'My own eyes know because my own hands have felt.
'--quoted in Stephen Marglin, Losing Touch.
At the university the dominant way of knowing is via abstraction. A theoretical, epistemic approach that is detached from history, tradition, the passage of time, experience, an inter-action with other people; it is negligent of both specific places and the lived quality of time.
It is analytical, technical, dressed-up (or down) in mathematics which give it the illusion of complexity, the prestige of being 'scientific'. Cerebral and apparently universal, it offers little scope for judgement and plurality. This is what counts because, well, because it counts. Which is not to say that a system of knowledge comes to the fore because of its own internal coherence or its ability to explain things; quite the opposite! It is given prominence because it chimes with, and gives support to, the dominant forces in society (Keynes's point).
Is this just another version of the ancient war of philosophy against poetry? Religion can be poetical but it can also be philosophical. To the extent that it resembles the latter it can often assume the role of a system that stifles human creativity. Religion as a lived experience, away from the scholastic frame of mind, tends to be sceptical ("I don't know", "I'm not sure") and encourages discovery.
Of course, this is too extreme: techne and episteme can also interact with one another (the one doesn't necessarily have to crowd the other one out)
What do you actually know apart from a few tricks? A head stuffed with quotes and fragments, some slight technical understanding but in the larger scheme of things only a shallow understanding of human psychology (your own and that of others), only a dim awareness of what goes up to make a good life. there is no or little habitual reflection at the university on what the ends of knowledge are (beyond a stepping stone to even more useless knowledge or a certificate which allows you to make money).
Can philosophy console in the face of so much uncertainty, tragedy, suffering or is it really like a false idol, offering what is in reality a tawdry consolation to the vagaries of life but that is often in practice taken to be a superior kind of awareness?
What kinds of problems does philosophy address and with what methods?
'--quoted in Stephen Marglin, Losing Touch.
At the university the dominant way of knowing is via abstraction. A theoretical, epistemic approach that is detached from history, tradition, the passage of time, experience, an inter-action with other people; it is negligent of both specific places and the lived quality of time.
It is analytical, technical, dressed-up (or down) in mathematics which give it the illusion of complexity, the prestige of being 'scientific'. Cerebral and apparently universal, it offers little scope for judgement and plurality. This is what counts because, well, because it counts. Which is not to say that a system of knowledge comes to the fore because of its own internal coherence or its ability to explain things; quite the opposite! It is given prominence because it chimes with, and gives support to, the dominant forces in society (Keynes's point).
Is this just another version of the ancient war of philosophy against poetry? Religion can be poetical but it can also be philosophical. To the extent that it resembles the latter it can often assume the role of a system that stifles human creativity. Religion as a lived experience, away from the scholastic frame of mind, tends to be sceptical ("I don't know", "I'm not sure") and encourages discovery.
Of course, this is too extreme: techne and episteme can also interact with one another (the one doesn't necessarily have to crowd the other one out)
What do you actually know apart from a few tricks? A head stuffed with quotes and fragments, some slight technical understanding but in the larger scheme of things only a shallow understanding of human psychology (your own and that of others), only a dim awareness of what goes up to make a good life. there is no or little habitual reflection at the university on what the ends of knowledge are (beyond a stepping stone to even more useless knowledge or a certificate which allows you to make money).
Can philosophy console in the face of so much uncertainty, tragedy, suffering or is it really like a false idol, offering what is in reality a tawdry consolation to the vagaries of life but that is often in practice taken to be a superior kind of awareness?
What kinds of problems does philosophy address and with what methods?
1 comment:
Can philosophy console in the face of so much uncertainty, tragedy, suffering or is it really like a false idol, offering what is in reality a tawdry consolation to the vagaries of life but that is often in practice taken to be a superior kind of awareness?
it's a terrible but alas very apt question - it can be asked about art, too
best
fff
Post a Comment