[lit-ideas] Re: Gripes
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:45 -0500
I can't believe that MC is bored enough to respond to one of my posts..
MC:
> That's all fine, but does it add up to a reason why why should take
> your pronouncements about the nature of philosophy - what it *is* or
> especially what it *is not* - seriously?
Dear Michael,
In the six or seven years I've been a list member no one but Delia has ever
taken me seriously. Forgive me if I seriously doubt you're taking me
seriously here. If so, I shout halleluiah. I have arrived. Philosophy,
like Art, is whatever you want it to be. I want it to be an exercise in
logical, rational thinking. We've got politics, religion, literature, music
and all the plastic and performing arts to serve our irrational needs.
Somewhere in the humanscape there should be a monument to rationality. I
firmly believe that. Now, I also firmly believe rationality isn't possible.
At least not forwards. Backwards rationality is all we can really hope for.
Philosophy is justification thought out so almost non-contradictorily that's
it's beautiful -- yes, it's just another aesthetic exercise, but one that
everyone thinks they understand without any training. And we need that as a
species, don't you agree? Rationalization is what I do, rationality is what
you do. It's a matter of education, of sophistication. It takes very
little to convince that I'm wrong, because I've never thought I was right.
Right for me means interesting. You'd probably be disgusted by some of the
things I find interesting. Anyway, thanks for taking up the argument, but
as I said a few years back when I refused to cross a line that Robert Paul
had drawn in the sand: "My mama taught me to never get into a fight with a
professional fighter. She didn't raise no fool."
> > At least not in any Dr. Feelgood way.
>
> M.C. I don't know what you mean by this.
Yeah, you have to be familiar with a group called The Negro Problem. It's
from one of their songs. Pretty esoteric reference. Shouldn't have used
it, but I like pulling cheap shots like that.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Chase" <goya@xxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Gripes
>
> Le 20 ao=FBt 04, =E0 13:24, Mike Geary a =E9crit :
>
> > EY:
> >> 1. Given that many people often feel that life is hard to take: is
> >> this inevitable or not? Do we *have* to feel this way, or is there an
> >> option?
> >
> > I'm not sure what's given here. What does "life is hard to take" =
> mean?
>
> .M.C. If you had read P Stone's original message with care, you=20
> wouldn't have to ask this question. Read it again.
> >
> >
> >> 2. If there *is* an option, shouldn't it be at least a major part of
> >> philosophy's job to try to find ways of changing this situation?
> >
> > No. It's not. You might want it to be, but it ain't.
>
> M.C. Sez you.
> >
> >
> >> If it
> >> refuses or fears to concern itself with such questions, doesn't
> >> philosophy forfeit all claims to be taken seriously?
> >
> > No. Philosophy is not art, it's not religion, it's not psychology. =20=
>
> > I'm not
> > sure what philosophy is, but it's not any of those things.
>
> M.C. If you don't know what philosophy is, then how can you know what=20
> it's not?
>
>
> > I think maybe
> > the very last concern of philosophy would be how we feel about our=20
> > lives.
>
> M.C. Why is that?
>
> > At least not in any Dr. Feelgood way.
>
> M.C. I don't know what you mean by this.
>
>
>
> > Philosophy is about thinking
> > rationally -- maybe? At least, that's how I see it, and that's why I
> > chucked it, knowing I'd never succeed there.
>
> M.C. Let me see if I get this straight.
> 1. You don't know what philosophy is, but
> 2. You know what it isn't,
> --- and on the basis of this "knowledge"
> 3. You chucked it.
>
> That's all fine, but does it add up to a reason why why should =
> take=20
> your pronouncements about the nature of philosophy - what it *is* or=20
> especially what it *is not* - seriously?
>
> What about if the philosophy you encountered, and which =
> apparently=20
> gave you your current idea of philosophy (confused as it is) - was=20
> inadequate? Then the conception of philosophy you formed on its basis=20
> would be inadequate, too, nicht wahr?
>
> >
> Michael Chase
> (goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
> CNRS UPR 76
> 7, rue Guy Moquet
> Villejuif 94801
> France
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
