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

[X Acto]

Matt,
Make up your mind

first you state:
But, that still doesn't really clear up _my_ problem.  I still 
don't really know who I'm supposed to call philosophologists, 
even if they do just do history of philosophy.  I mean, from 
the addition of the quote, that seems to suggest that _all_ 
Pirsig means is "intellectual history," right?

So--why can't I say intellectual historians who philosophize 
and philosophers who do intellectual history?  Why do I 
need a new word?  Is it just to make fun of people?

then you get awnry:

"It appears, most other people just see it as a funny little tag 
to put on pretentious people.

When it gets down to it, I don't really care if people want to 
keep it for the fun it pokes at academics.  But somtimes, it 
looks like they want to make that larger point, like Pirsig, 
which is when I think they want to find philosophical interest 
in it to, and so might want to dialogue about it."

but you totally disregard any comment on this statement:

"In this manner I have understood philosophilology as 
the objective analytic approach to philosophy.

I understand philosophy as an active attitude of inquirey.

Objective analytic approach to an active attitude of inquirey
as a cultural norm definition of philosophy is the gripe, it attracts
the label of unoriginal thinking by Pirsig precisely because
of this. It is also why Pirsig views alternative systems of approach
to an active attitude of inquirey as more original.

I think Dave sees this as THE arguement Pirsig brings to bear
on philosophy and rendering it meaningless is undercutting it."

or this one:

"I think that you have a good point although I believe it is more useful
> > to make the distinction between an active inquirey that involves a
> > a body of thought that includes a history which views itself as
> > the evolutionary culmenation of active inquirey with an active inquirey
> > that does not.
> > This leaves objectivism free to use without rejecting it out of hand
> > as altogether wrong or bad but merely limited and one of many
> > ways inwhich a body of understanding may be created.
> >
> > MoQ places active inquirey at the fore front where objectivism
> > tends to give it a back seat and tells it to shut up when
> > expereince does not match it's methods and interpretations."


the flogging of the horse is in that it is a restatement of the SOM
arguement
within the bounds of philosophy. 


-Ron