September 5, 2010
Dear Norman (if I may),
I have just read your article "Philosophy as a blood sport" after seeing
a link to it posted online (with a note of recommendation).
As a late-stage doctoral postgraduate, the experiences you describe are
familiar to me. They generally disturb me for two reasons.
The first is that philosophers who engage in 'blood sports' often see
nothing wrong with the behaviour and attitudes that philosophical
bloodsports involve – for instance, dogmatism, arrogance, aggression,
and lack of intellectual charity. Such behaviours and attitudes are both
ethically and epistemologically objectionable; they make for bad people
and poor discussions.
The second reason that philosophical bloodsports disturb me is that some
philosophers apparently identify it *as* good philosophy. Not only do
they see nothing wrong with it, they in fact identify it as *good
philosophy*. Although philosophy of course thrives on critical
engagement with the ideas of others and wrestling with technical points
etc., this can be done in a variety of ways. Bloodsports are neither the
most attractive nor the most appropriate form of philosophising.
Uniting both of these reasons is, I think, also a general worry that
philosophers who engage in bloodsports are really failing to fulfil the
ideal (or, the set of ideals) associated with the discipline of
philosophy: they demonstrate nothing of the equanimity, calmness of
soul, reflectiveness, patience, meditation, and openness to new ideas
that has been consistently praised, albeit in varying ways, by
philosophers since Antiquity.
I remember a pleasing anecdote about the late philosopher of science
Peter Lipton. A colleague recalled that, 'To lose an argument to Peter
Lipton nearly always gave pleasure, never a sense of loss or wounding:
seemingly effortlessly, he made all philosophical discussion become a
collaboration in which the only winners were reason and truth. There
were no losers.' This seems to me to encapsulate the spirit of
philosophy very well.
Thank you for writing such an engaging article. If I may, I might hope
that it could be published and meet with a wider audience?
Best wishes,
Ian James Kidd
Doctoral Postgraduate
Department of Philosophy
Durham University
www.dur.ac.uk/i.j.kidd
|