[MD] continental and analytic philosophy

[John Carl]

Good question, Andre,

> Andre:
> Does the 'style difference between 'profesional philosophy' and 'us
> amateurs' (trying to apply the 'obvious facts' [obvious to whom I
> wonder]) make for this difficulty of applying them to 'real life'?

I dunno.  I'm just an amateur.  Let me turn to the experts for your answer:

"Not only have people retreated inward, and away from forms of public
self, but so have the culture's intellectuals.  Russell Jacoby, in
1987, summarized this retreat in a book called, The Last
Intellectuals.  In it, he studies the "new high-tech intellectuals,
the consultants and professors and experts in tiny slivers of
knowledge, which do not enrich the public culture and the younger
intellectuals, whose lives unfold on campus and who are inaccessible
and unknown.  There are no public intellectuals, he argues, that is,
writers and thinkers who address a general and educated audience."

Of course, a lot has changed in 1987, needless to say.  But the facts
then have effects now which are interesting I think, when a "public
philosophy" is being debated - and sorely needed, I say.

Of all the classes of intellectuals, Jacoby is particularly critical
of philosophers: "The philosophical self-scrutiny .. may be the
weakest because American philosophy has promoted technical expertise
that repels critical thinking ... its fetish of logic and language has
barred all but a few who might rethink philosophy.  Philosophy seems
the most routineized of the humanities, the least accessible to
change."


See, the professionals are stuck.  It's a logical problem known as
"recursion" and funny that those stuck in the defining of it can't see
that they're in one.

amateurs to the rescue!

Andre continues:

> Or has professional philosophy moved so much away from 'real life'
> that the 'style difference' reflects this and that it therefore
> doesn't really matter/or beyond comprehension...to 'us amateurs?
>
> Or how does this compare with Pirsig's stance that if you do not
> create a metaphysics/ philosophy that in some ways makes for a better
> world then forget it (other than retaining some sort of interest
> within philosophical academia)?
>
> Just interested.
> Andre

Well everybody's different, but personally I'm with the idea that it
better make a better world, or at least have a plan, a framework,
something.

So, what's the plan again?


John