Preston Werner on Nostr: Philosophy is a discipline that simultaneously wants to be close to science but also ...
Philosophy is a discipline that simultaneously wants to be close to science but also close to the humanities. Or perhaps it wants to be the bridge between the two.
That's not a novel point, but I wonder if one way it manifests is in the discourse about philosophical writing as "boring" in comparison to how it was 40-50 years ago.
I was reading Williams' original paper on moral luck yesterday and I was struck at how - I'm sorry, I know its sacrilege - *unclear* it is, in structure, in argumentation, in precision. And yet it is certainly an enjoyable and well-written article to read if you read it without worrying about the details.
In the sciences (at least the ones I have a passing familiarity with), articles have a very clear and formulaic structure. You know exactly what happens when in a paper, and it helps to guide you about where to look for info that you need, what's coming next, etc.
Analytic philosophy articles aren't like this now, but they are much more like it than they were 50 years ago. And I think, consciously or not, this is what people are lamenting when they complain about the 'boringness' of 21st century analytic philosophy.
The question is really about what kind of discipline we want to be: Do we want first and foremost to be clear and precise about what our arguments are, our premises, how we defend them, etc.? Or do we want our writing to be engaging and exciting? (Yes, yes, both is possible, but most of us aren't David Lewis, sorry.)
For myself, I don't want philosophy papers to become *as* formulaic as scientific articles, but I am inclined to think the discipline should err in that direction. If you asked a scientist why they don't write super engaging and creatively structured articles, they'd tell you (I guess) "If you want to read something exciting, do it in your free time. Our job is to advance knowledge and understanding, not to entertain you." - My hunch is that more analytic philosophers have the 'advancing understanding' view of philosophy than the more humanities, 'say interesting things in an interesting way, stimulating excitement and thought is more important than being clear', but maybe I'm wrong.
(And yes, there is space for both, and yes, I am oversimplifying in a bunch of places. This is a microblog, not a philosophy paper!)
That's not a novel point, but I wonder if one way it manifests is in the discourse about philosophical writing as "boring" in comparison to how it was 40-50 years ago.
I was reading Williams' original paper on moral luck yesterday and I was struck at how - I'm sorry, I know its sacrilege - *unclear* it is, in structure, in argumentation, in precision. And yet it is certainly an enjoyable and well-written article to read if you read it without worrying about the details.
In the sciences (at least the ones I have a passing familiarity with), articles have a very clear and formulaic structure. You know exactly what happens when in a paper, and it helps to guide you about where to look for info that you need, what's coming next, etc.
Analytic philosophy articles aren't like this now, but they are much more like it than they were 50 years ago. And I think, consciously or not, this is what people are lamenting when they complain about the 'boringness' of 21st century analytic philosophy.
The question is really about what kind of discipline we want to be: Do we want first and foremost to be clear and precise about what our arguments are, our premises, how we defend them, etc.? Or do we want our writing to be engaging and exciting? (Yes, yes, both is possible, but most of us aren't David Lewis, sorry.)
For myself, I don't want philosophy papers to become *as* formulaic as scientific articles, but I am inclined to think the discipline should err in that direction. If you asked a scientist why they don't write super engaging and creatively structured articles, they'd tell you (I guess) "If you want to read something exciting, do it in your free time. Our job is to advance knowledge and understanding, not to entertain you." - My hunch is that more analytic philosophers have the 'advancing understanding' view of philosophy than the more humanities, 'say interesting things in an interesting way, stimulating excitement and thought is more important than being clear', but maybe I'm wrong.
(And yes, there is space for both, and yes, I am oversimplifying in a bunch of places. This is a microblog, not a philosophy paper!)