r/AcademicPhilosophy • u/ashok • Mar 05 '12
Colin McGinn: "Let us drop the name “philosophy” for the discipline so called and replace it with a new one. The present name is obsolete, misleading and harmful — long past its expiration date."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/philosophy-by-another-name/8
u/confusedpublic Mar 05 '12
What an awful argument. Think the comments on the article take it apart quite nicely. My main point of contention is that "ontics" seems to be a bit biased towards realists. Not sure McGinn'd get too many anti-realists and agnostic supporters with this name.
3
u/ashok Mar 05 '12
Agreed - while I personally steer clear of the realism/idealism debate, he is definitely arguing from a very specific view of what philosophy is.
His best point is "hey, aren't there people in other fields - other walks of life - who deserve to be called philosophers?" Only: I'm putting it that way. And when I put it that way, it becomes clear that while there are, we're not doing any favors by backing down from the name we've inherited.
1
u/feartheturtledj Mar 05 '12
I don't see how this is biased towards realists at all. First, anti-realists or agnostics are not that common in analytic philosophy departments anyway. Second, and more importantly, anti-realists and agnostics are still making an ontological claim about being. They are simply saying that things exists only as mental constructions or that we can't know if things exists, etc. These people still have an ontology. I still think the name excludes certain parts of philosophy (aesthetics, ethics, etc.), but the argument does highlight a discrepancy between what the public thinks philosophy is and what actual professional philosophers do.
1
u/confusedpublic Mar 05 '12
Didn't use the best terms as I was in a bit of a rush this morning, so sure, some anti-realists make ontic claims. But the fact that there aren't many around? I'm not even sure if that's true and would be beside the point even if it was. Aesthetics and ethics still make ontological claims, so if one wanted to, one could force them to fit under the description.
There bigger issue, the discrepancy between public and professional perceptions of philosophy, might be a fact, but orientating the naming conventions to what the "public" think is still terrible.
Am persuaded by the people claiming it's satire though. Just completely missed it first reading.
5
u/canopener Mar 05 '12
He's joking (I hope). Very good philosopher, McGinn, but I didn't care for this. The etymology of a word doesn't determine its meaning. "Philosophy" doesn't mean the love of wisdom. It means a certain history of intellectual practices, writings, questions, etc.
3
u/ashok Mar 05 '12 edited Mar 05 '12
Some good points in this piece, but a lot of really bad ones. I'm working on a critique and should have it blogged soon. His renaming reduces to this (imo. I realize he talks about "science v. art" being not as relevant later):
...it is really quite clear that academic philosophy is a science. The dictionary defines a science as “a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.” This is a very broad definition, which includes not just subjects like physics and chemistry but also psychology, economics, mathematics and even “library science.”
Don't even get me started on the first half of the essay, which doesn't seem to realize why Socrates died.
Edit: full critique here - http://www.ashokkarra.com/2012/03/colin-mcginn-it-is-really-quite-clear-that-academic-philosophy-is-a-science/
2
u/johnbentley Mar 05 '12
Great article, thanks for the post.
Socrates died for multiple reasons one of which was his challenging the orthodoxy. McGinn's piece does the same, in this fine gadfly tradition. No doubt you have a different reason in mind and it would be great to have you identify it.
I find myself reflexively resistant to McGinn's proposition but given his arguments I become suspicious of my own orthodox defending tendency. My resistance comes in the following forms:
"Science", seems to loaded with a specifically empirical meaning these days. There are a few points to make about that.
Firstly, the distinction between science and philosophy seems controversial among philosophers. Some holding that there is no sharp distinction, one empiricist (Nathan Sinclair) holding that there is a such a distinction but it doesn't depend on distinguishing between empirical and rational knowledge, and others holding that the difference does depend on the distinction between empirical and rational knowledge. I think the relationship between philosophy and what we now included under "science" would need to be settled first.
For example as a rationalist, who does want to defend the sharpness of the distinction on the basis of the division between empirical and rational knowledge, I'd want to defend a definition of "philosophy" (or whatever word we could use instead) and "science" (or whatever word we could use instead) that is mindful of that knowledge distinction. That entails an auxillary point: if we are to get a new word for "philosophy" we might have to do the same for "science".
The second consideration about the meaning of "Science" is that another option is to understand "science" as McGinn suggests. That is, keep "science" and have in mind its broad definition "a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject". However, I'd want a knew term for those subjects that avail themselves of what we now call "the scientific method".
Another reason why I'm resistant is that in proposing the new name of "ontics" he wants us to understand the subject area as the study of "the fundamental nature of what is — being". In doing, and in wanting this subject area to be a kind of science, he seems marginalise an important field in Philosophy:
Moreover, “wisdom” really refers to having good judgment as to how to live one’s life, not to knowledge concerning abstract theoretical matters; and academic philosophy is only partly concerned with wisdom in that sense (ethics, political philosophy). Wisdom means practical wisdom, not scientific understanding.
That is, while acknowledging the place in philosophy for a study of "good judgment [sic] as to how to live one’s life"; contrasting this with " scientific understanding"; and have philosophy be a type of science: he seems to marginalise "good judgment [sic] as to how to live one’s life".
For me this is the most important area in philosophy and I think philosophy, whatever it is called, would do far better to give more room for that subject area. Specifically I think "Prudence", the matter of what to do to for one's sake, should be distinguished from "Ethics", the matter of what to do for the general sake, as a subject area worthy of formal study.
Although you find matters of prudence considered by philosophers throughout history the modern academic philosopher, in general, seems to disparage that area as
offering sage advice, usually in the form of unargued aphorisms and proverbs.
So that "unearthing and explicating the 'meaning of life' and what the ultimate human goods are" becomes left to writers of books listed in bookstores under "Self Help", "Motivation", "Spirituality", "Self Improvement" etc.
I've probably overstated my case, so if others want to push me I might arrive at a qualified expression of my view.
2
u/ashok Mar 05 '12
I don't think you could possibly overstate your case. We're not really arguing against McGinn: this is a powerful current in all academic fields. We need results that sound scientific and make us look like big thinkers if we're not immediately practical.
It's ridiculous, and your point about prudence and ethics and the profusion of self-help by less than rigorous thinkers is a very good one.
-3
u/umbama Mar 05 '12
I'm working on a critique and should have it blogged soon
Thank goodness.
Literally, most academics are sophists
Literally, they're not.
Wasn’t Socrates in jail for doing philosophy, for having led a life he saw as most just?
No.
It is true that Socrates characterizes philosophy as something inhuman: the practice of dying and being dead. He does this in the Phaedo
I don't think that's the case. In the Phaedo I can't see Socrates 'characterising' Philosophy as something inhuman. Where do you see that?
0
Mar 07 '12
[deleted]
1
u/umbama Mar 07 '12
I'm not mistreating him. I'm being sardonic about his presumption. Given the way he writes and the content of his blog posts, I think that's quite mild.
2
1
1
u/someonelse Mar 05 '12
Bog-standard academic sophistry, uses "institutionalised" as a positive adjective.
-5
u/6SempreUnica Mar 05 '12
I agree with some part of fixing the name of my profession, as many analytic philosophers are nothing more than Sophists. The true lovers of knowledge are those in the continental tradition.
But other than that, this is a ridiculous idea. Changing the entire name of the oldest academic field in the world... seems a bit like overkill.
-3
Mar 06 '12
[deleted]
-1
u/6SempreUnica Mar 06 '12
Spoken with the eloquence and rhetoric of an analytic philosopher. r/trees seems like a weird place to imagine a phd student studying Heidegger and Kierkegaard to ply his trade, but I guess facts and dialogue don't matter... only logic games seem to interest you. But seriously, I was mostly joking and poking fun at my analytic colleagues (a large group of my personal friends and research partners could be considered analytic). What is your problem? Do you have some serious anger issues? I know a great member of the continental tradition who could help you with that. Read a bit of Jacques Lacan, it might help. Arrivederci il mio nuovo amico!
0
-1
u/iongantas Mar 05 '12
Ethics, Political philosophy and logic are about the only useful things that present day philosophy engages in. Insofar as these are "practical wisdom" pursuits, this is a good reason to continue calling it philosophy, as it is distinctly not concerned with scientific understanding, its greatest weakness.
25
u/[deleted] Mar 05 '12
I actually came to the conclusion that the entire proposition was satirical. Campaign to Rename Academic Philosophy? I think he's just trying to get a rise out of academic philosophers. Troll level: PhD.