[lit-ideas] Re: Meta-Philosophy
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:27:00 EDT
Donal McEvoy writes:
>>It seems to me there is no real need to view the
>>philosophical discussion of the character of philosophy
>>as 'meta-philosophy' in any important sense,
>>'Meta-philosophy' has a somewhat pretentious title.
Geary comments:
>God, I love this list.
----
McEvoy may recall that this alll began with Geary who causally said -- in
reply to Erin Holder's passing scepticism about philosophy. Trying to console
her, Geary claimed:
"I don't know what philosophy is, but I know what it is not".
Chase found that slightly absurd, and R. Paul tried to re-label the inquiry
into "meta-philosophical" terms.
It _may_ be pretentious, but remember that sometimes, pretentious sobriquets
_catch_ the attention, which was what Geary was aiming at.
I stand firm with my previous opinion. Surely a _non-philosophical_ answer
can be given to 'what is philosophy?'. Ditto, a non-artistic answer can be
given to 'what is art?' However, if a _philosophical_ answer is given, we call
this 'meta-philosophical' (to distinguish it from other answers to the
question
which may not be philosophical).
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
