Philosophy by Another Name?
A British philosopher suggests that popular confusion over what philosophers do requires the epochs-old discipline follow the suit of other academic subjects and update its name.
A British philosopher suggests that popular confusion over what philosophers do requires the epochs-old discipline follow the suit of other academic subjects and update its name.
Far from the woo-woo practices of ancient mystics and modern-day dispensers of folk advice, University of Miami philosopher Colin McGinn points out that his professional peers are scientists who practice a “systematic, organized, rigorous” study of a particular subject. Therefore, their work should be set apart from the generalized love (philo) of wisdom (sophia) that any seeker of knowledge possesses.
His suggestion? “ontics,” or “ontical science.” Read his article in full to discover why and his response to the comments it has provoked to see where the discussion is going. –ARK
Wait, before you go…Colin McGinn:
Our current name is harmful because it posits a big gap between the sciences and philosophy; we do something that is not a science. Thus we do not share in the intellectual prestige associated with that thoroughly modern word. We are accordingly not covered by the media that cover the sciences, and what we do remains a mystery to most people. But 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.”
Academic philosophy obviously falls under this capacious meaning. Moreover, most of the marks of science as commonly understood are shared by academic philosophy: the subject is systematic, rigorous, replete with technical vocabulary, often in conflict with common sense, capable of refutation, produces hypotheses, uses symbolic notation, is about the natural world, is institutionalized, peer-reviewed, tenure-granting, etc. We may as well recognize that we are a science, even if not one that makes empirical observations or uses much mathematics. Once we do this officially, we can expect to be treated like scientists.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
Support Truthdig
Their greed will crush society and the ecosystem unless they are driven from power.
Author Edward Dolnick tracks the blind spots that prevented the greatest minds from figuring out how two beings make one.
Aristotle would recognize America’s deviant form of government. It’s a perversion in which parasitic elites irrationally pursue money, power and hedonism.
We are now on the brink of a government undreamed of by Aristotle, who spoke of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.
The Nixon tapes have yielded untold, er, riches over the years, and here's yet another nugget, featuring Nixon in a wide-ranging conversation with Bob Haldeman and John Erlichman on the subject of homosexuality. The discussion begins with a dissection of an episode of "All in the Family" and then spins off to such topics as how homosexuality "destroyed the Greeks," the Roman Empire and San Francisco.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.