John quoting Auxier (I think):
"The fact that they are philosophizing poorly, dogmatically, even
sociopathically, is not a fine testament to the quality of their Princeton
educations. The content of their personally held ethic is that philosophy
should be practiced impersonally. Their objection to James is that he took
philosophy to be something practiced impersonally [sic]. ...enforcing the norm
is something that requires a plan of action to remediate, should it slip (which
obviously it has, if an interview committee could seriously ask about teaching
James, who, in spite of the judgment of these sociopaths, is quite possibly the
best philosopher America ever produced). ...Professional philosophy has become
a scam and must not be discovered as such, and its current practice entails a
paradoxical pose, the "lone wolf, profound, inscrutable interpreter of science"
which is now so often imitated that the swindlers themselves no longer realize
they participate in a great confidence game." -- Auxier, Time,
Will and Purpose pg 322
dmb says:
I'm pretty sure that I can see what's going on here.
It may be hard to see through all the slander and insults (against those who
"are philosophizing poorly, dogmatically, even sociopathically," and "these
sociopaths" who are running a "scam," and "the swindlers" who "participate in a
great confidence game") but Auxier is really just complaining about analytic
philosophers.
Analytic philosophy is (or was) the dominant style of philosophy in
English-speaking countries in the 20th century. It was born as a reaction
against the kind of Hegelian Idealists like Bradley and Royce. It effectively
killed idealism early in the century, which probably explains why Auxier has an
axe to grind and why John would enjoy Auxier's grinding noises.
The idea "that philosophy should be practiced impersonally" is more or less the
same as the "attitudes of objectivity" that Pirsig complains about. The
analytic philosophers generally see themselves and partners with science and
they tend to be physicalists and realists who treasure formal rigor above all.
In fact, most of the key founders were mathematicians or logicians.
But of course this style of philosophy is just one major kind of academic
philosophy. Usually analytic philosophy is CONTRASTED with a very different
style, which is somewhat misleadingly named "continental philosophy", referring
to the non-English speaking nations of Europe. Pragmatism is a homegrown,
English-speaking style of philosophy that is neither analytic nor continental.
Even further, analytic philosophy has been taking some fairly serious hits from
pragmatists for about 35 years. Richard Rorty gave a speech to the American
Philosophical Association in 1979 and it's still a bit of a scandal. Lots of
those analytic types hate Rorty with a deep passion. The James-basing anecdotal
conversation speaks to the hostility analytic types have toward pragmatism and
its resurgence. I'm sure it's fun for them to mock it because they know - on
some level - that it threatens their most basic views.
But you know what all these types of philosophers agree on? They all agree that
the misuse of words and concepts is a demonstration of incompetence and that
it's totally unacceptable. It's not even a philosophical issue but a fact
that's obvious to anyone who can read or think.
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/md/archives.html
