[lit-ideas] Antiphilosophy
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:09:25 -0400 (EDT)
Thanks to D. McEvoy for his remarks. I was thinking along his same lines.
Of course, what McCreery did was to paste the blurb for the essay he linked,
and indeed, there is a reference, in the words of the author, E. Banks, to
this remarks by this Polish "philosopher". Googling "antiphilosophical
philosophy" (I tried to check the originality of the writer) I came across
Tolstoy, and not much more.
Originally, if 'philo-sophy' is love of wisdom (or wisdom of love, as
Heidegger preferred -- it was a coinage by Pythagoras), then surely anyone into
'antiphilosophical' can play with things like 'hatred' (versus love) or
ignorance versus wisdom, and so on.
--- There is a point about McEvoy's remarks which is very interesting in
that philosophy seems pervasive and indeed you end up with the oxymoron of
antiphilosophical philosophy, which I am rewriting in the subject line to
this thus.
Cheers,
Speranza
-----
In a message dated 8/23/2012 5:51:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Theses for discussion on "anti-philosophy".
1. All (or nearly all) great philosophers are "anti-philosophical" in the
sense that they are against much or most of what passes for philosophy; and
not only against because its content is false or mistaken but because its
content lacks much value.
2. Nevertheless their own views can be regarded as philosophical - more
aptly than they can be regarded as something other than philosophy such as
science or art.
3. The stance of being "anti-philosophical" is as old as philosophy
itself: we may say that, at its most valuable, it represents the critical
tendency to question the value of philosophy itself, and to question its
character
and status - to apply the philosophical mode of thought, where this might
be regarded as the mode of critical reflection, to philosophy itself.
Indeed, the "anti-philosophical" views of the great philosophers were put
forward to develop and enhance what is worthwhile in philosophy by trying to
make
clear what is not worthwhile.
4. We may say that the "anti-philosophical" stance becomes uncritical when
it is used as a way to deflate any attempt at philosophy irrespective of
its content (and therefore of its possible value) - indeed, this stance is
uncritical to the extent that it fails to see that it is itself unavoidably
a philosophical stance, albeit one held (largely) uncritically.
5. We all, whether critically or uncritically, have beliefs and attitudes
that may be best described as philosophical - and these may even have an
important practical effect on the conduct of human affairs, including
possibly disastrous effects [e.g. the philosophical roots of 'historicism' and
'fascism']. This makes understanding and appreciating these beliefs and
attitudes, and their merits and demerits, something that is potentially
illuminating of our human life and also something that may be of great
practical
consequence for how we conduct our life.
6. Nevertheless we typically find the pursuit of philosophical knowledge
comes to a point beyond which it is hard to to advance much further, and so
a law of diminishing returns may operate in terms of philosophy as an
advance in knowledge. On the other hand, much of the value of philosophy may
lie
- as with art and even science (when considered as a purely intellectual
product) - not in some kind of measurable 'advance' but as a pursuit
enhancing our appreciation of life and its wonders
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
- » [lit-ideas] Antiphilosophy - Jlsperanza
