…[academic] philosophy…is open to objections. First of all, it assumes that our normal use of concepts stands in need of a theory. But does it? If someone were to say, ‘violin playing contributes to some of the profoundest experiences of which human beings are capable; therefore it is a matter of the greatest importance to us to acquire as full a theoretical understanding as we possibly can of violin playing’, everytone would see the confusion at once…No theory, no matter how flexible, finely particularized and subtle, coud do it justice: it inhabits a realm theory cannot reach…The same goes for theories of most of the most important human activities: we do not seek, and we are right not to, a systematic theorethical understanding or marriage, of parenthood, of love or of friendship, of eating or drinking or sleeping…Whoever seeks a theoretical understanding of sexual love?..Life, real life, is not like that—it is not the instantiation of theories. In fact one of the most tragic and familiar examples of inauthenticity is of individuals who try to live in accordance with theories.
So, it would seem, we need to grapple with the role of philosophy respecting those parts of our day to day lives that do not lend themselves readily to “theoretical analysis”. Most parts, in other words. Yet how do we do this without, in turn, becoming encumbered in a “theory about it”? And has it not been the argument of many who embrace analytic philosophy to punt these concerns off to politicians and psychologists and sociologists? Isn’t their point, in fact, that human language cannot ever hope to encompass such relationships with any degree of precision…with any degree of “scientific rigor”?
Yes and no. Yes because human language will never encompass a truly sophisticated framework in which to differentiate, say, rational from irrational value judgments. No because it can still inculcate in others the critical need to understand this…to approach such quandaries from the perspective of toleration and compromise. The paradox is that, in abandoning much that is embedded in human interactions to the “experts”, modern analytic philosophy has just allowed them to propagate their “expertise” as though it really were science.
I’d say most if not all people seek a theoretical understanding of sexual love, which is to say, they have considered sexual love thoughtfully, and have ideas about how it works, its benefits and drawbacks, and how the concept, and the act, fit into their worldview in general. That’s what philosophy is for most people. And for most philosophers it’s the same process, if pursued in a more sophisticated (for better or worse) way.
When Magee speaks about the theory behind violin-playing, does he cite an example of a philosopher who provides one, or is he just talking out his ass again?
No, admittedly, he doesn’t name names. But, over the course of my exchanges in venues like these, I have come across any number of folks who will extend the mantra “philosophical wisdom” to encompass almost…everything?
I love that quote. I have a theory that if I have unprotected sex it might result in a pregnancy. I do try to live in accordance with that. I guess all the authentic single guys are paying child support. For the sake of the children, I hope so, anyway.
Magee’s problem, at least as iam has presented him, is that he’s a lousy philosopher. Maybe that’s what Magee is confessing, although i do not understand how he counts himself a philosopher at all. Specifically, Magee lacks technique. It’s pretty clear what he is trying to say, and also pretty clear that he lacks the philosophical sophistication to say it very well.
Here’s the trick - any well-developed theory has to be checked against facts. And the facts checked against the theory. It’s a process that works in both directions. The trouble arises when we have a theory that there are no discernible facts to check it against. I hope that this is what Magee is getting at. As have never read him beyond what iam presents, perhaps I am judging him too harshly. But statements like the above quote have little chance of acceptance among those who know something about good theories in general and how they are used.
Well, I think what iam is forever pointing out is that metaphysics has a way of producing theories for which there are no facts. This is because of the perverse definition of “fact” that metaphysics uses. Most everyone else considers facts as the theory is being formulated, else what use is the theory?
We may have a theory of how to play chess. Normally, we would be cognizant of the rules of chess from the outset. We would also be aware of various well-known and successful stratagems of chess. The theory would attempt to generalize winning stratagems. And various stratagems would be checked against the theory.
The metaphysicist would simply start with a theory of chess and extrapolate that the universe is arranged in sets of 64 squares.
A fact would seem like something the majority of the population has agreed is most logical and worth believing in…in other words a fact is a mass-opinion…
I think i would agree with that…it is silly to argue with what are coded as facts because they are retty much those things that while possibly wrong are most likely not and would thus be “begging the question” to question. yet then there are those thing that whole nations or even worlds might think are fact that might not be so worth presuming to be facts…IDK…And when such thing are noticed by any those that oppose them typically don’t get too far, at least not very quickly…
You mean, something like democracy is the best form of government? I’m not sure about whole nations believing that. Political rhetoric is not designed to have a very close relationship to reality.
Well when one means whole they typically mean the majority. In this case i would mean at the least with resepct to such as the idea that America is the best country or what have you, the majority at least is proclaimed to believe such…Though i tend to think that democracy is best…I’m gonna start a topic about that get some ideas…
Magee is merely suggesting that, regarding many crucial aspects of human interaction, “what the facts are” and “what the facts mean” are open to conflicting interpretations that cannot be pinned down “theoretically” by academic philosophers.
Seems reasonable to me. But only insofar as these things can ever be entirely understood rationally.
But what in the world does this mean? Can you instantiate it regarding actual experiences you have had?
For example, as a child [in the late 1950s] I grew up in the belly of the working class beast. And that beast was, among other things, racist. I was often told it is a fact that blacks were inferior to whites. And my experiences seemed to confirm it. After all, the janitors in my school were all black. The guys who picked our garbage were black. The laborors on construction sites were black. And on my TV and in the movies blacks played the subservient roles over and again.
Theory and practice seemed to overlap seamlessly.
But here at least the reality of racism was exposed by another set of facts grasped from another point of view entirely. Magee, however, is talking about more ambiguous contexts still. Much more ambiguous in fact.
Is that really what he is suggesting? Can you quote him in that regard? Because you certainly haven’t yet. So far, you’ve quoted him talking out his ass about a theory of violin playing that evidently doesn’t exist.
I’m not sure I can “instantiate” it, but I have had the experience many times of reading a rationalist. I’m not talking about my personal metaphysical experiences, I’m talking about Plato. Plato is basic. If you haven’t read much Plato, that’s not my fault. Tough to give another of your scathing critiques of all things philosophical if you haven’t read Plato, though.
Calling blacks inferior to whites is not a theory. It’s an idea. I hope Magee isn’t misusing the word “theory” as badly. He seemed to be talking about philosophers and not your Uncle Ned.
That’s the thing, iam. You think the racist pronouncements of the wife beater down the hall in your tenement are philosophy.
You and Magree really would be quite insulting to philosophers if only you’d present yourselves in a way that can be taken seriously.