RE: Philosophy general debate

[djf500@york.ac.uk]

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


Hi,

This isn't a major contribution just a bit of heckling from the sidelines. 
I've read a couple of Mr. Goldsmith's emails, and I get the impression that 
his treatment of continental philosophy would benefit from a little more 
charity. I've only done half a term of phenomenology, and the rest has been 
nice old laconic anglo-american stuff - so i'm no european in the present 
sense.

The main aid we can offer to continental philosophy is our recognition that 
their writing style is different. They will not spell everything out, and 
they are not aiming to create an essay that can symbolised into a bullet 
proof equation. They deal with difficult and deep ideas, so perhaps the 
style is necessary to draw out unfamiliar concerns. This might mean that 
they contradict themselves or say something very odd. In so far as this is 
the case, I agree that their language is more literary than analytic 
philosophy. But, pouncing on superficial contradictions is simply not 
helpful in understanding them. Recognising that their language is literary 
we ought to realise that contradictions are not always 'elementary' 
mistakes. Continentals (it appears to me) often deal with deeper (though 
perhaps spurious) issues and so require a deeper charity. (NB Perhaps a 
contradiction isn't always a mistake in the analytic trad. either - see 
'dialetheism', something I know next to nothing about.)

One further suggestion: someone purporting to be on the side of reason 
ought to beware the sword he claims to wield. Mr. Goldsmith claims to have 
falsified D's claim that philosophy is saddening by saying that he is happy 
to read D's philosophy. Has he considered either the claim that if he has 
read D's philosophy and not been saddened by it then he hasn't understood 
it?

And more generally - what about the interpretation that what D is saying is 
that if something is not saddening then ipso facto it is not philosophy. 
Although we might disagree with D here (I do!), we can't *falsify* this 
with any example that claims to be genuine philosophy, because the moment 
you do that D can carry out his implication and find it to be inauthentic 
philosophy (because his proposition is still in place) - you have to attack 
the claims logically prior to his claim, and not just present him with a 
counter-example that is on the same logical level.

Cheers, i'll just butt out and watch now.

Daniel


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml