From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Apr 03 2005 - 09:07:50 BST
Matt:
> The "natural kind" of philosophy pans out, as far as I can see (and as I
> mentioned before), to the "problems of philosophy," whatever those may be.
I have before me a softbound book by Bertrand Russell that I've owned for
nearly half a century. It was first published in 1912. Guess what its
title is: . . . "The Problems of Philosophy". Sound familiar? Chances are
you've read this introductory gem on the substance of philosophy -- possibly
as a textbook in Professor Picart's class. In any event, I'll refresh your
mind by listing its 15 chapter headings, each of which essentially names a
specific problem.
I APPEARANCE AND REALITY
II THE EXISTENCE OF MATTER
III THE NATURE OF MATTER
IV IDEALISM
V KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE AND KNOWLEDGE BY
DESCRIPTION
VI ON INDUCTION
VII ON OUR KNOWLEDGE OF GENERAL PRINCIPLES
VIII HOW *A PRIORI* KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE
IX THE WORLD OF UNIVERSALS
X [ON] OUR KNOWLEDGE OF UNIVERSALS
XI [ON] INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE
XII TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD
XIII KNOWLEDGE, ERROR, AND PROBABLE OPINION
XIV THE LIMITS OF PHILOSOPHICAL KNOWLEDGE
XV THE VALUE OF PHILOSOPHY
Now, you tell me which of these problems have been satisfactorily resolved,
answered or are considered no longer worth discussing in the 83 years since
this little volume was published. (You'll probably want to add FREE WILL and
STANDARDS OF MORALITY to this list.)
These are the same questions debated in the Platonic dialogues of Socrates,
the epistemological arguments of Kant, Descartes and Locke, the psychic
investigations of William James, and the existential ontologies of Hegel,
Heideggar and Sartre. To the best of my knowledge we've yet to establish
that understanding "what the past was up to" helps us "decide whether or not
we want to continue doing it." All we know is that, in fact, we are still
doing it.
Can you honestly say that Philosophy has accomplished its mission, hence
must now become something else? Do you not see that perennial questions
like these relate to substantive issues still paramount in the philospher's
search for truth, and that they're being asked even here in the MD?.
> You think the "substance" of philosophy is eternal, perennial,
never-changing
> (oh, and also unknowable). Well, then how do you account for the
> conspicuous changes in philosophy?
What would you consider a conspicuous change?
> The fact that Plato isn't really
> interested in the same things as Descartes, and certainly not the same
> things as Carnap? Plato never had a picture of the "mind" as a
> philosophical concept. Plato never thought there was a problem with free
> will. How do you account for these changes?
These are not changes -- they're the topics of study which these particular
philosophers happened to choose. This is not to say that one philosopher
does not influence the next, or that a philosopher is not affected by other
knowledge sources available in his time (scientism, politics, religion,
etc.). But what you seem to be suggesting is that the history of
philosophical thought represents a continuous advancement in human knowledge
(or conceptual development), as does the history of science, technology, or
music. Apart from a growing thesaurus of philosophical terms, and some
novel, off-the-track approaches like semiotics and symbolic logic, I guess I
just don't see that advancement.
I do agree with the rest of your philosophological argument, except that I
think the theorization and presentation of new concepts in philosophy make a
greater contribution than historical reviews on the subject, and of course I
cannot accept your conclusion:
> I think modern philosophy has shown itself to be a dead end. We need to
> find something else for philosophy to be.
If philosophy comes to a dead end in our time, it will be a consequence of
the creeping nihilism in our culture for which we have only ourselves to
blame. Nietszche had a prophetic pronouncement concerning this: "God is
dead", he said; "and we have killed Him".
Sorry you have too much on your plate to review the Thorn essay.
Good luck on your projects,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 03 2005 - 09:10:35 BST