May 18, 1998
Dear Norman,
I am in full agreement with the opinions expressed in your "Philosophy as a
Blood Sport". I would add that too often understanding is sacrificed for
the sake of criticism.
I myself have had similar thoughts to your own. Here are a few.
It is, of course, important that philosophers of all levels and interests
develop critical abilities. This, in part, enables us to develop our own
ideas as well as make explicit those intuitions or gut feelings that
something is amiss.
However, it seems that such a skill has been emphasized at the expense of
those needed for the honest comprehension of a philosopher's ideas. In
fact, the profession demands criticism. If you wish to have a successful
career in philosophy you must criticize those who stand before you. It
simply is not an option. You are required to carve out for yourself your
niche in the philosophical landscape and to a large degree that requires
a very critical attitude. So I think that the profession itself teaches
us that criticism must be the first thing on one's mind when considering
someone's view.
It is therefore not surprising to me when I find philosophers failing to
understand the real point of someone's views or seriously distorting the
view of another philosopher. It seems that many philosophers fail to see
how difficult other views can be, and how they require an intense
engagement with a philosopher's work. This kind of understanding takes time,
the kind of time which philosophers in our era do not seem to have. The
pressures of the profession do not afford one the time required to make
an honest attempt to understand another's views and to develop honest
criticisms which are informed by an appreciation of the view under
consideration. Kant thought for 11 years before the work of his critical
period appeared. Imagine the quality of philosophical work which would
exist if today's philosophers were able to follow Kant's lead.
The general theme in my discussion is the continued emphasis on criticism
which seems so prevalent in philosophy.
I myself have always been interested in ideas and their significance
rather than criticism. I then may be guilty of swinging the balance too
much in the other direction (viz. understanding without criticism), a problem
which my graduate training has pushed me to rectify. At any rate, if
these remarks are correct then it seems that part of the problem is our
basic training. As a result, philosophers are too often on the offensive
and this causes them to misrepresent others' views while also threatening
the possibility of real progress in philosophy (where progress need not be
considered in terms of who is right and who is wrong but measured in
terms of sheer intellectual development).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Norman. Please tell me if these ideas
resonate with you.
Best,
Robert (Rob) Edward Earl Sinclair
Simon Fraser University
email: resincla@sfu.ca
|