[MD] Creativity and Philosophology, 2 (from 2005)

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Steve,

Steve said:
Let me grant that you've successfully "fuzzed-up" the 
distinction between philosophy and philosophology that Pirsig 
and others would like to keep distinct. Though such 
categorizations can usually be fuzzied, can't they also still be 
useful such as that between erotic art and pornography?

Matt:
Well, yeah, if I knew how to tell the different between 
philosophology and philosophy.  Part of the trouble for me 
now, I guess, is that almost everyone I've talked to about 
this (over many years, I might add) has their own pet 
definition of how they use it, and when I respond to one 
point, someone takes me to task using their definition, and 
on and on.

That's why the inquiry has to take on the first step: what, 
exactly, is the difference, and in taking that first step, have 
you exhausted your distinction?  Because what I find, is 
that people give that nice and easy first step, and then 
when I talk about it, out come all sorts of hidden things I 
didn't know about from what they told me.

Which is why I sometimes talk about just getting the hang 
of the distinction.  Which is something like making an 
analogy between erotic art and pornography.  When they 
asked the Supreme Court about porno, they said, "Well, I 
don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."  
Which is fine, but why do I see philosophy everywhere, 
whereas some people see some philosophology in my field 
of vision?  Am I less discerning?

Does it matter that I'm less discerning, that I see the point 
in writing that other's don't see the point of, that _I happen 
to find wisdom in professional philosophizing?_  Does that 
matter?  That's my real motivation.  Why do some people 
want to disparage a source of wisdom by saying there is no 
wisdom to be found there, when some people do think they 
are finding wisdom there.  Isn't that the flip-side of what 
Pirsig is making fun of in philosophologists?

Steve said:
You've said that Pirsig wants us to keep this distinction 
because it frees him from the criticisms of academia. Can 
you see any other purpose for which this distinction could 
still be useful?

Matt:
I think that's a very unfair characterization of what I've 
said about Pirsig.  Pirsig doesn't want us to _keep_ the 
distinction for that reason, the distinction is just turned 
towards the purposes occasionally.  Like I said, he makes 
the distinction to make fun of academics (which is fine), 
but then he wants to make a philosophical point (which I 
think is a problem).  My entire second part of the paper is 
an attempt to figure out why Pirsig _actually_ makes the 
distinction, as opposed to what the distinction can 
_be used for_ (and Pirsig only occasionally uses the 
distinction to "ignore academia"--and if people think that's 
unfair of Pirsig's practice, remember the line in Lila when he 
says, roughly, "the academics have ignored me, and I've 
returned the compliment").

I think Gav talking about his educational experience gets 
the genesis of people enjoying the distinction about right.  
The reason I don't find any use for the distinction is 
because I just call bad philosophers out as bad 
philosophers--I don't think there are any behavioral critieria, 
any criteria about _how they philosophize_, that are able 
to capture a class of philosophizing that is by virtue of 
what it is fake philosophy.  There's bad philosophy, and 
there's good philosophy.  There's original philosophy, and 
unoriginal.  And there's intellectual history, which isn't 
philosophy.  

I don't know who these people are that keep confusing 
intellectual history with philosophy that we need this extra 
word, but maybe when I meet one, I'll have a word to call 
him.

Phil - o - so - pho -lo -gist.  
Def. Bad teacher of the subject of philosophy who confuses 
the activity intellectual history with the activity of philosophizing.

Why can't we just call people bad philosophers?  That way 
you stay completely clear of defining philosophy.

Hey, if people want to say I'm bad at philosophy, then I know 
that what I write just isn't useful for them.  When they call 
me a philosophologist, then I think they are taking on a task 
of defining philosophy.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009