On 12/27/06, wokshevs@xxxxxx <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:
W: The passage from Langer as presented is quite ambiguous. It invites at least 2 different responses depending upon how "the desire to deal with general ideas from the outset" is understood. 1) We hope that CG had a general idea of the "whatever" he was trying to understand before plunging into the thickets of empirical description, 2) No serious philosopher understands "the business of philosophy" in the manner portrayed by SL.
Re 1: It is quite clear from Geertz' career that he had a great many general ideas. What he also had was a personal and professional discipline that prevented his assuming that any one (or any combination) of them "applied" (like a cookie cutter to dough) to the events he was trying to understand. His advice was to always be aware that having multiple ideas in play is the normal state of human interaction. Thus, as in the famous example he borrowed from Gilbert Ryle, a tic may be a wink, an actor simulating a wink, or only a tic to the person whose eye is in question but perceived as a wink or a bit of more or less subtle or clumsy theater by others. Re 2: This "no serious philosopher" business carries no weight without some explication of what serious philosophers actually do and a method or criterion for distinguishing the serious from the non-serious ones. As it stands it is nothing more than a bit of professional arrogance, in no wise different from a Duchess peering down her nose and saying "We...don't do that sort of thing." (Which could, following Ryle, be an example of a real Duchess expressing real snobbery, or an actor playing a Duchess and speaking the line as a moment of pathos in a tragedy or a send-up in a farce.) Shall we make merry by discussing these things? John -- John McCreery The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN http://www.wordworks.jp/