Sure, and between Chomsky's political worka nd his linguistic work, and
between Gibbard and Heidegger or Marx or Aquinas. Fact is, what makes
something philosophical is its location in a scholarly tradition anda n
academic department, it's mostly an bureaucratic classification
device--Posner would call it a branding decision. Why is Hobbes philosophy
and Montesquieu not? Why doesn't Heidegger count for a phil. dept like Ohio
State, or, truth be told, Michigan? These questions show there is no
interesting answer to the question What Is Philosophy, beyond the sociology
of it.
>
> > Within limits I do agree with that [the propositiohn that we should not
>give up cionsidered judgments in the face of contrary argument).
>
>I'd argue the point if I thought I could maintain your interest.
So try. Reflective equilibrium theory actually is interesting to me. This is
what is left of epistemology, so far as a prag sees it. Dick Brandt, who
taught my Theory of Knowledge class at Michigan in 1979, when you were being
born or before (Jesus Christ!), used to ask me, when I'd say things like
that, So what's the news from Princeton, Mr. Schwartz? I had just escaped
from under Rorty & Harmen's tutelage, and its showed. Still does, I guess.
>
> > Btrw Rorty gets the same beady eye from you overbuilt argument freaks.
>He
>was > my teacher.
>
>I don't know if it's the same. I know a grad student who believes that
>Rorty's a pretty damn good philosopher but thinks considerably less of
>Posner's philosophical aptitude. Based on the limited amount of prose I've
>read by and about the two thinkers, I concur.
Well, Rorty _was_ a first rate analytical philosopher, but he rather pointedly gave it up for his current "edifying prose," though the habit of argument is hard to break, and he doesn't always maintain his resolution not to do it. Posner's a brilliant amateur who couldn't care less whether APs thought well of him, he doesn't regard what we do very highly, as shown in the Problematics book. I think he does it well, you don't, beyond discussing a particular thing he says, what's the point?
I'll remind you at the risk of sounding snooty that I AM A PROFESSIONAL (or was one) [DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME!], and am actually qualified to make this judgment, which doesn't mean I'm right. But I actually used to be paid real money (not much, but market rates) to make these kinds of evaluations of students' work and as a reviewer for publishers and journals. You can listen to your friend rather than me. Maybe he knows more than I do. But let it go, if you don't find Posner's philosophical stuff worth reading, no one is holdinga gun to your head, read something else.
>
> > And furthermore, you are almost always wrong.
>
>??? Philosophical and political questions are incredibly complicated, and
>I'm sure most of my answers are far from satisfactory. What of it? Do you
>think you're almost always right?
It's almost an analytical truth, if there was any such thing, that if I believe something I think it is right. Of course as a pragmatist I'm a fallibilist, so I know that I am not likely to be right about everything. But if I knew what in particular I was wrong about, I wouldn't believe it.
>
> > Who cares?
>
>A good philosopher needs to do philosophy.
>
So do some. Who's stopping you? Posner's not interested in being a good philosopher, so if he does some it's accidental. Me, I'll do whatever it is I do. Gibbard thought it was good enough for a Michigan philosophy PhD, so it probably bears some relation to philosophy. The people at OSU didn't like it so much. Philosophy journals like it OK, though. But this is a question I find profoundly uninteresting. The interesting questions are: is what you say important? Is ir clear? Is it plausibly defended? Might it be true? These are significant concerns. "Is it philosophy?"--I could not care less. You shouln't either.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.