[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Dave,

Matt said:
I think we in the MD should think more about what we each consider 
to be good amateur philosophy, because I think that one _does_ need 
to have a _separate_ sense of what that is alongside what 
professional philosophy is to make sure that one _isn't_ merely doing 
bad academics.

Dave said:
I take "amateur" to be a description of one's motives. The word can 
be used as a polite term for incompetence or a lack of professional 
standards, but it also refers to those who do something for the sheer 
love of it, for its own sake.

Matt:
That is a standard way to draw the line, but I've come to think that it 
doesn't do enough to help us amateurs conceive of our own projects.  
I think we can, and should, go further than that.  For professionals 
can love their projects, too, though the idea is that an amateur would 
_have_ to love it, for why else would they be doing it (since we've 
precluded money/etc.)?  And likewise, the reason why "amateurish" 
has come to have its derogatory sense is because amateurs _don't_ 
have disciplinary standards, because by definition they are outside a 
discipline (unless we want to start regimenting distinctions between 
"professional" and "disciplinary" and the like, which I'm just 
heedlessly sliding between at the moment).  That doesn't mean an 
individual amateur doesn't have standards, it just means that there 
is not external network defining them.  Disciplinary standards have 
the upshot of giving one a defined sense of having discharged one's 
responsibilities to produce quality work (what kind of quality? at the 
very least, discipline-defined quality).  Not having a discipline can 
leave one in a void and lost, for there is no one they need to please.  
This can produce good work, but it certainly isn't an assured 
relationship.

So what I'm thinking is that, aside from our love of doing whatever it 
is we are doing, is there a way of erecting a standard of excellence 
in amateur philosophy?  By definition, it couldn't be for everyone (if it 
were, then we'd have a discipline), but this is the route of beginning 
at home, of beginning with self-definition, what one's own goals are 
and seeing how well one can live up to them.  And perhaps the most 
important question for amateur self-definition: even if you would 
never make anyone else follow your own standard, what is 
_your relationship to others_?  In a discipline, this has a clear answer.  
But in amateur philosophy, it might be something to continually 
meditate on.

Matt