[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[John Carl]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Matt Kundert
<pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Matt:
>   So, if we have "intellectual history" as a term, why do we need
> "philosophology"?


To gather a bit more social oomph I'd say. It's one thing to be a history
expert.  It's far more prestigious to be a philosophy expert.



>
> It's a nice expression of antiprofessionalism, a quick finger to all the
> teachers you hated when going through school, but I've never been able to
> make much more out of it than an expression of resentment over one's _own
> educative experience_, which one then makes the mistake of universalizing
> into a this-is-the-way-things-are.



Right there you put your finger on a subject that is suddenly very, very
interesting to me.  It's the call of the overreactionary, I'd say.




>
> I often go off on little screeds about this particular issue--which is my
> own little pet concern--because I see a lot of the very different ways in
> which us amateur philosophers pursue our own pet concerns collecting in this
> very similar pattern, in which professional behavior is down-graded in an
> effort to clear space for one's own amateur activity (an effort I don't
> think is needed).  So, in its way, it is one of the few things amateur
> philosophers can be expected to have in common, and so to have also the
> possiblity of discussion in which everyone will have not only an opinion,
> but a horse in the race, i.e. a reason for thinking the discussion has
> consequences for what one is doing, and so a reason for having a _motivated
> discussion_ (and not just an idle one with few consequences to what one does
> or thinks).
>


In this way is the amateur philsopher purer than the pro, because a pro has
to fit into a given structure or suffer rejection and thus is exposed to
constant temptation to immorality - subjecting his intellectual patterns to
the scrutiny and oversight of a social organization.  Given enough prestige
and motivation, the profession is constantly evolving towards degeneracy
because those that succumb to the social pressure thrive and prosper, and
those that hold fast to intellectual ideals in pursuit of Quality at the
sake of social advancement - are kicked out or quit.  Over time a culture
evolves with very strong static defense mechanisms which keep out all DQ.
 Its the same exact problem with organized religion and it's starting to
make more sense to me, Pirsig's disdain for both.


>
> I have been concerned with the way amateur philosophers compose themselves,
> at first unconsciously but now quite self-consciously, for a long time.  It
> seems to me something that every amateur (and professional, for that matter)
> would be wise to spend some time thinking about, for it partly entails
> reflection on what it is your goals and purposes are in doing something
> called "philosophy."  It requires you to define what it is you want out of
> what you are doing, and this might help you better do what it is you are
> doing (and especially talk to others about what you're doing, and what
> they're doing).


Its a really fun game?  Ham didn't like that reason tho.



>
> It has been my suspicion for a long time that what attracts people to first
> Pirsig, and then the MD, what the lowest common denominator is of people we
> find writing here, is a general disappointment with professional philosophy.
>  I don't want to say that the disappointment isn't justified--given it is
> created out of the specific experiences of each person--but I do want to say
> that more reflection on that disappointment might help each individual
> inquirer.
>


Well what first attracted me to ZAMM was the cover.  But then it took a bit
more than that.  I myself didn't go there because I was disappointed in
professional philosophy, more like I was looking for some.  Instead I ended
up with an attack on reason  and after that professional philosophy didn't
hold quite the same luster.

John




>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>