|
Prelude
This used to be a book writing project.
But my ideas for the book changed so that the book is no longer coupled to the ideas expressed on this page.
The ideas here about how to go about writing a book (ideas about how to go about something which is still a mystery to me)
are still relevant to the replanned book project.
What's probably not going to play as large a role as I had envisaged is this "big problem" which I describe here.
The book is still intended to address the same underlying issues, but does not relate them so closely to my own experience.
I'm leaving the account of the Big Problem here till I think of a better place to put it.
|
|
A Big Problem and its Resolution
This project is intended to tell the story of a special life-stopping (well, intellectual-life inhibiting) problem which I
ran into round about 1995.
It will describe the problem, and why it was, for me, a big problem.
It will describe "the solution", tortuously engineered over many years, which is just beginning to let life (intellectually)
flow for me as it should.
However, the main point is not just these anecdotes.
The main point is to subject various aspects of the problem and of my supposed resolution to philosophical analysis.
And the main point of that, is to try out some ideas about the nature of philsophical analysis and see how well they work.
The ideas about analysis are themselves, part of the supposed resolution.
If that all sounds too philosophically introspective, then I can offer two mitigations.
The first part of the project presents the problem, my route to its resolution and the bare bones of the results.
The next two parts develop in greater depth two aspects of the resolution, which may be thought of as answers to the questions:
- How could it be so?
- What should we do about it?
The answer to the first, which I think of as analogous to Hume's delivery of "A Treatise on Human Nature" to explain why we
believe things which are not deducible from the evidence to hand, is a story about evolution.
This is intended to make intelligible some of the infelicities which we find in the rationality of academic research.
The answer to the second involves "epistemic retreat", a constructive analytic response to scepticism, and the architecture
of cognition, a study of how "knowledge" can be organised for exploitation in an open rather than a dogmatic way.
|
|
|
'Flow of Cogitation' Philosophical Writing
You may think of this as being an extremely tenuous analogue of "stream of consciousness" writing in literature.
The HOT philosophy project is so-called because it is intended to be a vehicle for documenting in the moment an ongoing philosophical investigation.
Better put perhaps, it is my attempt to synthesise the processes of philosophical thinking and creative writing.
HOT is also a recognition of my own personal disabilities; my unsuitability for a more traditional non-fiction writing project
in which one presents systematically some subject matter, or even in which one researches thoroughly and presents the results
of the research.
I have a hackers attitude toward philosophy, I enjoy the chase, I enjoy thinking about difficult problems, I enjoy coming
up with solutions, or partial or putative solutions.
Writing it all up is less exciting, at least, post factum.
A hacker sees the challenge of a problem, he cuts the code, takes pride perhaps in its aesthetic as well as its practical
virtues.
But user documentation?
The next problem is too tempting a lure.
Its even worse in philosophy, if you have this kind of mind.
Because the problems are never solved anyway, I have to write as I go, because I'm not actually likely to arrive.
So the idea of HOT philosophy is to find a way of doing philosophy which generates intelligible product in the process, rather
than demanding onerous exposition after the fact.
Analysis by the construction of formal models does this, and the HOT philosophy project is intended to explore whether this
can be made to work with a more liberal (pre-formal) conception of analysis (I don't rule out formal modelling, but formal
material will go elsewhere).
Having said all that, "flow of cogitation" can't work for me as I might hope, because there is too much undocumented past
innovation in my haed, on which today's cogitations are built.
So its rather hard to explain what I am thinking now, without unravelling trains of thought which go back a few decades.
A professional philosopher doesn't have this problem so bad as I, because he has been documenting his views all his professional
life, and is less likely to have a backlog.
|
|
Honest, Open, Transparent
Declaring that an aim of the project is to be "Honest, Open, Transparent", is perhaps rather odd.
It is an attempt to engineer an excuse for speaking my mind, for stating honestly why my problem is for me such a big problem.
Why should I need an excuse?
This is an "Emperor's New Clothes" thing.
Does one need an excuse to say that the Emperor is naked?
Or is it courage one needs?
Or what?
To say that analytic philosophers are en-masse irrational, is not novel.
But to publish a volume of philosophy which is essentially inspired or provoked by that kind of perception and the difficulty
of doing philosophy in the face of it, is not easy.
|
|