From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Jan 18 2004 - 16:29:30 GMT
Dear Matt,
You wrote 13 Jan 2004 15:07:56 -0600:
'If you can explain to me how philosophical analysis is different from
regular, plain old analysis, then we might be able to make a start. Its
what pragmatists have been waiting for for a while now.'
Well, taking Wilfrid Sellars' definition of philosophy, which you
appropriated, philosophical analysis differs from non-philosophical analysis
by keeping in sight how everything hangs together. Regular analysis may take
a part from a whole, subdivide it and take some of its parts to show how
they interrelate and ... forget to show how it is still a part of that first
whole. Philosophical analysis also differs because it deals with everything
('things in the broadest sense of the term') and doesn't exclude some of
it/them (e.g. subjective phenomena) in advance. So a MoQ (or PoQ if you
prefer (-:) always keeps in mind that everything hangs together as aspects,
levels etc. of Quality and doesn't exclude the subjective, that which tends
to escape regular analysis because it is too bound up with our own
viewpoint.
You agree that we need a shared vocabulary to get 'social stuff' (like
feeding, clothing and educating people) done. If you would be so kind to
also agree that a lot of social problems result from losing from sight how
people and societies hang together, you might appreciate that a shared
philosophical vocabulary could be of use.
As you 'don't remember the context of our dialogue':
The original question was contained in what I wrote 19 Nov 2003 23:19:15
+0100 (and repeated 22 Nov 2003 23:44:23 +0100):
'You wrote 17 Nov 2003 21:00:53 -0600 that "vocabulary" refers for you to "a
systematic arrangement" or "organization of your beliefs". You reject 18 Nov
2003 18:52:17 -0600 organizing your beliefs by means of "the standard
metaphysical questions about reality". How else do YOU organize YOUR
beliefs?'
You answered 23 Nov 2003 20:02:00 -0600:
'in the trivial ways that are left over after we don't take metaphysics
seriously ... broad, bland things like philosophical beliefs around
pragmatism, political beliefs around liberalism, etc'
After a detour about personal beliefs I returned 29 Nov 2003 23:43:52 +0100
to my 'metaphysical questions' as a better way to organize beliefs:
'So yes, the questions as I formulated them may be unimportant as a way of
organizing personal beliefs and experience. I'm not so sure however if they
are also unimportant as a way of organizing collective beliefs and
experience, the intellectual patterns of value that we share with lots of
other people despite the trivial differences between our beliefs and
experiences.'
You shifted 1 Dec 2003 13:00:00 -0600 the discussion to philosophy with:
'My doubt stems from the fact that I think philosophy in general is too out
of place in today's culture, and I don't think that necessarily a bad thing
(though most here would probably disagree). I would want politics placed at
the center of most people's belief structure, a sense of participation and
solidarity with their fellow citizens, not philosophy which I think a more
personal obsession.'
We then digressed somewhat about how your neo-pragmatism hangs together (if
not by answering metaphysical questions) and whether it has an alternative
for philosophy and metaphysics in enabling agreement between people about
important things like the truth of particular statements, the quality of
particular actions or whether something is common-sensical.
16 Dec 2003 18:11:52 -0600 you introduced the 'social stuff' that needs to
be done with:
'With the divisions you've made and they way it appears you are using them,
between intellectual and social basics, I don't care if I disagree with a
person intellectually, so long as we get the social stuff done.'
I then argued 19 Dec 2003 21:56:49 +0100 that we need a shared philosophical
vocabulary to 'get social stuff done'. You then protested against the
adjective 'philosophical' and that's were we are now.
So be warned: I'm going to try to bend the discussion back to the question
whether my original 'metaphysical questions' might not be useful after all
to get 'social stuff' done....
Summarizing the whole discussion:
You agree that people need a shared vocabulary to get 'social stuff' done. I
argue that my metaphysical questions (in your definition: philosophical
questions) can be useful to organize that shared vocabulary and thus to get
more 'social stuff' done or to get it done better.
The questions suggested were (as formulated in my 'economics of want and
greed'):
'1) How can we know? (epistemology)
2) What can we know? (ontology)
3) How can we know what we should do? (meta-ethics)
My answers are:
1) We can only know by experience.
2) Only Quality or value can be known experientially.
3) We can only know what we should do by attaching differential meaning to
alternative actions.'
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Jan 18 2004 - 16:28:56 GMT