[lit-ideas] Re: Meta-Philosophy
- From: Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Paul)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Aug 2004 19:06:16 PDT
JL writes:
>Well, some say that 'what is philosophy' is a _meta-_philosophical question,
and why can't an answer to that question be given which is _sociology_or
_history_-based?<
There might be sociological or historical accounts of what philosophers do (such
studies and accounts of what physicists do are fairly frequent), but neither
could establish what philosophy _was_, for any such investigation would have to
begin with an answer to the question 'What is philosophy?' in hand. No
quasi-empirical investigation can investigate what philosophers do unless it can
distinguish between philosophers rightly so-called and other sorts of people.
Metaphilosophy, the journal, assumes that its audience is (mostly) philosophers,
and further assumes that it can carve philosophy at the joints without quibbling
over what philosophy is 'really.' (I know this a priori.)
Robert Paul
The Reed Institute
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
