🚀 go-pugleaf

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:


In article <854@klipper.cs.vu.nl> biep@cs.vu.nl (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) writes:
>[..a reply to Sarge on methodology..]

Sarge, in article <91@thirdi.UUCP>, Bob Myers in another article, and myself
in email have suggested quite strongly that Biep is using the word
`methodology' wrongly, taking it to be much stronger than it really is.
Elsewhere, I have admitted to attempting to redefine `philosophy' (see below).
Is Biep trying to redefine `methodology' or not? I think we should be told! ;-)

>To Robin about your definition of philosophy: 
>[..]
>I think, however, that
>the arts and the social sciences (including psychology) cannot take over
>aesthetics from philosophy.

I'm not talking about anything `taking over' from anything else. I said that
the notion of beauty is a fitter subject for the arts and psychology, than
for philosophy. Aesthetics in that case would no longer exist.

>Just like psychology cannot take over the
>philosophy of truth and logics, it cannot take over that of beauty:

Did I say the philosophy of anything should be taken over by anything else?
There may be aspects of the concept of beauty which are suitable for
philosophical analysis. I am not aware of them. Allowing, for the sake of
argument, and given the history of aesthetics, that they probably do exist,
I would maintain that our reaction to beauty is primarily an emotional one,
and that the subject is more suited to those methods which are explicitly
designed to deal with emotions, ie the arts and psychology. Philosophy
might still be used to deal with those aspects (few, if any, in my opinion)
of beauty to which it is suited.

>there is a way difference between the philosophical notion of truth (below the
>level where philosophers start disagreeing) and any psychological notion
>of conviction or whatever. There has to be.

Not only is there a difference between them - the connection is extremely
tenuous. A psychologist might investigate a philosophers conviction about
truth. That is about as far as it goes. Did I say that the study of truth
should be taken over by psychology?

>About "arts": do you think about people like sculptors, or about "the arts"
>as given at universities (humanities and the like)?

Both.

>Anyway, I think both
>have a different point of view than philosophy has.

Couldn't agree more. Thank goodness for that.

Like most people, I'm basically quite lazy, and *HATE* having to repeat
myself, but: philosophy is not primarily a subject area, but a method for
application to other subjects. So there is no question of `taking over'.
Philosophy is meta-everything else. It is like an intellectual equivalent
of Lapland, which is not a sovereign state in itself, but comprises the
northern parts of a number of sovereign states. When a new subject is
borne, it almost inevitably derives from reflection, which is a *very*
loose form of philosophy. Eventually it `graduates' and becomes distinguished
from philosophy, except for it's meta-parts, which are suitable for
philosophical analysis. It seems to me that we are not at the end of history;
a number of graduations from philosophy have yet to take place. When they do,
all that will be left is conceptual analysis. This is what has been left by
those subjects which have already graduated. Amoung those which have not, it
is possible to discern areas which should have, if the philosophers concerned
were really up to date and open minded about developments outside philosophy,
and areas which have much in common with the graduands, especially a
developing method, which will no longer require philosophy when it becomes
established and uncontroversial.

So, I suppose I should really say, philosophy is the attempt to discover
and propagate conceptual truths, and the mother of other subjects.
Pure, unmixed philosophy is the former. As the latter, its state is
conditional and temporary, ever changing, losing its children as they mature
(though hopefully maintaining some kind of relationship with them),
conceiving others, *perhaps*, one day, to reach the menopause and conceive
no more - though that will not diminish its own, intrinsic value!

>						Biep.  (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
>	Their extreme materialism is proven by the fact
>	 they say "nobody" when they mean "no person".

Take it easy, Biep!

Robin    rjf@ukc.ac.uk