Re: Re: RE: Re: Philosophical Problems at home: Explaining "what the hell you're doing" to your skeptical sibling/mother/father/cat... (fwd)

[Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk>]

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


----- Forwarded message from Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk> -----

From: Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk>
To: "Matt A" <notheodicy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Re: Philosophical Problems at home: Explaining "what the
hell you're doing" to your skeptical sibling/mother/father/cat...
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:30:09 +0100


Hi Matt,

Did you mean to send this to me privately? If not I'll post my reply to the
discussion list.

I do not believe that I said one usage was that of philosophy done well and the
other done badly. Perhaps you thought I had implied this? Regardless, I would
claim that rigorous analytic philosophy, even if done in the pub, is philosophy
of the first usage. When I refer to 'pub philosophy' I do not mean philosophical
discussion which *literally took place in a pub*. I simply meant the less
technical philosophy often discussed casually over a pint or dinner. You where
committed to the existence of this kind of philosophy when you said philosophy
elsewhere [outside of university] needn't be practiced in a specialised manner.

Andrew


> Andrew- I'm afraid we're not in agreement at all.  You say that there
> are two uses of the word 'philosophy', one of which pointing to a more
> rigorous, truer and more useful version of the other.  The first is
> the academic discipline, the second the natural ability it arises out
> of;  what the first usage examples is philosophy done well, while the
> second shows philosophy done badly.  This all seems commonsensical,
> but there are only normative reasons why pub philosophy should be
> rigorous and (especially) analytical.
> 
> -Matt
> 
> On 8/22/06, Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect, like many subjects, philosophy is something which anyone can do. That
> > is not to say that some won't be better at it than others. But the sense in
> > which anyone can do philosophy without specialist knowledge is much like the way
> > anyone can do mathematics without specialist knowledge. All the knowledge we
> > need is available to us. The axioms of Peano Arithmetic are self evident and
> > obvious (e.g. every number, n, has a unique successor: n+1). But this doesn't
> > mean that everyone can see that Fermats Last Theorem was true, it took 200 years
> > of research to prove that. Similarly in philosophy, although we all have access
> > to the same notions philosophers have been debating for years, it certainly
> > helps to have read what's gone before - what you would call 'specialist
> > knowledge'. And for this reason the pub philosopher will fall short where the
> > academic philosopher won't. Also bear in mind it is not only knowledge, it takes
> > a while for people to get into the habit of thinking and writing clearly and
> > rigorously - this was probably the steepest learning curve for me.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say that the countless English students who
> > discuss philosophy in the pub aren't doing philosophy. I've often enjoy talking
> > about physics or computers even though I have no training in these subjects. But
> > I wouldn't claim that the content of these discussions accurately represent what
> > these subjects are like.
> >
> > I agree that you can take up philosophy as a casual hobby - dinner party
> > conversation and so on - but this will be unlikely to represent 'analytic
> > philosophy - the academic subject' if there is such a thing. So in response to:
> >
> > "and to say that philosophy is practised in a specialised manner is probably
> > true of your university experience of it (aside from the discussions in the
> > pub), but doesn't have to apply elsewhere."
> >
> > I would distinguish between the uses of the word 'philosophy'. One usage refers
> > to a serious area of research studied throughout many anglo-american
> > universities, the other is term used 'elsewhere'. So suspect, with this
> > clarification in place we are actually in agreement.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> > >
> > >
> > > Andrew - I really don't like your weaker claim.  You don't say
> > > anything about what not shying away from the 'airy fairy' conception
> > > means, but you do say that philosophy isn't done like that, and that
> > > not shying away is in some regard to do with tolerance.  Philosophy is
> > > not a specialism; anyone can do it without specialist knowledge (of
> > > the problem of diachronic identity for example), and to say that
> > > philosophy is practised in a specialised manner is probably true of
> > > your university experience of it (aside from the discussions in the
> > > pub), but doesn't have to apply elsewhere.  That we should be tolerant
> > > of the 'airy fairy' conception certainly isn't what I meant: to
> > > reiterate, I think that the conception of philosophy as 'airy fairy'
> > > by the hard-nosed public is probably right.  It is right because
> > > philosophy is an activity we do rather than a group of scientific
> > > specialisms that we can join as if we were to join a club (called
> > > 'philosophy'), and this activity requires non-tautologous use of our
> > > ideas.  I agree with Keith that philosophy is in fact questioning -
> > > but this requires an ability to stand outside of our present beliefs,
> > > and must involve the possibility that we are wrong.  Thus, the
> > > hard-nosed public who call philosophy 'airy fairy' already are as they
> > > say, denying, precisely, philosophy.  They are only wrong in the sense
> > > that they think philosophy is some specialism or academic study, and
> > > it is unfortunate that you use this to convince them that it is not
> > > 'airy fairy'.
> > >
> > > - Matt
> > >
> > > On 8/22/06, Keith Thomas-Wurth <aikeith@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > --
> > Andrew Bacon
> > Lady Margaret Hall
> > 07830048336
> > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lady1900
> >
> >
> 

-- 
Andrew Bacon
Lady Margaret Hall
07830048336
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lady1900



----- End of forwarded message from Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk> -----


-- 
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