janw@inmet.UUCP (09/09/86)
[williams@kirk.dec.com ] /* ----- "Decline of Philosophy" ----- */ >The average value of philosophy in the states can be approximate- >ly measured by the number of philosophy books you can find in >bookstores. The current theme appears to be " business manage- >ment " and " self help ". Both these fields are symptomatic, and >actually contain little or no insight into modern problems. For this reason philosophers ought to be grateful to Ayn Rand, whose philosophy books are in the bookstores and sell. That can open the market to others - e.g., those who would criticize her. Even the cheap mysticism now flooding the shelves opens the way to people who would start with debunking it, then propose their own ideas. A philosopher ought not to be snotty, but come to the readers and begin by discussing *their* concerns in plain English (or whatever the language of the land is). It is easier for philosophers to do than for anyone else, since philosophy is universal and applies to everything (including self-help and even business management). Those philosophers whose work is esoteric and unreadable cannot do it, but that's only fair. Why should laymen pay, directly or through taxes or through tuition fees, for someone else's hobby? The customer is the boss. Educate your bosses - but don't ignore them. Jan Wasilewsky
m128abo@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Michael Ellis) (09/12/86)
> Jan >> John >> The average value of philosophy in the states can be approximate- >> ly measured by the number of philosophy books you can find in >> bookstores. The current theme appears to be " business manage- >> ment " and " self help ". Both these fields are symptomatic, and >> actually contain little or no insight into modern problems. > For this reason philosophers ought to be grateful to Ayn Rand, whose > philosophy books are in the bookstores and sell. That can open the > market to others - e.g., those who would criticize her. > Even the cheap mysticism now flooding the shelves opens the way to > people who would start with debunking it, then propose their own > ideas. Do you think that the presence of all that cheap mysticism has opened the market to truly worthwhile mysticism? I'm about as sure of the answer to this question as I am that Rand's misosophy has been opening doors to worthwhile philosophy. > A philosopher ought not to be snotty, but come to the readers and > begin by discussing *their* concerns in plain English (or whatever > the language of the land is). It is easier for philosophers to do > than for anyone else, since philosophy is universal and applies to > everything (including self-help and even business management). Certain areas, like phenomenology or analytic philosophy, indeed seem to be difficult to put into plain language. I'm not sure whether that is intrinsic to the subject matter or whether it is due to an affliction that tends to characterize those drawn to these pursuits. Personally, I find that Quine (for analytic philosophy) and Dreyfus (for phenomenology) are able to make everything clear and jargonfree, and, most importantly, downright compelling. >Those philosophers whose work is esoteric and unreadable cannot >do it, but that's only fair. Why should laymen pay, directly or >through taxes or through tuition fees, for someone else's hobby? Frankly, I don't think discussion about academic funding belongs here, Jan. I respect your opinion on this issue, but *please* keep political discussions in net.politics.theory, the newsgroup intended for such topics. Now as to the question of whether current philosophy is important enough to be classified as important research, is it your opinion that what you apparently cannot or will not understand ("esoteric or "nreadable") must obviously be somebody's idle "hobby"? >The customer is the boss. Educate your bosses - but don't >ignore them. Don't forget to educate yourself while you're at it.. -michael Non potest esse in intellectu solo -Anselm
bsmith@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/13/86)
Michael, I'm trying real hard to stop laughing. The statement that Quine is able to make everything perfectly clear and understandable is a little bit of an overstatement. Try reading his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism." Come to think of it, be prepared to try reading it 3 or 4 times before it makes a whole lot of sense. Barry Smith
tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (09/15/86)
In article <11700379@inmet> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Those philosophers whose work is esoteric and unreadable cannot >do it, but that's only fair. Why should laymen pay, directly or >through taxes or through tuition fees, for someone else's hobby? > >The customer is the boss. Educate your bosses - but don't >ignore them. > > Jan Wasilewsky I tend to agree that so-called "professional" philosophers, like myself, have a responsibility to maximize the intelligibility of their work to the intellectual public, but there may be natural limits to that intelligibility. Scientists, for example, tend to write for other scientists. What this means is that they use convenient jargon and presuppose of their readers a fairly detailed background knowledge of the matter at hand. And the intelligent layman is seldom heard to complain that scientific research journals are "too technical"; instead, he looks for digests and respectable popularizations. But even the intelligent layman *does* complain about the technical thickness of philosophy, as it is practiced these days. The implication is that philosophers should *not* write for other philosophers. Why? I think that mosty people believe that philosophy is *for everybody*, in a way that science is not. That is, the layman may well feel that he is not really entitled to an opinion on cell membrane diffusion or high-energy particle interactions. But the same layman is likely to feel that he *is* entitled to an opinion about, say, free will or the nature of knowledge. There may be many reasons for this, but part of it is the sense that while science is about *facts*, philosophy is about *positions*. Thus, expertise in science consists of the internalization of a great deal of information, and the mastery of the relevant problem-solving techniques. And we all understand that these things require a great deal of specialized training. The practice of philosophy, on the other hand, is more like staking out a piece of territory and defending it. And the overall battlefield is a place where anyone has a right to be entrenched. And so, when philosophy becomes too technical, the layman feels that an attempt is being made to make this battlefield inaccessible. To some extent, the layman is right. By making philosophy unintelligible to the layman, philosophers can hope that it will appear more "scientific" and thus more respectable. On the other hand, the only progress there is in philosophy is negative: adding to the necrology of failed arguments and positions, as the inadequacies of this or that position are exposed. In this atmosphere, understanding requires a fairly detailed familiarity with what is often a long and cmplex fugue of arguments and counterarguments. And so, philospohers begin to presuppose this familiarity, in their written works. To the extent that they do so, what they write becomes less and less accessible to outsiders who lack this familiarity. And so it goes. There is an interesting article called "Philosophy as Ideology" in the Winter, 1986 issue of _Metaphilosophy_. And though I blush to mention it, there is a piece called "Progress in Philosophy" by yours truly in the last _American_Philosophical_Quarterly_.
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (09/23/86)
I appreciated Todd Moody's lamentations on the relative inaccessibility of philosophical inquiries to the lay public. I think this is an issue which philosophically minded afficianados (professional and hobbyist alike) would do well to keep in mind. I agree that we often plunge into arcane discussions which don't fill the bill as a spectator sport. On the other hand, books like _The Tao is Silent_, _The Mind's I_, and _Elbow Room -- The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting_ are good examples of philosophy packaged for the educated layman. Perhaps it is time to revive the Atheneum, that arena of philosophical debate with which the Greeks amused themselves some 2500 years ago. I would love to hear George Will on Free Will or Anthony Lewis on the Evolution of Opinion. A strong dose of civility plus good-natured humor would make for healthy and lively dialogue that would attract a larger following. In the meantime, could we have a review of the bidding? I seem to have forgotten the point which we were arguing about.... Barry Kort hounx!kort