Get a call from ambs at 12. Could I introudce tim Williamson and organize the discussion with the students over Skype.
Yes, sure. When is it?
Three hours.
Bugger!
~~~
Williamson has written six books, 180 articles, taught at Oxfrord since 2000 and is a visiting Professor at MIT, Michigan, ...
First impressions: something of a boffin, one of those intensely private people, the sort of academic's academic.
The philosophy of philosophy.
Given science is the dominant paradigm how can philosophy justify it's own approach, and what is distinct about the philosophy of philosophy? Why not rely on the sciences (pure or linguisitcs or sociology) to understand life, the world?
Why should philosophers be content with sitting in their armchairs, thinking they can grasp some truth without engaging with the world, without subjecting their theories to the possibility of refutation? One response to that is to say that they do require 'verification' from other people in the world. The meaning of the words they employ, for example, only make sense in relation to their association with public rules, public understanding of the concepts. There are no private definitions. But if that's true, then why not just stick with linguistics? What is distinct about philosophy?
Thought experiments. Through a simple (not necessarily extreme) case or situation, one can derive quite a lot, get quite far in our understanding of the internal relations between concepts.
For example, a simple definition of a man: a non-feathered bi-ped. But one could, presumably, pluck the feathers of a chicken and yet that would not be Man (and why bother with the act..one could imagine doing so and conclude: this is not Man). So, logic and consistency can get us some way, remove illusions, help us see more clearly. Isn't that what philosophy is about?
Williamson's other example: in a society of masochists a great amount of pleasure might come about by seeing a man tortured on television-more overall pleasure, that is, than the tortured person's displeasure. And, again, through this thought experiment we might plainly see that Utilitarianism is problematic.
Intution and reason:
...
~~~
Don't think T.W. really gave a good answer to my question. Whilst logic or reason might give us some sort of rough defintion of a human being (by ruling out certain features) it doesn't help very much if we want a positive or drawn out picture of what she is, what we are. For example, to get any idea of what a human response to the torture example might be, we surely need a deeper understanding of humanity than that which is provided by science?
Can one really see clearly by just examining the facts, as it were, and then making a decision, or do values come in much earlier: in the way we pay attention to certain features of a situation in the first place, or how our sense of 'higher' and 'lower' structures our ongoing reflections?
~~~
The temptation to withdraw from the human world has always been a part, paradoxically, of the human world itself. The means may change over the years but the impulse remains the same. Academics-the one's who haven't been enamoured with notions of 'success'-are really just modern gnostics or monks/nuns.
Boredom: could our parents' generation even contemplate such a thing? I somehow doubt it. And yet there was so little to 'do' in those days!
There is time when one wants to be alone with one's thoughts; but there is also a time when one wants to be alone, away from one's thoughts. There is a negative way of reaching that emptiness: through hate, drugs...
Yes, sure. When is it?
Three hours.
Bugger!
~~~
Williamson has written six books, 180 articles, taught at Oxfrord since 2000 and is a visiting Professor at MIT, Michigan, ...
First impressions: something of a boffin, one of those intensely private people, the sort of academic's academic.
The philosophy of philosophy.
Given science is the dominant paradigm how can philosophy justify it's own approach, and what is distinct about the philosophy of philosophy? Why not rely on the sciences (pure or linguisitcs or sociology) to understand life, the world?
Why should philosophers be content with sitting in their armchairs, thinking they can grasp some truth without engaging with the world, without subjecting their theories to the possibility of refutation? One response to that is to say that they do require 'verification' from other people in the world. The meaning of the words they employ, for example, only make sense in relation to their association with public rules, public understanding of the concepts. There are no private definitions. But if that's true, then why not just stick with linguistics? What is distinct about philosophy?
Thought experiments. Through a simple (not necessarily extreme) case or situation, one can derive quite a lot, get quite far in our understanding of the internal relations between concepts.
For example, a simple definition of a man: a non-feathered bi-ped. But one could, presumably, pluck the feathers of a chicken and yet that would not be Man (and why bother with the act..one could imagine doing so and conclude: this is not Man). So, logic and consistency can get us some way, remove illusions, help us see more clearly. Isn't that what philosophy is about?
Williamson's other example: in a society of masochists a great amount of pleasure might come about by seeing a man tortured on television-more overall pleasure, that is, than the tortured person's displeasure. And, again, through this thought experiment we might plainly see that Utilitarianism is problematic.
Intution and reason:
...
~~~
Don't think T.W. really gave a good answer to my question. Whilst logic or reason might give us some sort of rough defintion of a human being (by ruling out certain features) it doesn't help very much if we want a positive or drawn out picture of what she is, what we are. For example, to get any idea of what a human response to the torture example might be, we surely need a deeper understanding of humanity than that which is provided by science?
Can one really see clearly by just examining the facts, as it were, and then making a decision, or do values come in much earlier: in the way we pay attention to certain features of a situation in the first place, or how our sense of 'higher' and 'lower' structures our ongoing reflections?
~~~
The temptation to withdraw from the human world has always been a part, paradoxically, of the human world itself. The means may change over the years but the impulse remains the same. Academics-the one's who haven't been enamoured with notions of 'success'-are really just modern gnostics or monks/nuns.
Boredom: could our parents' generation even contemplate such a thing? I somehow doubt it. And yet there was so little to 'do' in those days!
There is time when one wants to be alone with one's thoughts; but there is also a time when one wants to be alone, away from one's thoughts. There is a negative way of reaching that emptiness: through hate, drugs...
No comments:
Post a Comment