I don't know why I didn't think of this reply before (often one can't see
what is staring one in the face). But, I suppose the whole question is
whether or not philosophers should merely describe or change the world. And
if only the former (which of course I have consistently argued is
impossible, since writing is an input into this world, and in effect a
change of it) why bother?
his is cast in such hopelessly general terms, it seems to me that the
>only way to answer it is an equally general "no". If the given intellectual's
>studies have not led hir to the kinds of conclusions that can be formulated
>as "advice", then clearly offering advice would be inappropriate. The
>best that the intellectual can do is present the results of hir findings
>and hope that others will continue the studies, use the existing results
>in some way they find helpful, etc.
But this is hopessly naive, ideas are real and have real effects, one can't
simply say that one is not suggesting. To say X is true, is to say that
people should not believe or act on X.
It is quite possible that the concept
>of "intellectual" is always already, as soon as it is posited as a separate
>social function, thusly doomed.
I could probably go along with this, but what does it do to the argument
that Murray is advancing, or the argument that Foucault's ideas are not
influential in how we go about deciding between competing axiological
imperatives.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
what is staring one in the face). But, I suppose the whole question is
whether or not philosophers should merely describe or change the world. And
if only the former (which of course I have consistently argued is
impossible, since writing is an input into this world, and in effect a
change of it) why bother?
his is cast in such hopelessly general terms, it seems to me that the
>only way to answer it is an equally general "no". If the given intellectual's
>studies have not led hir to the kinds of conclusions that can be formulated
>as "advice", then clearly offering advice would be inappropriate. The
>best that the intellectual can do is present the results of hir findings
>and hope that others will continue the studies, use the existing results
>in some way they find helpful, etc.
But this is hopessly naive, ideas are real and have real effects, one can't
simply say that one is not suggesting. To say X is true, is to say that
people should not believe or act on X.
It is quite possible that the concept
>of "intellectual" is always already, as soon as it is posited as a separate
>social function, thusly doomed.
I could probably go along with this, but what does it do to the argument
that Murray is advancing, or the argument that Foucault's ideas are not
influential in how we go about deciding between competing axiological
imperatives.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------