Nuh. In Canberra, we pronounce the "L".

Philosophy remains unavoidable rather than necessary or useful — Banno

What is it, then, that is at least sufficient to cause the unavoidedness of philosophy? Seems to me if philosophy remains unavoidable, it is necessarily so.

So while at first I was gladdened to see a defence of the need for philosophising, I don't think Midgley succeeds in her defence. — Banno

Perhaps because philosophizing is more an egotistical desire, than a pathological need.

The poverty of the myth of the individual is that it just fails to address the Other, and so fails to enter into moral discussion. — Banno

If there are logically coherent moral discussions predicated on the individual alone, then they are not necessarily myths. If such discussions have no need to address the Other because it is concerned with the individual alone, it is not a poverty by exclusion, but a consistency with it.

The necessity for inclusion of the Other in moral discussion makes explicit moral judgements are at least meaningless, and at most impossible, by an individual with respect to himself alone, an absurdity for which no one has argued successfully.

Rhetorically speaking.....

Individualism is the anthesis of collectivism, not morality. It also stresses that others have self-interest too, not to mention rights, feelings, desires, volition, autonomy, and often competing moralities. Anyone devoted to "The Other" might try remembering this before he ingratiates himself before another's self-interest, that is if he is still able to distinguish between one "Other" and the next.

I think the problem has to do with the notion of the domain of the philosopher.

... journalism, comedy, activism, authors of fiction, and advocacy ... — Banno

Although these are not what is generally thought of as the domain of the philosopher, the are not devoid of reasoned thought and self-reflective deliberation.

I agree with her criticism of academic philosophy and like the metaphor of plumbing, but I think the idea of calling a professional philosopher to fix our thinking the way we would call a professional plumber to fix the pipes is a bit comical. A professional plumber will fix the pipes, I am not sure a professional philosopher will fix anything.

A professional plumber will fix the pipes, I am not sure a professional philosopher will fix anything. — Fooloso4

A "professional philosopher" is a hidden oxymoron. A philosopher is a lover of wisdom and therefore necessarily an amateur.

The only professionals in philosophy are academics, and nobody would call an academic plumber to fix their pipes; you need an experienced practitioner.

So, what seems to be the problem?

Are you agreeing with me?

Just checking.

The only professionals in philosophy are academics — unenlightened

Hence my comment:

I agree with her criticism of academic philosophy — Fooloso4

So, what seems to be the problem? — unenlightened

The problem is the notion that an academic/professional philosopher is going solve our problems. There is no reason to think that they are better qualified than others.

Nuh. In Canberra, we pronounce the "L".

Blasphemy.

I agree philosophy is unavoidable.

I have just come across a review of a republication of Mary Midgley' s final book, 'What is Philosophy For', by John Shand, in 'Philosophy Now' (June/July 2021), so I thought that it may be relevant to your thread discussion.

I believe that the book was her final one, written at age 99. Shand suggests that her view is that 'philosophy stands at the apex of the multitude of ways that we can think about the world because it lays out how these ways of thinking about the world and about our ways of fitting into it'. Midgely's philosophy has
'two functions, somewhat related. One is to create some kind of ordered whole for thought. The other is to work against being locked into one viewpoint such that we cease to consider all others. This does not mean that we accept all the views as equally justified or true- it's not an open door for relativism- but it does mean that we know how to place our views within a greater structure.'

Shand argues that Midgely's philosophy is about
' taking up and talking in two hands and talking and encompassing both which is the role of philosophy, allowing us to think about a problem in a more illuminating way, rather than futilely and battering away from one position.' This idea certainly makes sense to me, because it does seem that many people get locked into one mode of thinking, like a form of tunnel vision.

In criticism of Midgely's perspective, Shand suggests that one problem of her thinking is that 'she seems unable to pull off what she advocates', and this could be seen to apply to the idea of philosophical plumbing, in that it is not sufficiently analytical enough. However, what Shand is pointing to, and what I would agree with, is how her outlook is useful for considering the basis of how we approach and frame ideas, from narrow to larger pictures.

She instead admonishes us to engage in sorting out the conceptual confusions that we otherwise take for granted. — Banno

We were taught in highschool that philosophy is about how one thinks and talks about things, not about coming to definitive conclusions about things.

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"?

But perhaps not. — Banno

Lyotard has a theory according to which there are essentially just two periods in cultural history: classicism and modernism, one repeatedly following upon the other, as a reaction to the other. So if the Ancient Greek culture was classicism, the Ancient Roman culture was modernism, and so on.
The classical periods are exemplified by stability, certainty, order, moderation (e.g. Ancient Greek, Classicism, Realism), while the modernist ones are exemplified by lack of stability, doubt, excess (e.g. Ancient Roman, Baroque, Romanticism, Postmodernism). (Of course, the names of the cultural periods will vary somewhat depending on the specific country/culture one observes.)

The classical periods are exemplified by stability, certainty, order, moderation (e.g. Ancient Greek... — baker

He hadn't read much of Greek history, then.

This is about general trends in cultural history. Compare Realism and Romanticism, Classicism and Baroque, or Modernism and Postmodernism, for example.

I'm unconvinced. Looks more like a simplification in order to support a dubious contention. I'm not keen on historicism.

Think of it as a form of dialectics or eristic. You were talking about a tension between system building and critical evaluation in philosophy.

The problem is that philosophy is not a monolith; so it might not be all that easy to decide who is "degrading" it. — Janus

Poorly worded on my part. I meant only to note that many many politicians will degrade a position by calling it "philosophical' or 'in theory' or words to that effect/affect.

My understanding is that when you need a decision to be supported by a moral theory you just utter the phrase "because of social contract theory" and no one asks any questions. What it lacks in rigor it makes up for in raw efficiency. But, at some cost I imagine.

There's a distinction between critical philosophy, which includes analytic philosophy, and speculative philosophy, which is just shit folk make up as they go along.

Just sayin'.

Are we trying to fix philosophy? I thought this was just for complaining.

I would submit we ought start by eliminating the infinite regresses, starting with empiricism. It seems like there are no perfect sources or ways to look and absorb knowledge directly. If the truth of complex things are not simply the product of manifest truth then why does philosophy concern itself with over simplifications of the world. But, in a non-dogmatic sense. A lot of things are obvious and don't benefit from volumes of semantic analysis. Is that the direction the essay intended to point?

You started with a speculation, and I added to it. In search of a good idea.
*shrug*

Hence Philosophical Plumbing — Mary Midgley

~~

Odds are when I wrote this last year; I had accepted the premise that philosophy needed some sorting out(missing the point). She's making the same point Popper does more or less. Which is to return to a useful state where the proper application of some rational skepticism will take some one a lot further intellectually than all the poetic squabbling.

In other news I did finally get an important looking piece of paper from a degree granting institution, so thanks for the assist.

It was an error on my part - I thought you had responded to a different post...

But congratulations, a worthy achievement.

conceptual confusions — Banno

If (conceptual) confusions could be sorted out, they would've been by now - philosophers have been at it, day in day out, for now 2.5k years - and since they're still around, alive & kicking, in texts, audio, videos, it means we have a wicked problem on our hands. We'll just havta learn to live in this mess of a house, oui mon ami? Some of us will die, others will go cuckoo, still others will suffer, but that's just life! C'est la vie!

As if the continuation of inane religious ritual and witchcraft showed that science was wrong.

I don't quite see how it's a science or religion situation?

It is interesting seeing this thread pop up and it seems such a while ago. When I first read Midgely's idea of philosophical plumbing I didn't appreciate it's full significance. However, over a year or so later, I do think that the ideas are ones which stand out as being influential. I had not come across her writing at that time and I have seen some other writing by her and see her as being a philosopher of great significance.

Belated cheers for that. She's a good precautionary measure against scientism, too.