I've always been suspicious of system builders and great edifices of 'knowledge' built out of playing cards.

Not necessarily. People just buy the myth and carry on, but when things go to shit, then we start questioning fundamentals such as the 2008 market crash or the Pandemic now.

People are now even using the word "capitalism" to discuss the ideas that sustain it.

There's a tension between system building and critical evaluation in philosophy. Perhaps the system builders - your Kant, Hegel, Russel - thrive when the basis of society is unthreatened; and the critics - Socrates, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein - in what might be called "interesting times"? — Banno

The critics are system builders themselves, although not builders of traditional metaphysical systems in the case of writers like Nietzsche, Wittgenstein or Derrida.

the presumed notion of a social contract has its limits. Only then we can look for something better. — Banno

I think it’s the other way around. We find something better and only then do we see the limits of the previous approach. The old thinking only stinks in retrospect , and there’s no necessity for it to crumble under the weight of its own limitations, given that those limitations only emerge from a new vantage of thinking , which isn’t guaranteed.

We don’t need philosophy for this. Every modality of culture ( the arts , politics, the sciences) evolves past its previous presumptions without the direct help of philosophy. What philosophy can do is make explicit what is only held as implicit within other modes of thought.

when things go to shit, then we start questioning fundamentals such as the 2008 market crash or the Pandemic now. — Manuel

Perhaps. My take is that people look for scapegoats more than questioning fundamentals. Being able to comprehend what has gone wrong may well be out of reach of many people for reasons of education/aptitude/bias - whatever it might be.

It also intrigues me how people often want to replace ideas (revolution) that aren't working well rather than repairing/adjusting them (assuming this is possible).

evolves past its previous presumptions without the direct help of philosophy. What philosophy can do is make explicit what is only held as implicit within other modes of thought. — Joshs

Are you saying that the role of philosophy is essentially descriptive? How do you assess Midgley's paper?

It's hard to say, absent seeing polls. My impression is that you tend to get both, though maybe not in equal amounts.

That is to say some people think the fundamentals are wrong, others think we need to change what we already have, that is to stabilize our to reinforce the pillars, as it were.

I think that these views "capitalist", "socialist", "anarchist" and so on, though important in that they offer a pattern of ideas or a tendency to reach certain conclusions about certain systems best suited for people, at this point in intellectual life, obscure more than clarify.

On an issue by issue basis, it's easier to speak on important topics, even if disagreement is inevitable on many topics. But if we start saying "capitalism" or "communism" is excellent or horrific, we just lose a large portion of the potential audience.

The notion of a social contract was stillborn at birth. Social arrangements and widely held mores and beliefs evolve organically like everything else. The plumbing analogy is also a miscarried one; there is nothing determinable to be fixed, or eliminated, least of all the concept of individualism. A healthy society is one which accommodates a plurality of opinion and belief.

I think it’s the other way around. We find something better and only then do we see the limits of the previous approach. — Joshs

Really?

I think Midgley right in pointing to social contract theory as the broken pipe in the foundation, and I don't see that there is a clear solution; so I don't agree with you. If you were correct that we see the rot only from the vantage of a new philosophical system, that system would be apparent and ubiquitous - as Hegel two hundred years ago. Rather the philosophical landscape is in a state of upheaval, while simultaneously fighting to justify itself in the face of it's own creation, economic utility.

Are you saying that the role of philosophy is essentially descriptive? How do you assess Midgley's paper? — Tom Storm

The role of philosophy is creative , as is the role of all
other cultural modalities. I don’t disagree with Misgley’s claims concerning philosophy , but I would want to add that any field of endeavor changes its underlying assumptions over time , it’s ‘plumbing’. Most fields don’t pay attention to this fact , and science in particular has until recently had a habit of denying that there is any underlying plumbing, just models attempting to mirror the ‘real’ world.

I think Midgley right in pointing to social contract theory as the broken pipe in the foundation, and I don't see that there is a clear solution; so I don't agree with you. If you were correct that we see the rot only from the vantage of a new philosophical system, that system would be apparent and ubiquitous — Banno

Most Conservatives in the U.S. wouldn’t know what on earth you are taking about. They would claim that there is absolutely nothing wrong with social contract theory. Why is this? Because they are living within the old philosophical system. The rot you are talking about doesn’t exist for them, just as the limits of behaviorism didn’t exist for Skinner, the limits of Hegelianism don’t exist for today’s Marxists, the limits of realism don’t exist for most of today’s physicists.

...Midgley's point; philosophers are needed in order to point to the smell and the feted pooling.

...Midgley's point; philosophers are needed in order to point to the smell and the feted pooling. — Banno

They are useful in articulating the situation in terms of ‘smell and fetid pooling’ , but that language isn’t the only form of conceptualization that will change the situation. It will change anyway from within , but the changes will be seen by insiders only in a fragmented and localized way, not as a change of plumbing. As an analogy, Kuhnian philosophers of science will say that the whole edifice of Newtonian physics was turned on its head by relativity, which recognized the smell and fetid pooling of the old paradigm. But scientists will instead say that Relativity and more recent developments only added to Newton in a piecemeal fashion, so no smell or pooling was involved.

Rather the philosophical landscape is in a state of upheaval, while simultaneously fighting to justify itself in the face of it's own creation, economic utility. — Banno

For me this characterization of the situation is absurd; economic utility grows out of the complacency brought about by prosperity. When you are economically comfortable, then you can safely begin to think in terms of mere profit, Philosophy has nothing to do with it, except perhaps as a provider of ad hoc justifications, and these are only required by intellectual idiots; who think the way things are can or could be rightly justified or repudiated; the bulk of humanity couldn't care less.

Another article of Midgley's that is interestingly provocative. The metaphor is that like plumbing, philosophy is taken for granted until it goes wrong; then we are obliged to call in the experts and clean up the mess. — Banno

It follows that Midgley does not offer a solution, although she indicates a few alternatives. She instead admonishes us to engage in sorting out the conceptual confusions that we otherwise take for granted.

(Edit: by way of full disclosure, see also Midgley vs Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Mackie, Rand, Singer...) — Banno

Thanks for this. I haven't read the article yet but glad to see Mary Midgley and her thoughts being picked up and discussed here. Finally, being given her due in the Main Discussion.

Previously in the 'Lounge': https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4326/death-of-mary-midgley
@Wayfarer's thread gives a bit of perspective to her background.

I look forward to hearing more from Wayfarer, also anything @180 Proof might care to add:

Since I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit, if not also the letter, of Midgley's paper, I've nothing to add until others come along and earnestly clog-up the pipes with their (youtubed) "doctrines". — 180 Proof

She was a disarming grandmotherly figure, it seems, quietly pointing to the blocked drain. — Banno

Glad you added 'It seems'.
2yrs ago, I included this in Wayfarer's thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/301836

Andrew Anthony interviewed her, describing in context, her spirit and intellect.
Re any school-marmly style, Mary responds to his question on consciousness 'with a professorial air of correction'. Quite the character and driven to write.

'....It has remained one of Midgley's principles to write in such a way that the maximum number of people can see what she's talking about. The philosopher and historian Jonathan Rée says: "She has always written in a language that's not aimed at the cleverest graduate student. She's never been interested in the glamour and greasy pole" associated with Oxbridge and London.'

I think this comparison of women and men philosophers interesting.
Elaborate competitive games v simple clear communication of ideas.
The term 'school-marmly' could be seen as pejorative and off-putting to some.
An elderly women philosopher discounted -
Mary would eat you for breakfast :cool:

Cheers, thanks for the links. I'm a late-comer, but quite enthralled.

I read the linked article, and I thought that it was impressive. What I thought was good was the criticism of the constructs which people take for granted, such as society. I think that Midgely does relate the idea of social contract with the concerns of where humanity is going, based on tangible aspects of real life. A really good quote in the article is,
'It may even be possible for our species to admit that it is not really a supernatural variety of Lego, but some kind of animal.'
I think that this is useful to think about because human beings have thought that they are in the position of dominating nature. How much control do we have, or should we have?

Midgely also says that philosophers should 'stop imitating Hegel.' I am not sure about this because I have not read that much by him, and was planning to read his, 'Phenomenology of Mind', shortly. However, I think she is right to emphasise the importance of distinguishing the literal from the symbolic, saying, 'Myths are stories symbolizing important patterns.' I think that I first became aware of this when trying to understand the Book of Genesis with Darwin's ideas. It seemed important to understand that the Biblical creation accounts were handed down stories about origins, and I am amazed how, even today, some people take the creation stories so literally, as if they were written by newspaper reporters. I do believe that when religious or other sacred texts are being read it is important to be aware that they are based upon symbolic levels of understanding.

Midgely also says that philosophers should 'stop imitating Hegel.' — Jack Cummins

Russell memorably wrote that Hegel's work 'illustrates an important truth, namely that the worse your logic, the more interesting the circumstances to which it gives rise.'

I will remember that, but I do feel that I do wish to read some, if not all, of Hegel's book.

What about something that, till recently, our moralists hardly mentioned at all, namely the non-human, non-speak- ing world—the needs of animals and plants, of the ocean and the Antarctic and the rainforests?

I'm not trying to diminish anybody's grinding angst, rant away. I only comment because there's a point if significance for me in it.

Hobbes was a monarchist, so the idea of a social contract isn't cemented to voting or individuality, in fact, at base it's the simple recognition that we need each other. The social contract is in our flesh and bones. We're more together than we would be apart. This is why we put up with the ills of society and civilization: because we can't separate ourselves from it.

No society could survive without the general consent of the people. There could never be enough police to force that consent.

The misanthrope who indulges in vague condemnations is missing the divine father.

Is philosophy like plumbing? I have made this comparison a number of times when I have wanted to stress that philosophising is not just grand and elegant and difficult, but is also needed. It is not optional. — Mary Midgley

Midgley means business! First impression is the last impression as far as I'm concerned.

When the concepts we are living by
function badly, they do not usually drip audibly through the ceiling orswamp the kitchen floor. They just quietly distort and obstruct our thinking — Mary Midgley

Heeeelp!

Great philosophers, then, need a combination of gifts that is extremely rare. They must be lawyers as well as poets. They must have both the new vision that points the way we are to go and the logical doggedness that sorts out just what is, and what is not, involved in going there. — Mary Midgley

I thought lawyers were rhetoricians disguised as logicians. Anway, gets the point across well. Logic + Creativity = Philosopher.

Plainly, social contract thinking is no sort of adequate guide for
constructing the whole social and political system. It really is a vital means of protection against certain sorts of oppression, an essential defence against tyranny. But it must not be taken for granted and forgotten, as a safe basis for all sorts of institutions. It needs always to be seen as something partial and provisional, an image that may cause trouble and have to be altered. — Mary Midgley

In true scientific spirit! Birthing science has paid handsome dividends to philosophy.

Freedom, here, is no longer
being viewed as a necessary condition of pursuing other ideals, but as being itself the only possible ideal — Mary Midgley

Reminds me of money! It's become an end unto itself. With money, you can buy, I kid you not, everything and anything. Freedom must be like money.

This ought to make it
easier to admit also that we are not self-contained and self-sufficient, either as a species or as individuals, but live naturally in deep mutual dependence. — Mary Midgley

Yeah, but my aunt doesn't agree!

But if we can once get it into our heads,that a model is only a model[...] — Mary Midgley

What's wrong if "...a model is only a model..."? :chin:

The alternative to getting a proper philosophy is continuing to use a bad one [...] — Mary Midgley

Tough call, philosophers (men, women, and children)!

That realization seems to be the
sensible element at the core of the conceptual muddle now known as Postmodernism [...] — Mary Midgley

Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science (1998; UK: Intellectual Impostures)

Myths are stories symbolizing profoundly important patterns, patterns that are very influential, but too large, too deep and too imperfectly known to be expressed literally. — Mary Midgley

A uniquely interesting point of view on mythology. Myths aren't falsehoods, they're truths too deep for language. Am I reading this as intended?

Examples like these led Enlightenment thinkers to denounce all myths and to proclaim, in Positivistic style, a new age free from symbols, an age when all thoughts would be expressed literally and language would be used only to report scientific facts. But the idea of such an age is itself a highly fanciful myth, an image quite unrelated to
the way in which thought and language actually work. All our thinking works through them. New ideas commonly occur to us first as images and are expressed first as metaphors. Even in talking about ordinary, concrete things immediately around us we use these metaphors all the time, and
on any larger, more puzzling subject we need constantly to try out new ones. — Mary Midgley

Ironic, don't you think? That there is no myth is the greatest myth! :chin:

Thought is incurably powerful and explosive stuff [...] — Mary Midgley

:up: This was a thought :point: (Tsar Bomba October 1961)

That is the way people often do interpret this kind of claim, and it is particularly often brought forward as a reason for doing science. But Socrates [the unexamined life is not worth living] was surely saying something much stronger. He was saying that there are limits to living in a mess. — Mary Midgley

What a fine mess we're in! I would've screamed in frustration but it seems I'm not alone and it's not polite at all to vent like that, right?

But wisdom itself matters everywhere [...] — Mary Midgley

Everybody knows that, right?

It may well be that other cultures, less committed to talking, find different routes to salvation, that they pursue a less word-bound form of wisdom. — Mary Midgley

What the literal can't do, myth (metaphor) can; what myth can't do...

Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must shut our gob — Ludwig Wittgenstejn

Those who speak don't know. Those who know don't speak. — Lao Tzu

It was a good read.

Most of us, I think, have long lost our umbilical cords, and so too the last connection each of us have had with another human being. So there is no “real joining-together of the parties”; we really are separate entities. One doesn’t have to be a hermit or a piece of lego under the couch to see this.

Since no amount of figures of speech can replace the real connection the umbilical cord once provided, why try? A relationship can only ever manifest as relations between separate, individual entities. So why must we pretend we are connected in order to have one? I depart with Midgley on her organic model of personal relations for these reasons, and because she conflates individualism with isolation. I depart with it also because it can be extended to organic models of the state, which have already soaked the 20th century.

The social contract theory may provide the best justification for state power, at least as far as statism is concerned, but no state actually lives up to it or was formed in such a manner.

Midgley is plumbing with duct tape here.

Most of us, I think, have long lost our umbilical cords, and so too the last connection each of us have had with another human being. — NOS4A2

The cells that make up your blood are independent in exactly the same way. They aren't connected to anything. Each has its own journey round the cosmos.

But the corpuscle who celebrates its independence might be a little blind, huh?

Midgley is plumbing with duct tape here. — NOS4A2

That stretchy silicone tape works though.

Human beings are like blood cells, then? I struggle to see it.

Human beings are like blood cells, then? I struggle to see it. — NOS4A2

More like macrophages because we can move in our own. Still, yes. You are a product of a highly advanced society. What have you accomplished all in your own?

More like macrophages because we can move in our own. Still, yes. You are a product of a highly advanced society. What have you accomplished all in your own?

Unlike a macrophage I am the product of two individual mammals. Just this morning I picked 5lbs of spruce tips.

It follows that Midgley does not offer a solution, although she indicates a few alternatives. She instead admonishes us to engage in sorting out the conceptual confusions that we otherwise take for granted. — Banno

Since I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit, if not also the letter, of Midgley's paper, I've nothing to add until others come along and earnestly clog-up the pipes with their (youtubed) "doctrines". — 180 Proof

:up:

I mostly agreed with the essay too. Here's an attempt to unclog one of its pipes.

Near the conclusion you see:

I think it might well pay us to be less impressed with what philosophy can do for our dignity, and more aware of the shocking malfunctions for which it is an essential remedy.

Perhaps I'm reading into it more than reading it, but there's a hint of uniqueness there - a suggestion that philosophy alone is a remedy for "shocking malfunctions", despite that the essay highlights a broad spectrum approach:

Granted, then, that the confusions are there, is abstract philosophical speculation really a helpful remedy? Are the plumbers any use? Obviously this kind of speculation cannot work alone; all sorts of other human functions and faculties are needed too. But once you have got an articulate culture, the explicit, verbal statement of the problems does seem to be needed. — Midgely

I appreciate that the author aligns philosophy with wrestling with problems in general; a "handmaiden of thought and practice" as it were, but that doesn't really get into why philosophy is necessary. It seems to be necessary by fiat - characterised as that discipline which deals with the rough edges and deep structure (ambiguity, plumbing) of thought.

So while the essay makes a good case for the necessity of "wrestling with questions", especially in interesting times as Banno put, one hole in the argument is that it doesn't sufficiently distinguish philosophy as a discursive practice from the rough edges and social/political/conceptual/discursive plumbing systems which are its fuel:

That is the way people often do interpret this kind of claim, and it is particularly often brought forward as a reason for doing science. But Socrates was surely saying something much stronger. He was saying that there are limits to living in a mess. He was pointing out that we do live in a constant, and constantly increasing, conceptual mess, and that we need to do something about it. He knew that the presence of this mess, this chronic confusion, is something we do not much want to think about because it indicates the thoroughly undignified fact that we are inherently confused beings. We exist in continual conflict because our natural impulses do not form a clear, coherent system. And the cultures by which we try to make sense of those impulses often work very badly. — Midgely

Which seems to me to present an unpleasant fork for the paper; either philosophy is commonplace enough to arise (more or less well) to fix breakdowns in plumbing and is done autonomously using domain understandings and general processes of reasoning, or alternatively it forms a necessary constituent of those disciplines (spurred on by their rough edges) from the get go. Either way, the unique vantage point and skillset of philosophy gets dissolved into (abstractions from) domain understandings.

Which I'm fine with - but it does rather go against the unique position of philosophy as a problem solver for conceptual plumbing systems, as it's almost definitionally the practice of this problem solving. Like I'm 30cm tall if I redefine 30cm to be my height.

Unlike a macrophage I am the product of two individual mammals. Just this morning I picked 5lbs of spruce tips. — NOS4A2

You pointed to your lack of physical connection to any other organism to prove your independence. Now it's that you're a mammal?

You said I was a product of a highly-advanced society. I corrected that.

Logic + Creativity = Philosopher. — TheMadFool

Interesting! Without having read Midgley's article yet, I commented in another thread where Banno mentioned it in response to something I said, that:

...I didn’t mean narrowly descriptive truths about the way the world really is, but truth in a broader sense that also encompasses prescriptive or moral “truths” (correct norms), logical or mathematical “truths” (valid inferences from coherent axiomatic definitions), rhetorical or artistic “truths” (effective presentation and delivery of useful or otherwise wanted content), and most to the point, philosophical truths, which I hold to lie in the intersection between logical/mathematical and rhetorical/artistic truths. — Pfhorrest

Glad to see a real philosopher (Midgley) espousing a similar thought.

So - how to proceed? — Manuel

The notion of a social contract was stillborn at birth. — Janus

Interesting juxtaposition.