Some philosophers have physics envy, too, largely because they think that only real scientists get respect in the currency of contemporary culture.
Pitiful. Typifies what is wrong with academic philosophy. The obvious retort is. if you want to be considered a scientist, then do the math.
Oh right, academic philosophers in the US already did that by focusing attention on logical positivism in the early 20th century and then symbolic logic back in the Sixties.
Traditional inquiry about the enduring questions based on perennial wisdom went out the window. Just as contemporary New Classical economists do not read in the history of economics, so too, contemporary philosopher have abandoned the history of ideas.
As a result, philosophy now has bad name since it has not live up to its stated purpose, "philosophy" meaning love of wisdom. Contemporary academic philosophy aborted that search when scientists started getting all the respect, since they apparently felt left out, as McGinn's article shows.
The word “philosopher,” as everyone knows, means “lover of wisdom,” from the Greek. Its origin is sometimes attributed to Pythagoras, who is said to have coined it in order to distinguish people like himself from the sophists (both words have the same Greek root, “sophia”). Sophists, Pythagoras argued, are not genuine lovers of knowledge but only purveyors of rhetorical tricks, whereas another group of thinkers — those who possess a true “thirst for learning” — qualify as the real thing. This name stuck and came to be used to describe a very wide range of thinkers — anyone with a real intellectual interest. It is now, however, used extremely narrowly, at least within the academy, excluding people from most academic departments, but still applied to the few who study the subject now called “philosophy.”Those inquirers in other fields have new names more suitable to their specificity: physics, chemistry, biology, psychology and history among them. But philosophy is still called by the old highly general name Pythagoras introduced. And here we already see an obvious objection to the label: Isn’t everyone employed in a university, and indeed some people beyond, a “lover of wisdom”?
Most academics are not “sophists”! Physicists, say, have the attitude described as much as philosophers. But why should one particular discipline be characterized by reference to an attitude instead of a subject matter?
Here is a "philosopher" who does not know the meaning of the term "wisdom" as used by the ancients.
One the first day of my first class in philosophy in 1959 as a college junior, the meaning of "philosophy" was explained in detail. We learned that "philosophy" was Greek for love of wisdom and that "philosophy" in ancient times signified a way of life dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom. The goal of the genuine philosopher was to become a sage rather than simply a purveyor of information about the material side of life.
Significantly, the two most influential philosopher-sages in the West have been Socrates and Jesus, neither of whom either was an academic nor did either of them write a word. But their influence is still pervasive, and Western culture is inconceivable without their seminal contributions to living the good life and attaining wisdom, which Socrates called "self-knowledge" and Jesus "the kingdom," through the core spirituality taught by the sages of perennial wisdom of all times and climes.
Actually, I agree with McGinn that academic philosophy should change its name to distinguish itself as emulating scientists rather than sages. The present approach to philosophy in academia dishonors the discipline and has relegated it to comparative irrelevance.
OK, maybe I am being too hard on Professor McGinn. His work demonstrates keen interest in the most important philosophical subjects of the day, including the philosophy of consciousness, which is the next frontier. But I stand by what I have written about the views stated above.
Read it at The New York Times
Philosophy by Another Name
By Colin McGinn | Professor and Cooper Fellow, University of Miami
It's something that's bothered me for a while: why don't people who call themselves philosophers have the range, depth or even self respect to tackle the important issues of our time in a commprehensive way? The answer I usually give myself is similar to McGinn's; physics envy, etc. Part of what's wrong with philosophy is that someone can ask "what can you ever do with philosophy?" and the would be philosopher is stumped. The ancients always knew that the question was "what will philosophy do with you?" It was always understood in the sense of an initiation into the mysteries; an ongoing transformation involving the entire being of the subject and his relationship to the macrocosm.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid: It was always understood in the sense of an initiation into the mysteries; an ongoing transformation involving the entire being of the subject and his relationship to the macrocosm.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Most contemporary "philosophers" think that this is a quaint idea. As result this study has passes, ironically, to the science of psychology. William James was an American pioneer in this regard but was eclipsed by the rise of positivism and behaviorism. Then Abraham Maslow came along with humanistic psychology and then traspersonal psychology, leaving contemporary philosophers to their meanderings from wisdom.
Transpersonal psychologists are now integrating Eastern and Western approaches to psychological phenomena, such as extraordinary states of consciousness in addition to ordinary awareness and abnormality, with which empirical psychology had previously occupied itself with.
Fundamental philosophical questions remain that non-philosophers are not trained to deal with, however, and instead of picking up on this, academic philosophers have for the most part ignored dealing with these issues in their attempt to appear "scientific."
Thus, it is in other fields than academic philosophy that the best work in traditional philosophy is being done, and naturally, these thinkers are being considered philosophers, much to the consternation of people like Prof. McGinn. And instead of addressing the relevant people like psychologists Abraham Maslow, Ken Wilber, and comprehensive thinkers like R. Buckminster Fuller, as well as Western intellectuals that have been instrumental in integrating Eastern and Western though like Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, they are just either ignoring or dissing the competition.
This is not to denigrate the work of academic philosophers, much of which is contributory to knowledge. It's just that the basic orientation is off-course and needs to adjust to get back on track. Physics envy is a roadblock in the way of that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteMaybe what you are drawing attention to is simply not in the academe of Philosophy....
"8 Beware that no one shall be despoiling you through philosophy and empty seduction, in accord with human tradition, in accord with the elements of the world, and not in accord with Christ," Col 2:8
(simply 'Christ' in the Greek = 'annointed')
resp,
The Greco/Romans were on to it:
ReplyDelete"14 For whenever they of the nations that have no law, by nature may be doing that which the law demands, these, having no law, are a law to themselves,
15 who are displaying the action of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying together and their reckonings between one another, accusing or defending them,
16 in the day when God will be judging the hidden things of humanity, according to my evangel" Romans 2:14-16
So the nations didnt have the law, but some there could still exhibit righteousness. This imo was not dependent on the teachings of Socrates or any other so-called "philosopher", this was simply the exhibition of their true nature.
This is the same "nature" some of us are exhibiting today.
Resp
Tom, I think it was Schopenhauer who said that you could never be a true philosopher being an academic "philosopher". he was criticizing his fellow German contemporary philosophers (Hegel and Schelling amongst other).
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with his vision, in a modern capitalistic society if you have to earn your money developing thoughts and fitting into the establishment you can't be an honest original thinker. Pretty much the same thing could be said about economics unfortunately (there are always exceptions to the rule thankfully).
That said, I think there are some areas where philosophy still blends very well with 'hard' and 'soft' science and is very useful, from my personal experience I find the are of the philosophy of mind, epistemology etc. still contributes a lot to frame problems and language, which in the end is a lot about what philosophy is. But that is because probably this area still is very impermeable to science (despite all the advances and tries).
ReplyDeleteYes, Schopenhauer was, let us say, "displeased" with all the adulation lavished on Hegel, who was the dominant academic figure of his time. Some say "sour grapes." Others say that some are recognized in their own time and others only posthumously. Hegel was one of the few who was recognized in his own time and accorded great honor, while Schopenhauer had to wait. But that is true in every field.
ReplyDeleteIt's really only a problem for people with ego and crave fame, fortune, power, and pleasure. Those who are genuine philosophers — truth-seekers — don't care much for those things, which they regard as shiny trinkets that only serve to distract — trivial in comparison with the truly important. True philosophers — and here I include everyone who follows their muse — either don't mind working alone and unrecognized, like Marx, or they band together with others in alternative communities, creating their distinctive sub-cultures. They existing underground in repressive times and emerging to view in freer times like ours in liberal democracies, but they are generally found at the margin rather than forming the core.
As a radical personality-wise, I have always preferred alternative lifestyles. I have rejected many opportunities in the "insane asylum" without even thinking about it, preferring the "sane asylum" instead. It's basically a matter of interest. There is also an element of choice. What one puts one's attention on grows in one's awareness. We also choose our associations and what kind of institutions we wish to participate in.
However, I recognize that its takes all personality types to make a society and my preferred social solution is therefore libertarian, making space for different types to create the kind of live they want as long as they don't serious impinge on the boundaries of others.
If we all accept each others positive aspects, admit our negative aspects, and commit ourselves to cooperating to improve the positive and decrease the negative, we will all be better off than we would be by arguing about who is right and fighting for dominance.
Leverage: "That said, I think there are some areas where philosophy still blends very well with 'hard' and 'soft' science and is very useful, from my personal experience I find the are of the philosophy of mind, epistemology etc. still contributes a lot to frame problems and language, which in the end is a lot about what philosophy is. But that is because probably this area still is very impermeable to science (despite all the advances and tries)."
ReplyDeleteThis is happening in interdisciplinary studies, especially consciousness studies, which is concerned with the duality of subject and object, and transcending this duality, which is what perennial wisdom has been about since time immemorial. It is is even found to be highly developed in so-called primitive cultures. This is the next frontier of knowledge, and a great deal of work has already been done in it of late, since Maslow's revolution in psych made it academically reputable.