21/08/2006
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml