RE: the unexamined life (was: Me and my macaroni)

Laughing Man (the_laughing_man@hotmail.com)
Thu, 05 Aug 1999 09:20:02 -0700 (PDT) 

Existentialism, Trancendentalism, Hedonism,
>Utilitarianism, tis the essence of these things.  But if your talking
>about Logical Positivism, Empiricism, Rationalism, Logistics, and
>Analytics well then I'd say you're on the wrong track.
>Unfortunately much of todays Collegiate Philosophy concerns it self with
>it self.  Stock Philosophers take jabs at doctrine, trying to exploit
>small chinks in armor, failures in language, but missing the larger point.
>Philosophy in the raw fails because language is imprecise.  Only
>Philosophy bound with the ambiguity of Literature stands a chance of
>evading the snipe hunters and getting something "writ large."
>
>    As a former philosophy major I can say, study philosophy.  Ignore the
>contemporary philosopher.

Hmm. I guess a similar argument could be made, for example, about 
contemporary natural science. Most experimental physicists are definitely 
trying to exploit  “small chinks in armor”, looking for particles smaller 
and more temporary that ever before, whereas the great unified theories 
occupy a few small groups of mathematicians doing string theory or something 
like that. But does that mean we could do without all those chink-searchers? 
I believe not. THEY are the ones validating the holistic approach of the 
Dreamers.

Analytical philosophy in all its flavors, have had a gigantic impact on the 
philosophical community of this century, and for some very good reasons. It 
does very much occupy itself with the problem you characterize
”Philosophy in the raw fails because language is imprecise”. It may seem 
hard and academic, esoteric languages amongst a small circle of colleagues, 
but it is not useless. Much the opposite. Many philosophers may be 
“experimental physicists”.  But that is not to say they should be ignored.

Having said that (I didn’t know I was that fond of analytical philosophy 
until this moment), I agree many modern philosophy scholars are doing not so 
important stuff. “Too many guys sitting underground looking at accelerators 
crashing electrons.”

If your interested, take a look at some great author like Bertrand Russel in 
History of Western Philosophy (a great reference work) or the really 
inspired ones like Kierkegaard or “Neecha” (Scottie’s spelling), or even Zen 
and the art of MM, if it amuses you. Whoever stirs your thought. But I think 
it is as unwise to disrespect modern (western) philosophy as it is to say 
that the post-structuralists are all phonies (Or were they only badly 
translated?).

Maybe most of us are somewhat flirtatious on/in/to/whatever [why do I always 
use words I can’t handle – d**n foreign languages, why can’t we all speak 
Swedish or something easy to understand and use! Gimme another try: ], maybe 
most of us at least are a bit fond of eastern philosophy. In my mind, most 
Salinger-fans are. But can’t we like the “other side” as well. For me, most 
Salinger characters (like Zooey) are open-minded and narrow-minded at the 
same time. That is something I really like. Stating “Jackie Collings is a 
bad writer and should be avoided” is not narrow-minded, but saying modern 
philosophy should be avoided, is.

Sorry for my ramblings. We have absolutely no air here in Stockholm today, 
humidity being 139% and the temperature something like that also (in 
Celsius). I’ll be returning to my usual NICE rambling posts tomorrow.

Be good
/TLM


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com