Ivan - Well it's definitely me who will agree with Deleuze's account
of philosophy. Philosophy destroys positivisms, especially ideas
stating that philosophy is a body of knowledge or some kind of
calculus. Deleuze's work certainly embodies this view. However, I
very much doubt died-in-the-wool analytic philosophers would accept
Deleuze as a credible authority.
-Matt
On 8/22/06, Ivan R <listen_to_reggae@hotmail.com> wrote:
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I don't know how well this will go down (seeing as Deleuze's relation to the
> analytic tradition is tentative at best), but I've always enjoyed his
> response to this very problem in "Nietzsche and Philosophy"
>
> "When someone asks "what's the use of philosophy?" the reply must be
> aggressive, since the question tries to be ironic and caustic. Philosophy
> does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves
> no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that
> saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for
> harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. {he seems
> to be paraphrasing Nietzsche here, i'll check the footnotes after the rest
> of the qoute}
> Is there any discipline apart from philosophy that sets out to criticise all
> mystifications, whatever their source and aim, to expose all fictions
> without which reactive forces would not prevail? Exposing as a mystification
> the mixture of baseness and stupidity that creates the astonishing
> complicity of both victims and perpertrators...creating free men, that is to
> say men who do not confuse the aims of culture with the benefit of the
> State, morality or religion" pg 106
>
> Yep, that is paraphrased, Nietzsches take (in 'The Gay Science') reads,,
>
> Ancient philosophers gave a sermon against stupidity. "Let us not decide
> here whtehr this sermon against stupidity had better reasons on its side
> than did the sermon against selfishness: what is certain is that it deprived
> stupidity of its good conscience; these philosophers harmed stupidity"
> (as sourced from Deleuzes end notes).
>
>
> Seems pretty straight forward to me, "Philosophy harms stupidity, stupid!"
> Perhaps we could have it up printed on t-shirts.
>
>
> >From: "Matt A" <notheodicy@gmail.com>
> >To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> >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 12:33:24 +0100
> >
> >To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
> >BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> >
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >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
>