Posted by
Steve Smith on
Jul 10, 2009; 4:41pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Analytic-philosophy-Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-tp3235494p3240123.html
Owen Densmore wrote:
Nick, Glen, Russ, Eric, and many of us who have
participated in the recent spate of philosophical conversations .. I'd
like to ask a question:
Why is it that philosophy does not build on prior work
in the same way mathematics does?
Nice little riff starting here...
I'll try to combine my thoughts/responses into a single succinct (hah!)
mailing here.
I think Owen's question might be a bit specious. I believe that
philosophy *does* build on prior work. Eric speaks to this well in a
followup post I think. The point that philosophy might not do it "the
same way that mathematics does" is well taken however.
Personally, I believe that philosophy (by which I mostly
mean analytic)
is the larger system in which mathematics is grounded. I tend to view
it as if philosophers are trail-blazing mathematicians.
- Spaketh Glen Ropella
I think the first half of this point is key. Mathematics is grounded
in Philosophy... and essentially the part of philosophy which *can be*
cumulative in a way that the rest of philosophy (including the natural
sciences) cannot be. I think the second point is too strong, in the
sense perhaps that philosophers are trail-blazing thinkers and that one
likely consequence of their work is that mathematical formalisms will
be invented or discovered (pick your favorite way of thinking of these
things) to make their field of inquiry more rigorous.
One historic problem with philosophy, as a field of
inquiry, is
that whenever philosophers start to get too systematic, and start
building in
the way Owen desires, the bloody edifice off and leaves.
- Eric Charles
My interpretation is that when philosophers get too systematic, the
field of study becomes a formal field in it's own right. In a sense
Philosophy is the meta-system for thinking about things for which there
is no domain specific system or set of formalisms developed to support
the discourse.
Like onanism, philosophy passes the time, makes one feel
good and shouldn't be done in public.
- Robert Holmes (paraphrasing Karl Marx?)
It reminds me of the (unattributed) colloquialism that
"Opinions
are like arseholes, everybody has one but nobody is really very
interested in anyone else's."
I want to color this specious as well, though I suspect it was intended
to be (by both Robert and Karl). I believe that Owen's original
question and many people's general pissiness (including my own from
time to time) about philosophical discussions is grounded in this
feeling. One of the problems is that *everybody* is an amateur
philosopher (tar me with that brush) as are many of us amateur
mathematicians and scientists (do 30 year old degrees in mathematics
and physics make me a professional in those domains if I've only used
those skills tangentially in my life's work more as an innovator,
technologist, and maybe on a good day - engineer?)
At least some
of the recent discussion and controversy with Nick is symptomatic of
this
awkward relationship between psychology and philosophy.
- Eric Charles
Well said... I think this is an important and useful acknowledgement
in that particular ongoing freewheeling discussion.
Most of us here are learned people with inquisitive minds and a
penchant for rational thinking and an interest in complex systems and
technology. If anything, most of us here are
amatuers (in the
best sense) at many things including our various and chosen
professions... we are here for the
love of the pursuit. Many
of us know just enough Philosophy, Mathematics, Physics, Biology,
Psychology, Computer Science/Engineering to be dangerous. Those of us
with more formal education and practice in those fields, perhaps more
dangerous than those with less.
In a regular crowd (say a Biker Bar in Tularosa), I could claim
significant knowledge/grounding in all of the above (but I wouldn't
unless I was in the mood for a good tumble in the parking lot with my
new friends). In this crowd here, I expect to be trumped twice over
by a significant segment of the audience on any given topic. That is
half of the fun of this place, the breadth and depth of our comrades
here. Which by the way, is also half the fun of the imagined Biker Bar
in Tularosa.
All that said, I agree with the sentiment that Philosophy (as widely
practiced) does not have the rigor some of us are used to or at least
seek. As Glen and Eric pointed out... that is the nature of the beast.
To aggravate the situation, much "popular" philosophy as I've
experienced it is often little more than
sophistry and
rhetoric.
That gives Philosophy a bad rep/rap. Psychology suffers from similar
popular misuse to compound what Eric said above.
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org