RE: Philosophical Problems at home: Explaining "what the hell you're doing" to y

["Ivan R" <listen_to_reggae@hotmail.com>]

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


Well Deleuze is being just a tad dramatic, but I think if we were willing to 
meet him half way we might find something of use.

I think that when Deleuze says, "Philosophy is at its most positive as 
critique, as an excercise in demystification. And we should not be too hasty 
in proclaiming philosophy's failure in this respect. Great as they are, 
stupidity and baseness would be still greater if there did not remain some 
philosophy which always prevents them from going as far as they would wish," 
he is making at point that is not too far of from one that is often 
re-iterated by analytic philosophers, and indeed has been stated a number 
times here, that philosophy is an attempt to think through certain issues 
"carefully and clearly". Except where we might pose this in reference to 
more specific, or technical issues, we could read Deleuze as attempting to 
address the more boorish elements of our general culture (whether they be 
creationists, politicians, or a certain type of religious leader)

Although, as you're right to point out, Deleuze is saying this from within 
an dramatically different tradition. And as such, he tends to sound a little 
odd.

I should add that after Deleuze discusses the whole bit about philosophy 
saddening he does say that philosophy might finally turn thought into 
"something aggressive, active and affirmative."


Ivan

> From: Andrew Bacon <andrew.bacon@lmh.ox.ac.uk>
> To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> Subject: RE: Philosophical Problems at home: Explaining "what the hell 
> you're doing" to your skeptical sibling/mother/father/cat...
> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:16:21 +0100
>
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: 
> BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
>
> I think Andrew (G) is quite right here. Philosophy may be the activity of
> thinking carefully and clearly and clarifying foundational issues, and it 
> is for
> this very reason we should be precious about it (although I do agree with 
> Nick's
> (J) sentiment too).
>
> And I should like to point out that being precise and clear doesn't 
> necessarily
> mean being overwhelmingly technical. Take for example David Lewis's 'Parts 
> of
> Classes'. Here he talks for a whole book on the relation between mereology 
> and
> set theory, two technical formal systems, in pure English prose (modulo
> variables for pronouns for indexing issues). Not all of us are as hardcore 
> as
> David Lewis, in fact having learnt the terminology of set theory and 
> mereology
> already I would have found the book easier to read if it had be phrased in 
> the
> symbolism. However, it proves it is possible to communicate highly complex 
> ideas
> very accessibly and precisely, which counters a frequent objection to 
> analytic
> philosophers (especially those who feel the formalism is just for show).
>
> As for Deleuze, I guess you could say I am the stereotypical 
> died-in-the-wool
> analytic philosopher, but I wouldn't reject Deleuze's authority on these
> grounds. True I can find little sense in the postmodern literature, but I 
> deem
> this branch of philosophy different enough to regard it as a different 
> subject.
> They may seem to deal with similar topics, but then again so does the 
> engineer
> and the physicist. Whatever Deleuze may think it certainly doesn't apply to 
> the
> philosophy I've studied. I find it very hard for me to relate to the quote,
> since I've never really found myself feeling sad when I do philosophy. If I 
> did
> I think I'd probably stop doing it and find a subject I enjoyed!
>
> Andrew (B)
>
> > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: 
> BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> >
> >
> > First, apologies for sending my post twice: I'm new to this discussion 
> list.
> >
> >
> >
> > Second, in light of the increasing number of Andrews posting on this
> discussion list, let's hereafter also use the first letter of their 
> surname.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick, you wrote,
> >
> >
> >
> > >'Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity.'
> > >
> > > Quite right. So we do not need to be too precious about it.
> >
> >
> >
> > It does not follow that because X is an activity and not a body of 
> doctrine
> that therefore we "need not be too precious about it".
> >
> >
> >
> > That minor point aside, I agree entirely that it does not matter where a
> philosophical issue or problem arises.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, philosophers don't have a monopoly on philosophy; it's great 
> when a
> friend in the pub or a friend studying for a natural science philosophise.
> However, the bloke in the pub and the physicist philosophise very much as a
> hobby. I don't know the place of logical thinking in all subjects, but I do 
> know
> that government and law students, amongst others, are not trained in 
> analytic
> and logical thinking. Indeed, look at the English legal system: a 
> patch-work of
> conflicting and inconsistent statutes, case-law, and 
> make-it-up-as-you-go-along
> law making. Doing logic has made me painfully aware at just how many 
> arguments
> made in both formal and informal discourse, even by intellectuals, are 
> invalid.
> >
> >
> >
> > Even if everyone in society had a formal training in logical and 
> analytic
> thinking, there would still be a need for a class of professionals in 
> society
> dedicated to analytic methods and applying themselves to various subject
> matters. As it stands, few people reason consistency or even know what a
> deductively valid argument is. It is no wonder that philosophy is mocked, 
> that
> over 30% of students in the UK believe in creationism and intelligent 
> design
> (according to an Opinionpanel Research released in August 2006), that
> pseudo-science, religious ideology, and incompetent and authoritarian 
> government
> are on the up. So yes, there is something to be 'precious' about. Clear, 
> logical
> thinking is precious. Philosophy doesn't have a monopoly on such thinking. 
> But
> it's increasingly difficult to find such thinking outside philosophy and 
> science.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Andrew G
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com on behalf of Nick Jones
> > Sent: Tue 22/08/2006 12:39
> > To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> > Subject: 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
> >
> >
> > >'Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity.'
> >
> > Quite right. So we do not need to be too precious about it.
> >
> > Physicists, biologists, theologians, etc, do not HAVE to call on 
> philosophers
> when they consider the philosophical implications and problems of their
> discipline (although reading Richard Holloway recently, I wished he 
> had...), but
> philosophers are those who are interested in this sort of problem (general 
> or
> foundational problems), and many physicists etc are not.
> >
> > So who cares if such philosophical questions arise WITHIN the boundaries 
> of a
> recognised discipline, rather than in a corral labelled 'philosophy'? The 
> issue
> is not the subject of the questions, but their nature ...
> >
> > Although while we're dealing in stereotypes, it seems to me that many 
> people
> DO think of philosophy as a body of doctrine - hence the desire to study
> philosophy to learn the secrets of the universe or (less ambitiously) some 
> weird
> stuff to impress our friends...
> >
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> >
> > A.M.Goldfinch@lse.ac.uk wrote:
> > > To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: 
> BUPS-DIS@bups.org
> > >
> > >
> > > The philosophy student is almost unique in having to justify her 
> subject to
> countless individuals, stranger and friend alike. From the taxi driver and
> milkman to close friends and family, she is continually asked to justify 
> her
> academic pursuit.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The public's stereotype of the philosopher is one who ponders the 
> 'meaning'
> of life, anguishes over moral choices, sips copious amounts of coffee, 
> makes the
> odd reference to Marx, Plato and so on. 'Philosophy' is associated in 
> people's
> minds with 'nonsense', just as 'Conservative' is associated with 'nasty' 
> and so on.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With family and friends we just need to be patient, carefully 
> explaining to
> them what philosophy is. To strangers - such as the taxi driver or a person 
> at a
> party - the best approach, given limited time, is to use the descriptive
> adjective 'analytic' when describing yourself as a philosopher.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > More seriously is how members of government departments and other 
> academic
> disciplines view philosophy. Philosophy is usually lumped as a humanity, 
> ranked
> next to - or combined with - religion (could be worse: bookstores these 
> days
> lump philosophy with 'new age\mysticism\self-help').
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do those who should know better refuse to accord philosophy with 
> the
> respect it deserves? The problem is that when philosophy becomes successful 
> it
> becomes a science and graduates from the domain of philosophy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Human motivation and society -> psychology and sociology -> social 
> science.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Experimentation and empirical data -> natural philosophy -> natural 
> science.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The subdivisions of philosophy that became successful - or too complex 
> to
> remain a subdivision - ceased to be classified as philosophy. Philosophy 
> becomes
> defined as that set of questions for which science has yet - or cannot - 
> provide
> an answer. Since these questions have yet to be answered - or cannot be 
> answered
> - and have been around for thousands of years, people associate philosophy 
> with
> dead questions debated between dead individuals repeated ad infinitum by 
> their
> successors.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Does it matter that philosophy is viewed as useless, irrelevant, 
> airy-fairy?
> Is it merely a case of wounded pride?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That philosophy is viewed with such disdain is dangerous for society.
> Philosophy is not a set of unanswerable, historical questions. It is an
> activity; a vital activity. I think the early Wittgenstein captures a lot 
> of
> what philosophy is about with the following:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy 
> is not
> a body of doctrine but an activity.'
> > >
> > > - Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 4.112
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > British society suffers from a lack of clear thinking. It's not only 
> in the
> student newspaper rag that invalid arguments, inferences, and nonsensical 
> claims
> are made in abundance; muddled, confused thinking is endemic in social,
> political, and legal discourse.
> > >
> > > It doesn't help when we find philosophers themselves making comments 
> that
> suggest that the domain of philosophy is restricted to footnotes of Plato 
> (the
> infamous Whitehead quote) or to language (the later Wittgenstein).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With the rise of religious ideology, pseudo-science, governments
> unrestrained by any principles of what the limits of government should be, 
> the
> need for analytic philosophers actively engaged in society is greater than 
> ever.
> The philosopher need not become king; but she needs to be respected, 
> listened
> to. Until that respect appears, public policy will continue to be dominated 
> by
> rhetoric and muddled thinking.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Andrew Goldfinch
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com on behalf of Edward 
> Grefenstette
> > > Sent: Mon 21/08/2006 21:46
> > > To: bupS-DIS@bups.org
> > > Subject: 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
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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