{"id":5573,"date":"2017-04-28T17:52:10","date_gmt":"2017-04-28T17:52:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/04\/28\/is-there-a-place-for-polemics-in-philosophy\/"},"modified":"2017-04-28T17:52:10","modified_gmt":"2017-04-28T17:52:10","slug":"is-there-a-place-for-polemics-in-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2017\/04\/28\/is-there-a-place-for-polemics-in-philosophy\/","title":{"rendered":"Is There a Place for Polemics in Philosophy?"},"content":{"rendered":"
 Our friend Vlastimil writes, <\/span><\/div>\n
\n
I've just read you saying, "In philosophy it is very important that we be as civil and charitable as possible. There is no place for polemics in philosophy." <\/span><\/div>\n

Intriguing. No place, really? Can't a philosophy be wicked or obtuse?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yes, a philosophy<\/em> can be wicked or obtuse. But what I said is that there is no place for polemics in philosophy<\/em>. I distinguish among (a) philosophy as a body of knowledge, (b) philosophy as a type of inquiry, and (c) philosophies as worldviews or belief systems.  <\/span><\/p>\n

My short answer is that a<\/em> philosophy or worldview can be wicked or obtuse and thus an appropriate target of polemics, but that philosophy as inquiry<\/em> cannot be wicked or obtuse. Hence it cannot be an appropriate target of polemical attack. It is, on the contrary, a noble and normatively human enterprise that ought to be conducted without personal animus and without the grinding of ideological axes. As I say in Can Philosophy be Debated?<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Philosophy is fundamentally inquiry.  It is inquiry by those who don't know (and know that they don't know) with the sincere intention of increasing their insight and understanding.  Philosophy is motivated by the love of truth, not the love of verbal battle or the need to defeat an opponent or shore up and promote a preconceived opinion about which one has no real doubt. <\/span><\/p>\n

When philosophy is done with others it takes the form of dialog, not debate. It is conversation between friends, not opponents, who are friends of the truth before they are friends of each other.  Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

There is nothing adversarial  in a genuine philosophical conversation.  The person I am addressing and responding to is not my adversary but a co-inquirer.  In the ideal case there is between us a bond of friendship, a philiatic bond.  But this philia<\/em> subserves the eros<\/em> of inquiry.  The philosopher's love of truth is erotic, the love of one who lacks for that which he lacks.  It is not the agapic love of one who knows and bestows his pearls of wisdom.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This of course is an ideal. But it is one that is attained from time to time among certain interlocutors and so can be attained. By contrast, philosophy as a body of knowledge, Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft<\/em> in Husserl's sense, is an 'ideal' that has never been attained. I suspect that it is an ideal that cannot be attained by us and so is not an ideal, but a mere dream. <\/span><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/span><\/legend>\n
\n
<\/a>Continental Philosophers I Respect and the 'Continental-Analytic Divide'<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/a>Why Physics Needs Philosophy<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/a>Is Conservatism a Belief System?<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/a>Can Philosophy be Debated?<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

 Our friend Vlastimil writes,  I've just read you saying, "In philosophy it is very important that we be as civil and charitable as possible. There is no place for polemics in philosophy."  Intriguing. No place, really? Can't a philosophy be wicked or obtuse? Yes, a philosophy can be wicked or obtuse. But what I said … Continue reading “Is There a Place for Polemics in Philosophy?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20,245],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-metaphilosophy","category-polemics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}