The following is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on- line. The aricle might be worth reading if you think philosophy does not 'think' about practice. Kant, of course, produced a critique of practical reason. I generally think practice screws itself without much help from philosophy.
Practical reason defines a distinctive standpoint of reflection. When agents deliberate about action, they think about themselves and their situation in characteristic ways. What are some of the salient features of the practical point of view? A natural way to interpret this point of view is to contrast it with the standpoint of theoretical reason. The latter standpoint is occupied when we engage in reasoning that is directed at the resolution of questions that are in some sense theoretical rather than practical; but how are we to understand this opposition between the theoretical and the practical? One possibility is to understand theoretical reflection as reasoning about questions of explanation and prediction. Looking backward to events that have already taken place, it asks why they have occurred; looking forward, it attempts to determine what is going to happen in the future. In these ways, theoretical reflection is concerned with matters of fact and their explanation. Furthermore it treats these issues in impersonal terms that are accessible (in principle) to anyone. Theoretical reasoning, understood along these lines, finds paradigmatic expression in the natural and social sciences. Practical reason, by contrast, takes a distinctively normative question as its starting point. It typically asks, of a set of alternatives for action none of which has yet been performed, what one ought to do, or what it would be best to do. It is thus concerned not with matters of fact and their explanation, but with matters of value, of what it would be desirable to do. In practical reasoning agents attempt to assess and weigh their reasons for action, the considerations that speak for and against alternative courses of action that are open to them. Moreover they do this from a distinctively first-personal point of view, one that is defined in terms of a practical predicament in which they find ourselves (either individually or collectively—people sometimes reason jointly about what they should do together). On 7 Nov, 19:41, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hume eventually said one might as well be a philosopher as anything > else - meaning it as a way of life amongst many. Philosophers do turn > to practical matters and philosophising is part of social and science > activity. The immense precision of some science, including the > recognition we are still aproximating in setting quantitative > 'devices' (the Ludwig and Snell programmes) relies in part on > philosophical-logical methods. None of this helps get rid of Mugabe > very directly. I'm always genuinely impressed by good thinking, if > sometimes a little jealous of it. The books and papers have not > translated well into action, but as Chaz says (and does in his own > posts) there is some relief and importance to be gleaned. I once felt > we had the ideas and needed to get them into practically significant > action - believing there was an application methodology perhaps. I am > now more inclined to the view that we have serious pathology to > confront in communicative action - actually a very old story. Some > kind of use of history-philosophy as Chaz has often presented is the > beginning of an answer. I suspect we are trapped by the ease with > which lies and forgetting make our politics simple - yet surely > philosophy that is so complex none of us can understand much of it > cannot provide a democratic base? What philosophy can do is promote > ideas of what we could do socially. The ideas of Donaldson, Habermas, > Rawls and others all suggest the establishment of a tolerant, > communicative space for governance - we might add Foucault and Rose in > stressing this may only produce a govern-mentality of docile bodies - > perhaps village-idiot rule through an elite without integrity? > Philosophers have often been court-jesters. > > On 6 Nov, 16:31, "Strich.9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 31, 7:52 am, Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > frameworks of everyday life permutations, adding value to humanity. > > > > A Call for practical philosophy > > > There is work, and there is play. Which is more important? It > > depends. > > > There is practical science, and there is philosophy? Which is more > > important? It depends. > > > It depends on what your view on life is, what your situation on life > > is, and how much cognitive horsepower you were endowed with, among > > others.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
