Oakeshott And The Corruption of Philosophy

[tbieter]

"Of course, the thoughts about the world that scientists have had and the discoveries that they have made are often eligible to be used for the exploitation of the resources of the world for the satisfaction of human wants. But science itself is a great intellectual adventure of understanding and explaining that is free from the necessity of providing useful knowledge. What we have here are two entirely different attitudes towards the world: the one concerned with truth and error, the other with what is useful or useless; the one concerned to understand the world and the other concerned to discover how the world works in order to make use of it.

Philosophy, science, and history are, then, activities that belong not to “work” but to “play.” In pursuing them or in reading the thoughts of those who pursue them we are not, strictly speaking, “working” but “playing.”

The activity of the poetic imagination is perhaps even more securely insulated from any liability of being confused with the satisfaction of wants than these explanatory activities. It is also less likely to be corrupted by it."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008 ... nd-play-15

I contend that philosophy is corrupted by making it the subject of the money-getting activity of "philosophical counseling".

[tbieter]

"Of course, the thoughts about the world that scientists have had and the discoveries that they have made are often eligible to be used for the exploitation of the resources of the world for the satisfaction of human wants. But science itself is a great intellectual adventure of understanding and explaining that is free from the necessity of providing useful knowledge. What we have here are two entirely different attitudes towards the world: the one concerned with truth and error, the other with what is useful or useless; the one concerned to understand the world and the other concerned to discover how the world works in order to make use of it.

Philosophy, science, and history are, then, activities that belong not to “work” but to “play.” In pursuing them or in reading the thoughts of those who pursue them we are not, strictly speaking, “working” but “playing.”

The activity of the poetic imagination is perhaps even more securely insulated from any liability of being confused with the satisfaction of wants than these explanatory activities. It is also less likely to be corrupted by it."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1995 ... k-and-play

I contend that philosophy is corrupted by making it the subject of the money-getting activity of "philosophical counseling".

There is also the view that philosophy is the “art of living” in answer to the question “How should one live his life?”

“As Nietzsche suggests, no matter how unbearable life can be, its self-examination comes with a reward: a renewed dignity of the act of living. Life examined is thus life transformed. In this sense, true philosophy is by definition performative; it is not something we talk about, it is something we do. In his Memorabilia Xenophon has Socrates say: “If I don’t reveal my views in a formal account, I do so by my conduct. Don’t you think that actions are more reliable evidence than words?”
http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php? ... fulltext=1

“Now philosophy is primarily a “job.” When they are done with it, philosophers don’t take it home with them; they leave philosophy at the office, behind locked doors. The work they produce, outstanding as it may be, is not supposed to change their lives. Today philosophical conversions are regarded with suspicion and strongly discouraged; if they do happen, they tend to be dismissed.” ibid

[The Voice of Time]

just read an article about philosophical counselling yesterday from the Norwegian Philosophical Journal (an academic journal). There they discussed whether P.C. could be seen as a form of theraphy. The conclusion was vague as the central topic was whether P.C. counsellors aren't contradicting themselves in their various criticisms of different forms of theraphy in that they may end up being subject to that criticism themselves.

I don't think you could necessarily call it "corruption" at any level, especially not of philosophy in general since P.C. is not philosophy in general but an activity instead. I once talked to a doctor who said that one should make important distinction between philosophy as a field of inquiry and such-called "free thinking".

I prefer the foremost, as the later is usually where we put conspiracy theorists, semi-philosophers and people abusing the word "philosophy" for what is really spiritual/religious gibberish. The foremost is not "free" in any sense, from a certain angle it can appear free, but remember also that there are dogmatic philosophies as well as more shape-shifting ones, and then there are orthodox philosophies, neo-philosophies and so on.

Being a grounded field of inquiry, it becomes a toolbox which anyone educated in philosophy could use to form a therapy session for "developing the mind", or developing thought. Making it "free" could easily lead to you ending up talking to a priest or a conspiracy theorist instead of somebody who has spent some time studying various ranges of thought-trains and ideas and are able to present a spectre of ideas instead of the rather monotone nature of "free" thinkers who really are just free to do some gibberish discipline of their one that with great likelihood is not gonna benefit you.

[chaz wyman]

"Of course, the thoughts about the world that scientists have had and the discoveries that they have made are often eligible to be used for the exploitation of the resources of the world for the satisfaction of human wants. But science itself is a great intellectual adventure of understanding and explaining that is free from the necessity of providing useful knowledge. What we have here are two entirely different attitudes towards the world: the one concerned with truth and error, the other with what is useful or useless; the one concerned to understand the world and the other concerned to discover how the world works in order to make use of it.

Philosophy, science, and history are, then, activities that belong not to “work” but to “play.” In pursuing them or in reading the thoughts of those who pursue them we are not, strictly speaking, “working” but “playing.”

The activity of the poetic imagination is perhaps even more securely insulated from any liability of being confused with the satisfaction of wants than these explanatory activities. It is also less likely to be corrupted by it."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008 ... nd-play-15

I contend that philosophy is corrupted by making it the subject of the money-getting activity of "philosophical counseling".

I'm puzzled how you can derive this moral stance from the article supplied.
And also puzzled as to why you think it is wrong for a thinker to attempt to make a living from his skill?

[chaz wyman]

"Of course, the thoughts about the world that scientists have had and the discoveries that they have made are often eligible to be used for the exploitation of the resources of the world for the satisfaction of human wants. But science itself is a great intellectual adventure of understanding and explaining that is free from the necessity of providing useful knowledge. What we have here are two entirely different attitudes towards the world: the one concerned with truth and error, the other with what is useful or useless; the one concerned to understand the world and the other concerned to discover how the world works in order to make use of it.

Philosophy, science, and history are, then, activities that belong not to “work” but to “play.” In pursuing them or in reading the thoughts of those who pursue them we are not, strictly speaking, “working” but “playing.”

The activity of the poetic imagination is perhaps even more securely insulated from any liability of being confused with the satisfaction of wants than these explanatory activities. It is also less likely to be corrupted by it."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008 ... nd-play-15

I contend that philosophy is corrupted by making it the subject of the money-getting activity of "philosophical counseling".

There is also the view that philosophy is the “art of living” in answer to the question “How should one live his life?”

“As Nietzsche suggests, no matter how unbearable life can be, its self-examination comes with a reward: a renewed dignity of the act of living. Life examined is thus life transformed. In this sense, true philosophy is by definition performative; it is not something we talk about, it is something we do. In his Memorabilia Xenophon has Socrates say: “If I don’t reveal my views in a formal account, I do so by my conduct. Don’t you think that actions are more reliable evidence than words?”
http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php? ... fulltext=1

“Now philosophy is primarily a “job.” When they are done with it, philosophers don’t take it home with them; they leave philosophy at the office, behind locked doors. The work they produce, outstanding as it may be, is not supposed to change their lives. Today philosophical conversions are regarded with suspicion and strongly discouraged; if they do happen, they tend to be dismissed.” ibid

You quote Nietzsche, and yet did he not corrupt philosophy by making a living out of it?

[bus2bondi]

he's not still alive chaz, so how is that so?

[chaz wyman]

he's not still alive chaz, so how is that so?

Who is not alive - and how is what so?

[bus2bondi]

he's not still alive chaz, so how is that so?

Who is not alive - and how is what so?

who do you think? aren't we talking about Nietzsche, who is, hmmm, not still alive. so, since he is not still alive, he certainly couldn't of made a living out of it.

[bus2bondi]

You quote Nietzsche, and yet did he not corrupt philosophy by making a living out of it?

seriously tho now, on this months edition of the magazine, there is much about Nietzsche. the cover picture is an artists personal rendering of Nietzsche and a subtitle that says 'NIETZSCHE RELOADED'. then there is even an article about Nietzsche misconstrued ('Eva Cybulska dispells popular misconceptions about this controversial figure'). i wonder if some philosophers make a living out of unintentionally corrupting or helping Nietzsche?

i have no idea if Nietzsche would've appreciated the cover of the magazine and the articles within it about him. i have no idea if Nietzsche would've been upset about any misconstruels or non-misconstruels.

but.. if he was really 'out for the goad', would we still be considering this person today?

[chaz wyman]

he's not still alive chaz, so how is that so?

Who is not alive - and how is what so?

who do you think? aren't we talking about Nietzsche, who is, hmmm, not still alive. so, since he is not still alive, he certainly couldn't of made a living out of it.

Can we step back a moment??
You are claiming, are you not, that making a living from philosophy is a corruption of it?
So, take a philosopher, any philosopher, that made a living from it, and tell me he too did not corrupt it!

[bus2bondi]

Can we step back a moment??
You are claiming, are you not, that making a living from philosophy is a corruption of it?
So, take a philosopher, any philosopher, that made a living from it, and tell me he too did not corrupt it!

well certainly, we allready have so we might as well lolligander for awhile.

i'm not claiming that making a living from philosophy is a corruption of it.

i don't know which ones did and which ones didn't. so i cannot answer your question.

i might be able to answer your last question if i knew whether or not philosophy itself is corruptible.

[chaz wyman]

Can we step back a moment??
You are claiming, are you not, that making a living from philosophy is a corruption of it?
So, take a philosopher, any philosopher, that made a living from it, and tell me he too did not corrupt it!

well certainly, we allready have so we might as well lolligander for awhile.

i'm not claiming that making a living from philosophy is a corruption of it.

i don't know which ones did and which ones didn't. so i cannot answer your question.

i might be able to answer your last question if i knew whether or not philosophy itself is corruptible.

Sorry - I've conflated you with tbieter, because you answered my question of the 13th , to him

[bus2bondi]

Sorry - I've conflated you with tbieter, because you answered my question of the 13th , to him

woooooaaah, let's head back here, i thought this thread was about something else, and not once again Chaz Wyman's pondering of conflation.

[chaz wyman]

Sorry - I've conflated you with tbieter, because you answered my question of the 13th , to him

woooooaaah, let's head back here, i thought this thread was about something else, and not once again Chaz Wyman's pondering of conflation.

Eh? I was just letting you know why I asked the last question.