I agree with Andrew as far as criticisms of poetic and/or flowerly language
goes, even if this does actually occur in philosophy. I think that at least
one of the roles of philosophy is to clarify how we think. For me, an
example of what philosophers should be doing is the sort of stuff Blackburn
gets up to in Essays on Quasi-Realism, for example, the most popular example
is in ethics, where Blackburn essentially understands sentences like "rape
is wrong" as "I disapprove of rape." That's fairly simple, and even if you
don't entirely agree I think perhaps you can see what I'm getting at:
understanding the commitments of ordinary talk. The reason why we might have
to do this is because the commitments are somewhat hidden. Therefore being
very clear about what the commitments of talk is is very important. Poetic
language is not clear, and this is the reason why it should play no role in
philosophy. We should be trying to explain this kind of flowery talk, and
replacing it with more of the same. The mind-body interaction is mired in
confusion, and "they reflect each other due to the harmonious action of
each", for example, doesn't really alleviate that.
M.
On 22/08/06, 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
>
>
>
> But this is what I mean. That philosophy is 'the how, what and why of just
about
> everything' is just far too sweeping.
>
> I firmly believe that the how/why/what questions are sectioned off into
> different subjects. 'How does the mind interact with the body?' falls
under
> philosophy. 'How does this car engine work?' falls under engineering. 'Why
does
> this type of event always happen after this type of event?' is a question
for
> physics. 'why do events happen?' is a philosophical question. 'What are
the
> sporadic simple groups?' maths, 'what is the primitive ontology'
philosophy etc
> etc...
>
> Philosophy is far more than the process of asking questions, but far less
than
> everything.
>
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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
>