From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Subject: Re: Of apples and their skins
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:21:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.184001.10855@netcom.com> steveth@netcom.com (Steve Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.035416.2518@cheshire.oxy.edu> rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:
>>
>>	I feel a little tickled at defending Russell, but Steve here
>>is terribly misrepresenting not only philosophy but even Russell, who
>>you'd think Steve would pause to learn something about before mocking
>>his philosophical project.  Russell's philosophical intent *was* the
>>certainty Steve's looking for; it was a scrupulous attempt to found
>>mathematics in logic and so to be able to make rationally intelligible 
>>claims about the world.  Steve, if you know anything about Russell
>>at all, you should know that he worked extensively to champion very
>>"every day life"-type concerns: he protested stupid wars, spoke out
>>against oppression, etc.  And he pursued philosophy's abilities to
>>rationally guide such "helping people" to the best of his ability.
>>I don't see you doing jack, just bitching on an electronic newsgroup.
>
>Russell bitched (sic.) a lot about all kinds of things, but he never
>used anything from is own profession to help his arguments: he did not say
>"stop the war, because mathematics is rooted in logic".  When it came to
>real world issues, his profession was left at the office.  THIS is my point.
>Russell might have come out againt certain things, but he really hadn't
>much more to offer than your average op-ed writer (to be sure, he was quite a
>clever writer--don't get me wrong about that).

	So?  As you say, you have a Greek view of the role of philosophy.
Presumably you mean that philosophy as a discipline should in some way
demonstrate what the good [kaloi] is, and so "provide answers" for daily
life.  Russell, for one, came to reject (to some extent) this view.  Sure,
logic can assist us in clarifying reasoning -- but provide us with categorical
answers?  Probably not.  His profession was left at the office in the
same way that a bricklayer, while certainly being able to bring her 
experiences to assist in political decisions however they can, doesn't 
have a sharply privileged insight into the form of the Good.  While
philosophy as a discipline has enjoyed the mystique of authority in
delineating mores and the political good, I'm less convinced that it 
can offer any more fundamental or unshakable insights than other fields
of inquiry.  Of course, philosophy can lay bare the aporias in other
disciplines, methodologies, and ideologies; provide acceptable and
coherent rationales for mathematical systems; and generally be edifying
as a whole.  And I'm by no means convinced that philosophy has nothing 
to offer in terms of justifying moral claims: it just seems rather
iffy.

>
>if you need to FLAME me for this, go ahead:
>

	Please don't take my flames out of the context which they are
attacking.  The smoking flamethrower lies in your less-than-polite comments
about philosophers going "against the wall" in the "revolution".  Spare
us the retroactive martyrdom of the poor, innocent political radical begging
for peaceful change with a machete and getting blown away by the Man.

>>	As opposed to the virile missionary position in which Steve and
>>his ilk would happily provide all the right answers and final solutions.
>>
>I'm terribly sorry: silly me trying to offer solutions (or at least advocating
>the practice thereof).  What should I care if people are dying and I might
>be sent to a far away land to fight the War On Drugs--there are no answers
>to anything, right?  We can't be sure of anything, so why argue with the
>Men in Power?
>

	When did I (or Russell) ever claim that abandoning strong
foundationalism should cause us to give up hope or stop caring about
human suffering?  "We can't sure of anything" does not equal "We can't
argue with the Powers that Be".  Moreover, who said "we can't be sure
of *any*thing"?  There are many things we can be `sure' of, at least
for purposes of rational agreement.  Those "masturbating" mathematicians
and philosophers have made many such "solutions" (e.g., intuitionists, 
or even John Rawls).

>Seriously, call me naive, but I think that trying to solve problems though
>intelligent inquiry is better than nothing at all.  Just because doctors
>can't make people immortal doesn't mean they should immediately stop AIDS
>research.  I'd happilly provide answers and "final solutions" (if you're going
>to call me a NAZI, by the way, just come right out and call me a NAZI,
>coward!).  I'm not omnipotent, but at least I try, and I can't help but
>think that trying is better than not trying...

	Steve, like a lot of people today, you seem to have invested 
heavily in the Despairing Skepticism view of abstract philosophical or
mathematical inquiry.  Blindly assuming that technical philosophical
conundrums have no relation to the real world, or that philosophers
just spend their time on these problems in a sort of cynical disregard
for the Real World (tm) is as much a ideological construct of the
vaunted Men in Power as any of the ignorant accusations you're hurling
here.

	I'm glad that you were able to discern my "final solution"
innuendo.  You should note, however, that subtlety is an entirely
different phenomenon than cowardice.  (Come on, I compared you to 
the Khmer Rouge -- surely you don't think I would hesitate to label
you a Nazi if I really wanted to?)

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney