[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[david buchanan]

Matt said to John:I'm looking for a defense, roughly, of the horse/cart metaphor Pirsig used in erecting his distinction, one that has relevance to what professional philosophers do, or think they're doing. ... I want to know how, specifically, the distinction works so I can know how to use it, and not just sounding it like a bell, and then all the Pavlovian dogs attuned to that bell--knowing how to respond to it--start drooling.  The bell is a spell: we who respond positively naturally think we think for ourselves, and so assume we're on the good team.  I want something like a checklist that tells me when a person isn't thinking for themself.

dmb says:
That's funny because philosophologists are the kind of people who need a checklist. In the horse/cart analogy, the distinction simply between the creators and the cataloguers, the players and the fans, the musicians and the musicologists, the artists and art historians, the groovy and the rote. I mean, the distinction works insofar as it refers to observable differences in the way people act across the whole range of human activities. I think the philosophers are not special in this regard. Just like any other endeavor, you have the paint-by-numbers types, the parrots and followers (all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time) and then you have the people who don't look over their shoulders to make sure they have approval or permission. They just do what they have to do according to some unwritten law, some unwritten sense of duty or mission. 
But I suppose you know all that and I suspect your problem with the distinction is personal. I imagine you're thinking about becoming an academic professional and so the whole notion is a bit disturbing. Who wants to think of themselves as a paint-by-numbers numb skull? Not me. It's a fate worse than death cause you are dead but you still gotta pay the bills. But I don't wish to obliterate the distinction because of that. I just think it's the sort of idea that is supposed to keep a guy on his toes, to keep him from getting stale or lazy or bored. It turns philosophy, real philosophy, into something that professionals can aspire to and hope for. It's like Keasey says, to be a great writer you first have to be a good writer. I take that to mean that competence and even mastery are good but it's not quite good enough to be called great. The guy with an original vision did his time painting by numbers first. And let's face it, the kind of people who can get through graduate school and get a job in the same institutions are good at jumping through hoops. But to get that ultimate degree one is supposed to make an original contribution to the field. Only when you do that, they'll say you're a philosopher. That's pretty much what Ph.D. means. Or rather, that's what it's supposed to mean. Sadly, it's almost always just a matter of finding an already established path and pushing it into the woods another six inches. That's lame. 

Matt said:... I don't think there exists a notable parallel in professional philosophy--certainly not enough to say _there are no real philosophers anymore_.


dmb says:
Okay. How about some examples? Who are the real philosophers among the professionals and why do you think they're the genuine article?



_________________________________________________________________
Bing™ brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1