*

.
 Here is much of what twentieth-century philosophy has discovered: Since
it is in fact the case that words and language are fundamentally metaphorical
and analogical in nature, our thinking is thus necessarily limited and inexact;
eg. in terms of precision and clarity as regards any formal (or absolute)
descriptions of "ultimate" reality. Therefore if everything is relative, then
our thinking can't really be trusted (ie. thinking depends enormously upon
language); and so our confidence in any system or philosophy is gravely
undermined. Thus the only sensible response to (or method in) philosophy
is one of extreme skepticism. Yes, absolute doubt IS totally justified.
.
 Alas, nothing else is! ...
.
 Except perhaps Science? Logically, this means the end of Philosophy as a
going concern, but practically it means that Sophia is once again relegated
to the minor and supporting role of 'handmaiden'; this time for Science,
rather than for Religion and Theology. I need only one word to summarize
my thinking about all this: Yuk! with a capital Y  :D  But the problem here
is NOT a problem with Philosophy herself; but rather a problem with the
current crop of philosophers: namely, a terminal case of constipation of
the imagination! Science has but lately revealed the hitherto unsuspected
and astonishing complexity of Life, the Universe, & Everything; and it's all
the philosophers can do just to say 'Wow'. Indeed, so vast is the Cosmos
thus revealed (and the unexpected complexity thereof) that it is clear that
our meager philosophies are woefully incapable of doing it full justice. And
so we have a problem, if I may put it another way, that stems (ultimately)
from the very definition of Philosophy itself.
.
 Russell saw Philosophy as something stuck midway between Science
and Religion. This understanding of the nature and purpose of Philosophy
practically forces Sophia to make herself into the image and likeness of one
or the other: philosophy as pseudo-science or as pseudo-religion. And yet
*all* of this is quite wrong, for it is based upon a simple (but significant)
misunderstanding: Philosophy is NOT just Science and Religion, it is *also*
Art and History. And this simple fact-of-life means that Sophia can *never*
be a mere handmaiden, for Philosophy is fundamentally bigger than both
Science and Religion. [I would like to say here "MUCH bigger", but this little
datum might unduly frighten off philosophers who are already lacking in
confidence and imagination.]
.
 Someone hereabouts recently suggested that Philosophy is a "method of
learning" (which idea is certainly in keeping with the prevailing reductionism).
But Philosophy is (of course) *much* more than that; just as it is much
more than "mere empty talk" and/or communication (although that is
basically what philosophy is and does: a communion-of-minds). Philosophy
is thus a collaborative process taking place over immense stretches of time.
It is also a dialogue between many very-individual and very-particular minds,
a dialogue between many of the greatest men to ever walk this Earth, a
dialogue that only exists because it can and does (via the written word)
"transcend" the normal constraints of Time & Space.
.
 Indeed it can be said that the true heroes of History are its greatest writers
and thinkers. So of course we must listen to the voices of these great-ones
by reading directly their own writings (albeit often in translation (which is
already one step removed from the author)); for if we do not, we are
willfully deaf, dumb, *and* blind to what History & Philosophy can (and
should) teach us! If we do not (or cannot) read the texts written by these
writer-philosophers of the past and present - insofar as we are able (ie.
depending upon both the merits of the text (and its author) and the read-
ability of the student or reader) - then how on earth can we possibly
participate in the ever-ongoing dialogue that makes Philosophy the  ever-
living, ever-growing, and always dynamic human process that it is?
.
 Nevertheless, it's also true that sometimes we can't (or won't) read the
primary sources from the exclusive and approved A-list of "recommended
and recognized" Philosophers (Recommended by who? Recognized by
who?); and on rare occasions there's really no need to even bother with
that. I myself have never read 'Being and Nothingness' from beginning to
end, and probably never will. This is not to deny that Sartre has something
important to say in this book, but only that I object to the *way* he says
it. Thus despite that book's undoubted importance, reading every word of
it can only be a colossal waste of time. But that's okay too, for the ideas
therein can (and probably should) be garnered from other sources. And
the same goes for other great (and not so great) philosophers. Inventing
new terms and ideas is one thing, but many philosophers seem to
deliberately abuse language (to the detriment of Philosophy above all),
either by being deliberately obscure (a la Kant and Hegel), or by using a
kind of specialized techno-babble that virtually removes some forms of
philosophical literature right out of the realm of common English.
.
 Accordingly, much of the academic type of philosophy that is being
produced lately could easily fall into this sad category. Fortunately,
Philosophy is much more than just this or that particular set of books
and/or essays and articles. It is also the commentaries and critiques and
analyses of those primary sources, as well as the commentaries and
critiques and analyses on those secondary sources. A good example of
this latter type is the book I'm reading now: Wickham's 'The Unrealists'
(1933), which is basically just a collection of critical essays about famous
philosophers (eg. James and Russell). Books like this are truly priceless,
as they give the reader an insight into the primary sources (and the men
who wrote them) that simply can't be had in any other way.
.
 At the other end of the spectrum are books like J.Margolis' 'Interpretation
Radical But Not Unruly: The New Puzzle of the Arts and History' (1995),
which is an interesting subject ... BUT: "Considerations of these sorts
confirm the openended nature of narratized interpretation - a fortiori, of
interpretation in general. They therefore expose the doubtful tidiness of so-
called essentializing and totalizing theories." And the whole book is like that
in it's odd use of the English language. As a result, this particular book (with
this kind of techno-babble) is almost unreadable, and almost certainly not
worth the extreme effort required to fully digest it. And this "specialized"
use of language makes much of the current crop of philosophical literature
almost worthless to non-specialists. Yes, even bad writers can make their
mark in philosophy - if indeed their ideas have some small measure of merit
- but generally speaking (ie. exceptions such as Socrates and Buddha aside)
it is normally only those thinkers who are *also* good writers (eg. Plato and
Russell) who can make a lasting impression on the fickle mind of the general
public. And these latter are the ones most worth reading and studying.
.
 Thus it is better to know and understand the minds of men like Plato and
Nietzsche than men like Kant and Heidegger. This is not to say that their
*ideas* are better or worse, only that their *writings* leave much to be
desired. Those who view Philosophy as primarily a science tend to produce
bad writing because they deliberately forget or ignore that Philosophy is just
as much Art as it Science! And this is also why Philosophy can NEVER be
reduced to a mere sub-department of the humanistic sciences. The term
'philosophical-literature' in itself implies the presence of Art within Philosophy,
and this is as it should be. But any philosophy that deliberately neglects to
recognize the essential importance of all four of the contributing elements
(ie. science, religion, art, history) within Philosophy is bound to fail due to
insufficient vision and insight (ie. from a lack of artistic imagination).
x

textman
*