In Philosophy class the other day I realized that it shouldn't be called a philosophy degree. It should be called intellectual history. My reason: in class the teacher said that our focus on the last paper should have been directed at what our chosen philosopher thought and why he thought it. If we only briefly mentioned it and then just moved on to our own ideas we were just making shit up.
Now I got a b on the paper so I didn't do too bad. But it got me thinking. This isn't logic, this isn't empirically verifiable. This is just metaphysics and some ethics. All this is is made up shit! Why is Nietzsche or Adorno given more credence than me in the making shit up department?
I see what he's saying... smart people, well educated, spent a lot of effort and have stood the test of time... I get that deal. We SHOULD learn from them and respect them. Most student are going to get cocky--myself included?--and just write there own thoughts. But hell... its still making shit up.
I think philosophy departments should be called intellectual history departments so that no one gets confused. You can have philosophical application classes where you get to use all these neat intellectual tools... but lets be precise in our language.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think the difference between us (you and I) and, let's say, Kant is how well our stuff "hangs together". I use "us" reservedly because you are much more versed in philosophy (intellectual history) than I am. Over the span of years, the great ones have a certain consistency of thought and expression that mere mortals lack. I find, personally, that over the span of time, my thinking fluctuates within a certain rational span. In short, I lack the clarity of focus of an Aristotle or Xeno. And then there is always, "How many economists can dance on the head of a pin". Keep the faith.
Post a Comment