Hi Steve, Steve said: Let me grant that you've successfully "fuzzed-up" the distinction between philosophy and philosophology that Pirsig and others would like to keep distinct. Though such categorizations can usually be fuzzied, can't they also still be useful such as that between erotic art and pornography?
Matt: Well, yeah, if I knew how to tell the different between philosophology and philosophy. Part of the trouble for me now, I guess, is that almost everyone I've talked to about this (over many years, I might add) has their own pet definition of how they use it, and when I respond to one point, someone takes me to task using their definition, and on and on. That's why the inquiry has to take on the first step: what, exactly, is the difference, and in taking that first step, have you exhausted your distinction? Because what I find, is that people give that nice and easy first step, and then when I talk about it, out come all sorts of hidden things I didn't know about from what they told me. Which is why I sometimes talk about just getting the hang of the distinction. Which is something like making an analogy between erotic art and pornography. When they asked the Supreme Court about porno, they said, "Well, I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." Which is fine, but why do I see philosophy everywhere, whereas some people see some philosophology in my field of vision? Am I less discerning? Does it matter that I'm less discerning, that I see the point in writing that other's don't see the point of, that _I happen to find wisdom in professional philosophizing?_ Does that matter? That's my real motivation. Why do some people want to disparage a source of wisdom by saying there is no wisdom to be found there, when some people do think they are finding wisdom there. Isn't that the flip-side of what Pirsig is making fun of in philosophologists? Steve said: You've said that Pirsig wants us to keep this distinction because it frees him from the criticisms of academia. Can you see any other purpose for which this distinction could still be useful? Matt: I think that's a very unfair characterization of what I've said about Pirsig. Pirsig doesn't want us to _keep_ the distinction for that reason, the distinction is just turned towards the purposes occasionally. Like I said, he makes the distinction to make fun of academics (which is fine), but then he wants to make a philosophical point (which I think is a problem). My entire second part of the paper is an attempt to figure out why Pirsig _actually_ makes the distinction, as opposed to what the distinction can _be used for_ (and Pirsig only occasionally uses the distinction to "ignore academia"--and if people think that's unfair of Pirsig's practice, remember the line in Lila when he says, roughly, "the academics have ignored me, and I've returned the compliment"). I think Gav talking about his educational experience gets the genesis of people enjoying the distinction about right. The reason I don't find any use for the distinction is because I just call bad philosophers out as bad philosophers--I don't think there are any behavioral critieria, any criteria about _how they philosophize_, that are able to capture a class of philosophizing that is by virtue of what it is fake philosophy. There's bad philosophy, and there's good philosophy. There's original philosophy, and unoriginal. And there's intellectual history, which isn't philosophy. I don't know who these people are that keep confusing intellectual history with philosophy that we need this extra word, but maybe when I meet one, I'll have a word to call him. Phil - o - so - pho -lo -gist. Def. Bad teacher of the subject of philosophy who confuses the activity intellectual history with the activity of philosophizing. Why can't we just call people bad philosophers? That way you stay completely clear of defining philosophy. Hey, if people want to say I'm bad at philosophy, then I know that what I write just isn't useful for them. When they call me a philosophologist, then I think they are taking on a task of defining philosophy. Matt _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
