[Bups-dis] Fresh topic: Let's have some more cults.

[M.Tucker at uea.ac.uk]

I'm divided on this one, but I think I'm more inclined to disagree with
you....

I think that essentially, one of the most important things about
philosophy as a whole tradition as opposed to individual ways of looking
at the world (historical philosophy, literary philosophy) is that
philosophy as a discipline in its own right attempts to transcend
disciplines, to keep an open mind. A scientist might reject a literature
student from getting a science application, but a philosopher can point
out the advantages of looking at the world from the point of view of
science, literature and history and show how none of them have got the
complete picture. Philosophy is all about trying to find better ways of
understanding the world (Descartes wanted to show the importance of
science while working in a religious framework... or would it be the other
way round...?) Essentially, your philosopher might be justified in wanting
to reject the wishy-washy relativists application because he believes that
his way of looking at the world is wrong, yet presumably this relativist
character is pretty intelligent - if he is permitted to expand his school
of thought as far a possible, no matter how 'wrong' that school is, he
could still discover something fundamentally important that your
philosopher had not even considered. Kant could have, on the
recommendation of a fellow rationalist, dismissed Hume out of hand for
being far too grounded in sceptical, empirical British philosophy which
was damaging and holding back decent Cartesian, continental philosophy.
Fortunately, Kant decided to give Hume a chance... I think my thought is
that being fanatical about a particular philosopher/school of thought is a
very good start, for a lot more is achieved when someone is passionate
about a discipline. But it is when passion is paired with an open mind
that real philosophical development is possible.

I may have just babbled nonsense, but what do you think?

Matthew