Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!.misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <117400030@inmet>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 00:58:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117400030
Posted: Thu Sep 25 00:58:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 08:16:32 EDT
References: <15653@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Lines: 78
Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU:-1565300:inmet:117400030:000:3485
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 25 00:58:00 1986


[michael : m128abo@brahms.UUCP ]
[John]
>>> The average value of philosophy in the states can be approximate-
>>> ly measured by the number of philosophy books you can find in
>>> bookstores.  The current theme appears to be " business manage-
>>> ment " and " self help ".  Both these fields are symptomatic, and
>>> actually contain little or no insight into modern problems.

>> For this reason philosophers ought to be grateful to Ayn Rand, whose
>> philosophy books are in the bookstores and sell.  That can open the
>> market to others - e.g., those who would criticize her.

>> Even the cheap mysticism now flooding the shelves opens the way to
>> people who would start with debunking it, then propose their own
>> ideas.

>    Do you think that the presence of all that cheap mysticism has
>    opened the market to truly worthwhile mysticism? 

That's possible ; but I was speaking of rationalist  critique  of
mysticism.

>I'm about as sure of the answer to this question  as  I  am  that
>Rand's misosophy has been opening doors to worthwhile philosophy.

Do you really mean misosophy == "hatred of wisdom" - rather than
"bad", or "pseudo-", philosophy? I did not say Rand's books
*did* that; but that they could, if others used the opportunity.

Of course Rand's books are not the *only* ones that sell.   E.g.,
Russell is read - because he could write. So is Nietzsche, a very
different thinker - and a very different writer.  

>> A philosopher ought not to be snotty, but come to the readers and
>> begin by discussing *their* concerns in plain English (or whatever
>> the language of the land is).  It is easier for philosophers to do
>> than for anyone else, since philosophy is universal and applies to
>> everything (including self-help and even business management).

>    Certain areas, like phenomenology or analytic philosophy, indeed
>    seem to be difficult to put into plain language. I'm not sure
>    whether that is intrinsic to the subject matter or whether it is
>    due to an affliction that tends to characterize those drawn to
>    these pursuits.

Could also be a phase in the area's development.

>>Those philosophers whose work is esoteric and  unreadable  cannot
>>do  it, but that's only fair.  Why should laymen pay, directly or
>>through taxes or through tuition fees, for someone else's hobby?

>    Frankly, I don't think discussion about academic funding
>    belongs here, Jan. I respect your opinion on this issue, but
>    *please* keep political discussions in net.politics.theory, the
>    newsgroup intended for such topics. 

Well, I didn't start it; and it seems to me that funding of  phi-
losophy  belongs  under  both  rubrics of funding and philosophy.
However, rubrics are not worth arguing about - I give up. 

>    Now as to the question of whether current philosophy is important
>    enough to be classified as important research, is it your
>    opinion that what you apparently cannot or will not understand

What have *I* to do with it? ... Actually, I majored  in  mathemati-
cal logic once, so *some* of the difficulties involved are reduced for
me. Not all current philosophy is esoteric.
Important to whom and in what sense?

>    ("esoteric or "nreadable") must obviously be somebody's idle
>    "hobby"? 

"Important" and "hobby" aren't opposites. One can work on an  in-
vention as a hobby; it may turn out very important. However,
people who do not know that can't be expected to support it.

		Jan Wasilewsky