III. 'COMMENT ON MARTIN HERZOG'S ARTICLE' BY GEOFFREY FROST

I enjoyed Martin Herzog's article in issue 103 and I would like to offer these comments more as a note of caution than in disagreement.

An aspect of philosophy which I like is watching the way people engage in it. I call this 'philosophy as a spectator sport' and like sport it has countless facets. The relationship between what you see and what is going on underneath is an important one of these. Philosophy is overtly a cerebral, dispassionate activity but frequently there is a tumult of strong feelings underneath and a belief that opposing views are not just mistaken but wicked. That the debates are held in a controlled and civilised manner (the incident with the poker, Popper and Wittgenstein apart!)[1] adds to rather than detracts from the perceived intensity of the feelings. The novels of Jane Austen and Barbara Pym work in much the same way.

Philosophy would not be such an absorbing and significant activity if it was not thus. It would have to be practiced by machines rather than people and for machines rather than people. The real world which Martin Herzog's politicians, scientists etc. inhabit is the same one that philosophers live in and the latter's discipline is not quite so rarefied as they sometimes believe. Pressures bear on philosophers too.

Politicians are in power to change things and cannot wait until the debate concludes with us all in agreement to start doing so. We must also accept that business is there to make a profit and may have allies among certain economists of the profit motive. Implicit in the practice of technology is an agenda to increase the power of mankind over nature and in this endeavour it exploits science. Ideally the natural sciences would be dispassionate, truth-seeking activities, but the areas in which research is funded depend upon the needs of technology, which in turn are part of the profit/ power game.

We cannot expect other disciplines to abandon their agendas. Philosophy can highlight considerations that might cause them to pause in their single-minded pursuit of their aims. It is especially good at identifying the beliefs implicit in particular policies and holding these up for scrutiny. We should support Martin Herzog's rallying call for philosophy to engage with the real world to do these things, and because, perforce, it's already a part of it.

I don't know quite where truth figures in this. Some philosophers believe there is no such thing, that it exists only relative to a particular narrative or is a function of power.
This is not my view but I don't think we should exclude people who believe this from the philosophical club - much less hound them out with a poker!

Editor's footnote

1. See 'Wittgenstein's Poker - a Moment of Destiny' by Colin Amery Philosophy Pathways Issue 22, 30th December 2001 http://www.shef.ac.uk/~ptpdlp/newsletter/issue22.html