Path: ultra.sonic.net!miwok!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Definitions Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:02:11 +0000 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <01bc1f9f$0b14b9a0$LocalHost@#metanoi1> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 78 In article <01bc1f9f$0b14b9a0$LocalHost@#metanoi1>, Russel Trojan writes >Okay, so I don't understand. > >That is precisely my problem, I don't understand, not concepts, but >reasons. Believe it or not, I am not stupid, though uneducated. You're clearly not stupid, but you do seem to have something of a blindspot when it comes to reading other people's arguments. It's not polite to say so, but I think you may have a chip on your shoulder - you're perfectly capable of putting together a reasoned argument, but when you see something that looks "scholarly" you seem to ignore it because you think that it can't have anything to do with "real life" and that you wouldn't understand it anyway. Neither of these is true. Lighten up, read the words, follow the argument and then decide if you agree or not. It's what I do, and I'm not an academic (although Lewis was). >In other >threads in this and many groups, much of the discussion seems centered >around words and definitions. My understanding of Mr. Lewis' writings is >that they were meant to be for the 'common' people, which I take to mean >that what he said was to be taken predominantly at 'face value'. Now I can >understand that certain terms need defining when used in a less than common >way (please don't deny the existence of common meanings or understandings >since they are assumed in order to accomplish any communication). However, >these definitions should be the exception and not the rule. As to Mr. >Lewis, it would seem that unless we take his words at 'face value' except >when told otherwise, we are putting words into his mouth and then setting >him up as a straw man. Sort of the pot calling the kettle black kinda >thing. Lewis' arguments in "Miracles" are often very closely reasoned - particularly in Chapter Three where he's trying to express philosophical ideas in an accessable way. If we pay close attention to those arguments then we sometimes find that what Lewis is saying is not what we thought that he was saying. If Lewis thought carefully about what he wrote (and there is considerable evidence that he did) then surely we should do the same when we read him? If you do read Lewis carefully, you will find that he very often takes care to define his terms at the start of an argument. This is precisely because he _didn't_ want us just to take his words at 'face value' - he wanted there to be no confusion about what he meant when he talked about "the Supernatural", for example. When I criticise Lewis' arguments I'm working as far as possible from his own definitions precisely because I'm trying to avoid putting words into his mouth. > >Now, having said this I would assert that the purveyors of philosophy have >taken this knowledge hostage much like many priests and ministers have >taken scripture hostage, implicitly and at time explicitly declaring it >beyond the grasp of the common individual. > The scriptures are a static body of knowledge; philosophy is an evolving academic discipline. Think of the relationship between philosophy and our language and ideas as like the relationship between theology and scripture. Philosophers aren't secretly hoarding Truth behind a mask of technical language - they're engaged in a millennia- long discussion about what things like "truth" or "ideas" or "knowledge" actually are. In my opinion, anyway. >It seems to me that it would be worthwhile to define philosophy. Is it an >academic discipline to promote intensive definitional thinking? Or, is it a >word to identify the way that people understand their experiences and >determine/justify their actions? Is philosophy practical (meaning useful in >day to day living), or is it a tool to hone other skills? > Inevitably, different philosophers have very different ideas of what they're doing. I like to think of philosophy as a "meta-subject" that examines the things that other disciplines take for granted. There are lots of fields in which we can acquire knowledge, but only philosophy bothers to ask what it means to "acquire knowledge" in the first place... Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk) "I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is desperately needed." -J.G. Ballard