[lit-ideas] Re: Auerbach on Mimesis
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:00:41 +0900
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It [philosophy] certainly used to encompass them all...pprobably still does.
>
I would say rather
It used to pretend to encompass them all but surely does not any more.
If we take Robert Paul's list of the Reed College philosophy department's
current offerings as a reasonably comprehensive description of what
philosophy encompasses, we can see at a glance that philosophy does not
encompass, for example, starting a business, cooking a souffle, playing a
saxophone, building a wall, dancing the Gay Gordons, trapping a muskrat....
the list of possible examples is endless.
The philosopher may answer that all of these activities can be treated
philosophically, i.e., reflected upon with an eye to the kinds of problems
with which philosophers preoccupy themselves (see the course list for
examples). But the difference between "encompass" in this abstract
philosophical sense and knowing anything in particular about the activity in
question is vast and frequently palpable.
Which brings me back to the question what, specifically, is this activity
called philosophy? Professor Paul tells us that it lies, with many other
activities, in a space of difficult problems that appear resistant to
scientific experiment or mathematical equations. But a lot goes on in this
space with which philosophers (judging by the course list again) have little
or nothing to do. How do we pick philosophy out of this morass?
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
