Reply
Sun 30 Jul, 2006 06:24 am
Philosophy's Job: Critique Assumptions
While studying philosophy thirty five years ago I asked my professor "what is philosophy about?" He said to me "philosophy is radically critical self-consciousness". Today I think I now know what he meant.
First I will change his wording but not his meaning. Philosophy "is a self-conscious and radically self-critical form of enquiry".
All forms of enquiry are based upon some assumptions. Such assumptions as the world is orderly and can be comprehended by reason, the world operates by laws and is causally connected and can be measured; theology assumes the existence of God and the veracity of the Word.
Philosophers contend that the assumptions of an enquiry make that enquiry limited and distorted by those assumptions. These assumptions lead the enquiry to abstract certain aspects of the world and ignore others; an example in the natural sciences is that natural scientists ignore quality and focus on the quantifiable.
Philosophers argue that unlike other sciences (domains of knowledge) philosophy is radically critical and is self-conscious; it constantly criticizes its own assumptions. The examination of fundamental assumptions has been traditionally a distinctive preoccupation of the philosophical form of criticism. As an example, natural scientists are unable qua]/b] (in the capacity as) natural scientists to examine their own assumptions. This leads to the mistaken hubris that the natural sciences can serve as a model for other domains of knowledge.
Philosophy does not rest on unexamined assumptions; this means that while other sciences (domains of knowledge) are narrowly focused; philosophy is broadly focused and views the world as a gestalt, as a whole. Philosophy contends that its knowledge is not abstract but is concrete. Its knowledge is categorical.
While philosophers disagree on many things they seem to agree that 1) assumptions distort a domain of knowledge 2) non philosophical enquiries tend to advance claims that are universal and illegitimate. As a result the best way to counter this tendency is for philosophy to draw lines of demarcation of the general field of knowledge. Philosophy draws the boundaries between prevailing forms of inquiry.
To critique assumptions is a dirty job but someone must do it! Do you agree?
indeed.
but i'd like to add on.there can be no consensus to a discussion until the people involved in it try to understand or atleast make an attempt to understand the gravity and the whole of the perception of the other.one is a human , so is the other. no conception is lesser to the other.
in a nut shell..critisize to arrive at a solution to a problem that is mutually exluded from a personal opinion so that there is not an attempt to impress upon one's view on the other, but a united quest for an answer.thats healthy and the most important requisite for a discussion
Marco Lazzeri wrote:indeed.
but i'd like to add on.there can be no consensus to a discussion until the people involved in it try to understand or atleast make an attempt to understand the gravity and the whole of the perception of the other.one is a human , so is the other. no conception is lesser to the other.
in a nut shell..critisize to arrive at a solution to a problem that is mutually exluded from a personal opinion so that there is not an attempt to impress upon one's view on the other, but a united quest for an answer.thats healthy and the most important requisite for a discussion
It would be easier for the reader if the writer followed grammatical rules rather than streaming consciousness.
in many discussions i observed that one tries to impress upon the other,one's own view.infact i find myself doing it, at times.but if one attempts to understand wholely the perception of the other then arguments cease and there is a healthy and united quest to find a solution for the problem at hand.
this i consider to be a very important requisite for a discussion.
Coberst, I tend to use the word, metaphysical, to refer to that effort in philosophy that examines presuppositions, especially those that are tacit and fundamental. Most people refer to it, I think, either in the new age sense of pseudo-mystical phenomena or in any extra-physical sense of the world.
JL
I agree with you. Metaphysics kind of answers the question that are at the very begining for which there is no cause that can be illuminated. This gets to a book that I have been studying for about a year.
The book "Philosophy in The Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson describes what will be, in my opinion, the first paradigm of cognitive science. Cognitive science, as far as I know, began in the 50s with the advent of Artificial Intelligence, the attempt to use symbol manipulation with the aid of computers to simulate intelligence.
This new theory for cognitive science is challenging the very basic metaphysics of Western tradition. I find that this book provides me with a more satisfactory grounding for comprehending the nature of humanity than anything I have before gotten from philosophy.
I was not aware that philosophy was gainfully employed--and frankly, i don't believe it. I will continue to assume that philosophy is a sterling example of having no visible means of support.
Yes, Set. Philosophy, like true Science* and Art, must be done for their own sake, not as a means to security, power, wealth, fame, etc.. Of course I'm presently speaking from the best of all possible worlds. But as soon as a philosopher or artist begins to gain material from his craft, he is to some extent suspect.
* By "true science" I refer to so-called "basic science", the intrinsice pursuit of knowledge (for its own sake) of the experienced universe, and not the extrinsic engineering (mainly profit-seeking) intentions of so-called (applied) science.
Though a far humbler pursuit (in the eyes of some--notably, philosophers), the study of history has been the intellectual love of my life. I remain a student of history, as opposed to an historian, because i retain the love, and don't wish to pimp she whom i adore.
And it shows, Set. (your love, that is).
JLNobody wrote:But as soon as a philosopher or artist begins to gain material from his craft, he is to some extent suspect.
Suspect of what? I'd be interested to know, though it may be a topic for another thread.
Suspected of creating what will sell or win the approval of a "market" rather than being the expression of one's duende.
Remember, I'm speaking idealistically from the best of all possible worlds.
It does seem a bit idealistic to me to put those two in such a rigid opposition. I can't speak much for philosophers, but generally I'm willing to relax this binarism a little bit for artists; I'd like to think that artists in the 21st century have rediscovered that they can be true to themselves without erecting a facade of alienation. The default aversion to anything resembling public appeal seems just as superficial as what you're describing: in both cases, it is the appeal of others that governs the artist's actions.
Re: Philosophy's Job: Critique Assumptions
coberst wrote:Philosophers argue that unlike other sciences (domains of knowledge) philosophy is radically critical and is self-conscious; it constantly criticizes its own assumptions.
It seems to me that Wittgenstein pursued this aspect of philosophy to an extreme conclusion (there are no real philosophical problems -- only "word games").
Is my interpretation of Wittgenstein correct?
wandeljw
You are correct about Wittgenstein up to a point.
Wittgenstein argues that many so-called philosophical problems arise when "language goes on holiday". Recognition of this implies dissipation of "the problem". The question remains as to whether "dissipation"="solution".
Dissipation is a popular solution.
At what age did Wittgenstein pass over to the other side?
...in his early 40's (Born 1889 returned to Cambridge 1929).
Sorry ! That answer was for philosopher turned "anti-"
He died in 1951 (age 62).
Thanks fresco.
He was a near contemporary of Henry Miller then who went some way to demonstrating that dissipation actually is the solution. And look at Bob Dylan still belting it out and doing a radio show and writing another book and that's just with one hand and he's 65 I think.
He looks a bit dissipated though in certain lighting conditions.
Perhaps dissipation is the solution.
Have you read the two Burgess auotbiogs? It is quite funny. And you'll know the streets in Vol 1. (he he).
The best literature has all the philosophy anybody could ask for.
Do you think Wittgenstein's books are an autobiog of his cranial electrical circuits?
Shapeless, yes, I do (or did) acknowledge the extreme idealism of my statement of artistic principle. I have the impression, however, that the cynical contrast to my idealistic principle (i.e., that artistic expression must have, by definition, complete integrity) is most obvious among 21st century pop and conceptual "artists."
Fresco, my interpretation of language "going on a holiday" is that language fails us when it fails to realize its "constructivist" nature. Metaphorically, it consists, of human (intersubjective) "paintings" rather than of (objective) photographic "pictures," of reality. We must remember that in the beginning paintings--landscapes and portraits in particular--were treated as "pictures" of the world, before photography. Now they are explicit human constructions (about both external and internal worlds) as seen most obviously in abstract art.
JLN wrote-
Quote: I have the impression, however, that the cynical contrast to my idealistic principle (i.e., that artistic expression must have, by definition, complete integrity) is most obvious among 21st century pop and conceptual "artists."
Is that not just only one way of looking at it. The definition of artistic integrity, except in voluntary martydom cases, is always going to depend on the assertion of it and the skilful manner of their deployment.
Surely it must reside in the spectator.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace