[MD] DMB and Me

[Matt Kundert]

Ian said:
The problem being it's "the value of it" that Matt is 
concerned about, whereas Dave has a greater interest in 
articulating where it fits in academic philosophical argument. 
Matt confuses that issue by quoting academic philosophers 
and writers in attempting to express his concern 
intellectually - whereas his concern is not in fact intellectual.
(Which I think is what Ron and John tried to say ?)

Matt:
Whereas I stoutly withhold judgment on whether or not I 
am confusing, I
guess I don't see the distinction between 
"value of it" and
"intellectual."  To use the kind of frame 
you are, I guess I would say
that I am talking about 
intellectual value, just not the same exact
kind as Dave.  
The difference, as I started putting it many years ago,
is 
between doing biography and doing philosophy--the former 
cares about
"what James did" and the latter about "what 
James can do for me."  To
understand what "James" stands 
for in the second, "doing philosophy"
statement, you need 
of course to understand some of the "doing
biography."  
But your relationship to the biography is as Pirsig stated.



"Academic," in what you say above, I think obscures 
another
difference--the difference between "doing 
biography" and "doing
professional philosophy."  Those two 
things are also different, the
difference between "what 
James did" and "what James can do for a small
conversation 
between people in Philosophy Departments."  This
difference 
might roughly be called the difference between "doing

history" and "doing philosophy."



Where I might be confusing, in this sense, is that when I 
state what
James does for me, I don't care when looking for 
support whether the
people I quote were doing 
biography/history, professional philosophy,
or philosophy.



Or, perhaps, with respect to what Ron was saying (I think) 
about me
always always being worried about Platonism and how 
annoying that is:
what is confusing is that I have two eyes 
staring in two different
directions--one on Platonism and one 
on me.  The problem is that
Platonism turns 
into--sort of--professional philosophy (i.e. the
conversation 
Plato began is [one branch of] the conversation now being

continued by people in Philosophy Departments).  So it seems 
like I
care and do not care about professional philosophy--the 
confusing part
would not be this, but rather an unpredictability 
on my part in when
and where I do care about it.



I don't know how to rectify my unpredictability, but I'm not 
sure that
my causing of confusion is systematic (even my 
unpredictability is not that unpredictable).  The attribution of 
a systematic
cause for me saying weird things at weird times 
is the necessary step
in "getting the hang of Matt," it's what 
one does to understand
something/somebody.  So I certainly 
won't fault people for that,
however I just reserve the right 
to input occasionally on what I think
my "systematic cause" is 
(despite the fact that the first-person point
of view does not 
certify by itself my estimation of myself as the right
one), or 
at least the nearby one cause for things I just said.



And how confusing is that.



Matt

p.s.  Pssst!  There's some hidden pragmatist philosophy in 
the last paragraph!  Who can name what it is?
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID27925::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:032010_1