Investigation and Interpretation

[kennethamy]

There is now, on this forum, an opportunity to witness, in action, a stark contrast between philosophy as investigation, and philosophy as interpretation. See the threads on the definition of reality, and on knowing that one knows, on the one hand, and the discussion of the groups on Nietzsche on the other hand. And notice too how the discussants of each tend to keep apart. It is quite fascinating. It is as if philosophy was two different subjects.
Neither group seems to take the slightest interest in the other group.

[Reconstructo]

It's the tortoise and the hare, analysis versus recontextualization. Both sides obsess over language, but with a different focus.

[Zetherin]

I'd rather discover truth than ponder over what some dead, old man wrote in a book. I'm much more interested in content rather than interpretation and literary qualities. Philosophizing as if it were literature class just brings me to tears.

Sorry, that sounded incredibly rude! To each his own, no offense! Man, what I wrote sounds really immature. I can't remove it though, lest I be dishonest with myself and others.

[Reconstructo]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Philosophizing as if it were literature class just brings me to tears.

This goes back to the logic/rhetoric tension. How much philosophy gets accomplished in the absence of figurative language? Wittgenstein wanted to show the fly how to get out of the bottle. To me, this is "literature" as well as philosophy.

It's not that I'm saying philosophy should be literature, but that it always has been literature, despite its pretensions to transcend literature. It offers heroes and journeys, slaves in caves, flies in bottles.

Most philosophy that has mattered is grounded, in my opinion, on figurative language. Thinking itself is largely figurative.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

It's the tortoise and the hare, analysis versus recontextualization. Both sides obsess over language, but with a different focus.

I am not interested in linguistic analysis. I am interested in spiritual awareness and what it takes to facilitate it. It is a hard thing to explain unless you kind find some common ground with the person you are talking to. Anyway I explained my orientation in this post - basically my view is theosophical rather than philosophical. 'Theosophy' has a very specific meaning - it is like a subset of philosophy, or the intersection between philosophy and contemplative religion. And I have repeatedly said I understand and acknowledge the difference between Western academic and analytical philosophy and the approach I am taking, but I don't think anyone knows what I am talking about, really.

hence the problems.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

I'd rather discover truth than ponder over what some dead, old man wrote in a book. I'm much more interested in content rather than interpretation and literary qualities. Philosophizing as if it were literature class just brings me to tears.

.

I agree, except for the personalities involved. It is not pondering about dead old men, they do it over live middle-aged men. The problem (for me) is this interminable roundabout of interpretation and "recontextualizing". (Particularly when, as in the case of N. I could not give a damn what he said, or did not say, and cannot understand why anyone would). I have never even head that word "recontextualizing" before, and I don't quite know what it means. But it is sure boring. It is as if there were a guru, a fount of wisdom, and philosophy is about finding out what truths are spouted, rather than critically thinking about philosophy. I bet that even N. would be bored.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

There is now, on this forum, an opportunity to witness, in action, a stark contrast between philosophy as investigation, and philosophy as interpretation. See the threads on the definition of reality, and on knowing that one knows, on the one hand, and the discussion of the groups on Nietzsche on the other hand. And notice too how the discussants of each tend to keep apart. It is quite fascinating. It is as if philosophy was two different subjects.
Neither group seems to take the slightest interest in the other group.

It is as if philosophy was two different subjects.

There are many divergent schools, trends, and traditions in philosophy. But almost anyone in any of the traditional schools have more in common with each other, than any of them do with 20th Century philosophy and scientific materialism.

---------- Post added 02-10-2010 at 09:41 AM ----------

The other point Kennethamy, and I do admit I become piqued at times, is that I try and explain my perspective, which I realize is not a mainstream perspective to many people, and basically feel like it is being ridiculed. At that point I am inclined to give up, and may yet.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

There are many divergent schools, trends, and traditions in philosophy. But almost anyone in any of the traditional schools have more in common with each other, than any of them do with 20th Century philosophy and scientific materialism.

I don't understand what you mean. What are the "traditional schools"? I should have thought that both Socrates and Descartes would understand what Ayer or Quine were doing and saying than they would understand what Derrida or Foucault were doing or saying. And certainly, neither was interested in interpretation or reinterpretation of previous philosophers. Indeed, Descartes' mission was to reject his tradition.

I cannot honestly remember any time I ridiculed you. If you think I did, why don't you send be the posts where you think I did. I did strongly tell you the truth as I saw it. It reminds me of something that Harry Truman said when, at a rally, he was lambasting the Republicans, and the audience began to chant, "Give 'em hell, Harry!" And Truman replied, "I don't give them hell, I just tell them the truth, and they think it's hell!".

[jeeprs]

When I use the word 'traditional' I am referring, or harking back, to the pre-modern outlook. I am also referring to the 'sapiential' aspects of the traditions, those aspects specifically concerned with the practice of 'spiritual illumination'. They are slightly outside what is regarded as the mainstream tradition, although at the time, they probably were not.

Originally Posted by kennethamy

And if "all the spiritual philosophies" declare there are higher, more refined states of awareness, again, that is no reason to think that there are such things, or that there is something these "awarenesses" are aware of. People on drugs also declare that they are "aware" of higher states of existence. But there is no reason to think this is true. Indeed, the fact that such people are drugged is a good reason to think it is not true. Just as the fact that the pink elephants that drunks declare they see probably do not exist since they are "seen" by drunks.

And this is where I took umbrage. If you are inclined to think that higher states are comparable to drug-induced fantasies or intoxication then there is probably nothing I can say. The reason why is that in order to investigate the matter, I think there has to be some willingness to entertain the perspectives they offer and see things from their viewpoint. To be honest I can't ever see that happening in this dialog. Presumably you have no reason to believe that any of these things are true, and if that is the way you see it, then you are correct in saying that we will have no common interests. At least we are getting close to understanding why, though.

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

ndeed, Descartes' mission was to reject his tradition.

But Descartes was a Catholic. In those days, being Catholic meant going to mass on Sundays and reciting the Nicene Creed. It formed a great deal of the background of his attitude. It was pre-suppositional to all of his philosophy and outlook on life. In fact I don't think that his philosophy makes much sense outside his devotional tradition.

What has happened in the modern world is that such devotional or spiritual attitudes have been, if not rejected, at least 'internalised' or 'privatised'. They are 'matters of individual conscience'. But this has meant that the public domain is now explicitly devoid of reference to anything sacred. This is the basis of secular normality. I really wonder - and in fact I doubt - that Western philosophy retains a lot of meaning once it has removed itself from its spiritual foundations. It doesn't mean, for me, becoming a Catholic, but it has meant getting to a place where I understand why people are Catholic. This is why I am basically always on about the spiritual aspects of philosophy, such as they are.

So I am criticizing the current conventions, as Descartes was. I don't think many realise how very different the modern Western outlook has actually become from its cultural roots. Of course, it is not strange to its inhabitants. It is just 'normal'. So normality is actually pretty strange. Of course this is a very discomforting and uncomfortable thing to say.

---------- Post added 02-10-2010 at 02:42 PM ----------

anyway I think I will stop now. I have said before, my interests really lie outside philosophy. I do have some philosophical interests but I will acknowledge that what motivates me is spiritual not philosophical, and these are different. I shall try and pick my subjects accordingly in future.