hell’s handmaiden

I’ve recently been told to act like a philosopher. I shot off a response, which is reproduced here in part, but I’ve continued to think about that admonition.

Act like a philosopher? What exactly does that mean?

Do I deny myself all passion? Do I wrap my convictions in dull prose? Perhaps I should speak only in syllogism?

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. ∴ Socrates is mortal.

Or restrict myself to symbolism?

1. T • (U ν V)
2. T ⊃ [U ⊃ (W • X)]
3. (T • V) ⊃ ∼(W ν X) /∴ W ≡ X
4. (T • U) ⊃ (W • X)
5. (T • V) ⊃ (∼W • ∼X)
6. [(T • U) ⊃ (W • X)] • [(T • V) ⊃ (∼W • ∼W)]
7. (T • U) ν (T • V)
8. (W • X) ν (∼W • ∼X)
9. W ≡ X ((taken from Irving Copi’s Introduction to Logic, 5^th Edition))

Or wrap my thoughts in jargon until comprehension becomes something possible only for those who specialize in a sub-sub-sub-field?

Or spend my time arguing over exactly how many grains of wheat it takes to make a heap?

No. I think not.

Looking back over the history of philosophy it occurs to me that the “tuck oneself away in a cramped office and contemplate” stereotype is fairly new. Socrates did not shy away from stopping Senators in the streets so that he could help them make fools of themselves. Pretty much the whole of the Greco-Roman cynic/stoic crowd followed his lead, even ramping up the abrasion by several notches. Jesus, at least as portrayed in the Bible, was rather abrasive and even insulting, as were his Old Testament predecessors. Roger Bacon was, well… “Roger Bacon is a polyvalent figure — dedicated, irascible, caustic, vain, credulous, and critical. With few exceptions he despised his contemporaries, and he voiced his views in untempered language. His jeremiads become tedious, his promissory notes seem unredeemable, his self-importance is comic.” Voltaire insulted more than a few of his contemporaries, while Spinoza managed to get himself accused of ‘abominable heresies’ and ‘monstrous deeds’. One of my favorites, Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, had a rather nasty spat with Isaac Newton over which of them had invent calculus first. David Hume, another favorite, wasn’t timid about what we should do with “any volume of divinity or school metaphysics”. He suggests that we “Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” Schopenhauer got himself banned from his own mother’s house. Nietzsche was not known for tact. And the list goes on…

So, to the question, “Ought a philosopher be a passive and unobtrusive wallflower?” the answer has to be “no”. The role of philosopher certainly does require a commitment to the truth, and to its defense; and to argument rather than simple assertion. What I don’t see is that to be a philosopher, one must be nice. Philosophers have never been much like that until recently. A person, after all, has to make some noise to be heard, and twelve page essays on the meaning of the word “bald” just don’t do it. I tend to, or perhaps just want to, blame the change on analytic philosophy, whose practitioners made something of a badge of honor out of dull mediocrisy. As Peter Suber writes much more politely, “The English-speaking analysts thought the analysis of language could deliver on the ancient promise to produce knowledge from philosophy —to churn the void and make cheese, as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it. Analyzing language was not grandiose and that was the point; it was humble piece-work that inspired hope precisely because it stayed close to the ground.” But as Suber also writes, and I have to concur, the Continentals are not guiltless– “One reason why philosophy seems to have died is that major figures from both camps, who agree on little else, seem to agree that it has died.” And I suspect it is why the mother of our modern intellectual disciplines is almost entirely ignored in this modern world, despite it’s continued relevance and despite this modern world’s desperate need for her. Why bother watching the game if all sides have given up, yet keep prattling like little old ladies with a need to talk but nothing to say?

Popularity: 1%

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pm and is filed under Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.