Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Thu, 14 May 1998 20:24:39 +0100
On Wed, 13 May 1998, Magnus Berg wrote:
> Hmm... As you know by now, I'm not very well oriented in the djungle of
> -isms. But you're right, logocentracism seems to be what I described,
> and it disturbes me, because every time I try to pin down what I mean
> with SOM, there seems to be an -ism that says: "Hey, that's me!". That's
> not what I want, I want to generalize.
I believe that philosophy actually amounts to little more than
intellectual restlessness. Just looking at it historically we can see
that
it lacks both content and form -- there is neither a canon of "eternal
questions" nor any set system for approching questions. With that in
mind, I say: if you want want to find some box that you can use to
encumpass all of philosophy from Talese to Pirsig, G.F.L. The very fact
that philosophers disagree on what philosophy is and what the pay-off of
this activity should be indicates something very important.
What really intrests me is this: If philosophy is just a kind of
general intellectual restlessness, then how is it that such a thing has
come to be a school "disciplin" -- institutionalized? That's curious
(and
suspect).
>
> I have a suggestion though, would you agree that logocentracism denies
> the need for metaphysics?
No. Logocentracism is just the idea that there are certain
"facts
of the world" that are true independent of our knowledge of them. It
doesn't at all mean that we are familer w/ these facts and so it doesn't
denounce the need for intellectual, even philosophical, inquary.
Over against logocentracism is a view (frequently identified w/
"Postmodernism") that truth exists in context -- in a discourse or a
disciplin, but not indepent of such a thing. (W/o science there are no
scientific facts.) Postmodern art (which I know pretty well), for
example, is all about how what counts as "art" is culturaly determined.
"art" is not a trait found in the object itself but in the discorse
around
the object. Olenberg said that if I take something and put it in an art
gallery as if it were a sculpture, and prople come and look at it as if
it
were a sculpture and some collecter pays a large sum of money
appropreate
to a sculpture and takes it home and displayes it in his house as if it
were a sculpture... then it's a sculpture, and it doesn't matter at all
what the thing is. What matters is the way it's treated.
> If so, is it common, or maybe widespread, to
> separate philosophy and metaphysics. That thoughts about ethics and
> moral, what is right, is called philosophy whereas thoughts about what
> exists is called metaphysics? We've said time and again that the MoQ
> equals moral, value and reality, it's a bridge between philosophy and
> metaphysics.
I've never seen anybody distinguish between phil. and
metaphysics
that way. Usualy metaphysics is considered one division of phil. along
w/
epistomology (what is knowledge) aesthetics (what is art) ethics and
social philosophy, etc.
Now, a lot of philosophers nowdays say that metaphysics no
longer
has a place in phil. Phil. before WWI was very metaphysical, but in the
disilusionment of the war it was decided to be akin to astrology and
phrenology... mumbo jumbo w/o any sound bassis or claim to knoledge. It
is
the positiom of Positivism especialy that metaphysics should be thrown
out
because it has been replace (and properly so, they say) by chemistry and
partical physics. Scientist will tell us what really exists.
Now my answer to this is to say that while scientist look for a
catalogue or list of ontological fundamentals -- these are the things
the
world is made of -- metaphysics insted asks what counts as existence,
when
you say "Does X exist?" what do you mean by "exist?" -- In other words,
Metaphysics takes the question as a question and not as a blank to be
filled in.
Scientist are bussy constructing the correct picture of the
world
(CPOW), but they never stop and ask, as we can, what is the nature of
the
CPOW, what would count as having the CPOW, and what is such a thing used
for and by whom?
So, back to what you were saying, Metaphysics is nornaly
considered a part of philosophy, and by most people today, considered an
out-moded part. Ethics and social philosophy, for there part, have been
basically replaced by psychology, sociology and the cult of self-esteem.
Epistomology is still going strong in the form of formal
(math-based) logic, and aesthetics has (rightly so IMHO) been taken over
by the artist themselves -- modern and postmodern art comments on itself
and the art world. Art has become it's own self-analysis.
>
> Is SOM just one of those, never both?
Given that it is called S-O METAPHYSICS then I assume it refers
to
a (or a type of) metaphysical theory or approch -- It fits inside the
broader catagory of Metaphysics which fits in the broader catagory of
philosophy.
> Magnus
TTFN
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST