Hey all,
I finally got a new computer and will now be able to resume posting on Swacratic. My old computer made it through four years of school, but is now too slow. With my new macbook (yay), I hope to be all over this forum like syphillis on Nietzsche. I hope all of you will join me in re-igniting the spark of Swarthmore class of 2008 philosophy.
So let's get this started.
The other night I had quite a bit to drink, and had a quite long conversation about how people communicate. It basically turned into a drunken relationship counseling session. At the end, I had it in mind that I should write a philosophy book from the perspective of a relationship counselor, and texted this to myself:
"Book about moral philosophy that opposes and plays out the great moral philosophies against eachother and views the dialogue through a perspectival lens, analyzing arguments not only based on content but on the negotian style and sociopsychoanalytic reading of each view's main proponent. 3rd party relationship-counselor negotiating between and among sides, narrating the nuances, similarities, and differences of either view and giving clarity to the relationships. Hernenuetic combines Taylor's transition based practical reasoning with rationalizing argument based logic and personal psyochosocial reading."
Rather than ask your opinions about this idea, I thought I'd pose a more sober question.
What role can/should intoxication play in philosophy?
There is a lot of substance here, so run wild and indulge in your responses.
23 September 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wait, but I want to talk about the first thing!
ReplyDeleteSo... according to my advisor, pretty much all relationships include irreconcilable differences (Dan, I know you'll take exception to this), but people will be happier in the relationship _and_ find that their partners are more willing to change if they first spend some time working on understanding and accepting what it is about their partners that gives rise to those differences, rather than trying to force change directly. I think the idea is that someone is more likely to be convinced by your argument if you can show them that you understand the basic assumptions and commitments underlying their position and respect those, while still offering an alternate view (particularly if it just might be able to accommodate those). Are there some moral philosophers that have done that with their interlocutors better than others...?
So, unlike Lisa I don't really have much of an opinion about the moral philosophy component, but I do have an opinion about the role of intoxication in philosophy, so I'll talk about that. Feel free to address the previous post and ignore me until the moral philosophy thing is dealt with, though.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to intoxication and philosophy, my view is pretty simple(/overly simplistic?): I see intoxication as a way of putting oneself in an abnormal state of mind that allows one to experience things differently than one would if one were sober. It seems to me that the difference in personal experience can sometimes spark inspiration, depending on the circumstances, and certainly that inspiration can be philosophical, so if philosophical inspiration is your goal, intoxication can be a good thing.
However, as some of you might know, I take pains not to consume intoxicants (I'm lumping all mind-affecting drugs, including alcohol, under this category). The main reason I abstain is two-fold: though I think intoxicants may help with the inspiration so key to philosophy, they don't help so much with the support for these inspirations. I don't know of many people who have suddenly found the right quote to support their thesis on Descartes while high, and even if one does spend one's time while intoxicated doing a logical proof or finding quotes to support one's point (I am reminded of my high school physics teacher's comments on the "drunken physics" he used to do in grad school in Germany), the proofs and evidence are usually ruled out as wrong and/or irrelevant in the morning. I personally feel like a lot/most of the work in philosophy comes from supporting one's points, not coming up with creative points to support, so intoxication doesn't help too much with this.
My second issue with intoxicants is that I feel they are extremely overrated in terms of how much inspiration they may buy you. Having a good conversation with a professor or philosophically-minded friend, for instance, usually helps me understand things better than drinking alone at home contemplating Nozick would. In the context of the "conversation while intoxicated" (which seems to be a pretty standard occurrence while in graduate school, given that most seminars adjourn to bars after their two hours are up), I feel like most of the philosophical work is probably done by the dialogue between people and the intoxicant serves only to loosen people up and make them feel less inhibited about sharing half-baked ideas. In the context of a dialogue, then, I feel like the intoxicant is playing at best a secondary role which, while helpful, certainly doesn't seem indispensable.
Anyway, these are my "half-baked thoughts" on the issue. I may be wrong about a lot of this since, as I noted, I abstain from intoxicants, but I'd be interested in hearing what people think. I should also note that I don't mean any of this as an attack on people who do use intoxicants for philosophical purposes; I'm just trying to question whether they are as essential to philosophy (and philosophical discourse) as a lot of people in philosophy today seem to think they are.
And Lisa, Lucy and I totally have irreconcilable differences that we're okay with: she knows I'll never like Moulin Rouge, and I know she'll never willingly listen to Modest Mouse. :)
On communication: Lisa brought up an interesting point about the role of acknowledging the other's beliefs when presenting an argument. A large part of my job is experimenting with the procedures that employees use in their daily functions to see if I can save time or work. Many times this involves asking someone who has been working the same way for years to do something new, and most of the time, the employees don't like to change. They are concerned with performing up to standard and are worried that a change in procedure will hurt their numbers. Often they are right, but it is my job to sell them on a change in order to see if it may have some hidden benefit. I've definitely found that employees are more willing to give my ideas a chance if I show that I understand and respect their reasons for disagreeing.
ReplyDeletePhilosophers can use the same strategy when arguing for their views. They will give a charitable interpretation of an opponent's argument and then show how their own view is an improvement. Naturally, some philosophers are more skilled than others at using such tactics when debating.
What I'm really interested in is the use of negotiation tactics that go beyond conceding a point or showing respect for an argument before offering an objection. Some negotiators (or relationship counselors) are skilled at tailoring their rhetorical style to specific people. They understand not only the argument they are trying to defeat, but also the personal psychology of its proponent, and they deliver their argument in the way that will best woo their interlocutor. Some non-philosophical examples of what I mean are using flattery to soften a constructive criticism, getting someone important to use your idea by convincing her she thought of it, and etc.
When philosophers argue, they generally try to focus on the claims and assumptions that each interlocutor is making. What if, however, one were to focus on using negotiation-style rhetorical tactics in delivering his argument, and was thus able to convince others of his view? Does this mean his argument is better? If Socrates weren't so persuasive in his rhetorical style, would we be as convinced or impressed by his philosophy?
Perhaps this isn't at all as interesting as I'm thinking, but I'm intrigued by the idea of philosophy by negotiation. I'd like to see Kant, Mill and Hegel sit down at a table and argue about moral philosophy as though they were brokering a business deal. If one was able to convince the others, would we say he had the best argument? The best philosophical system?
Anyway, must go to bed. Will write on intoxication tomorrow.
Long live the Swacratic.