March 11, 1998
Dear Prof. Swartz,
I liked your piece on the antagonistic form of much philosophical
debate. This is the way it has been in my experience, too. In a
book I am trying to get published I look at the metaphors which
structure much journal writing. Two dominant ones are that of 'war'
and 'trial', both of which you mention. I go through articles and
take out words which indicate how the writing is to be taken.
The following lists of phrases show what I mean:
An army of enthusiasts, enemies, stand up to, confront, dispute,
clamour, conflict, battle, come under fire, go on the offensive,
blood-letting, sacrifice, overcome, appropriate, occupy the territory
formerly held by ..., dominate, swagger, hold, attack, capture,
dispute, resist, clash, lines of attack, be decisive, settle, cede,
(be) a veritable Balkans of the intellectual world, escape, counter
with, (be) an appropriate strategy, (be) part of a broader salvo
launched against ..., (be) aimed against, challenge, run a risk,
pick a safe path through the ontological minefield, cut both ways,
tip the scales, carry the day.
These are verbatim snippets from respected journals.
The less warlike use the metaphor of going to the law:
- 'It is this compromise view that I want to defend in the present ... .'
- 'Accordingly, we have two persuasive arguments why ... is not sound.'
- 'Of course, it is not an easy task to prove the claim that ...'
- 'I shall consider some of the objections to ... .'
- 'X has recently defended ... .'
- 'His defence is surely solid.'
- 'E levels this charge against C.'
- 'The evidence against ... will be decisive.'
- 'However, ... is even more incompatible with the evidence.'
- 'it would be unfair to ... .'
- 'In spite of the impressive case that may be built to support the view that ... .'
- 'the account C gives of X's position is plainly incoherent'
- 'Advocating ... is not a popular position'
- 'in conclusion'
You mention that philosophers seem to wish they were rich lawyers.
Maybe they do.
However, there are in the whole history of philosophical writings
other metaphors that have structured the arguments of the philosophers.
The metaphor of philosophy as business contains the compressed
narrative of competitive marketing. Ideas are advertized, bought
and sold. Many terms and phrases in the articles have their home in
the financial pages. Sometimes philosopher authors invest heavily in
a theory only to find that it is bankrupt. Sometimes they 'offer',
'exhibit', 'borrow', 'underwrite' or 'appraise' a theory, cash a
concept, 'acquire', 'trade' or 'undercut' an idea. At others, they
'pay a price' for holding a theory or cannot 'afford' to hold it.
They invest philosophical capital into different theories. We find
explanations 'endorsed' like checks and 'commendations' given to
theories or arguments as if they were commodities on a shelf from
which the reader chooses.
One fragment runs as follows: "The business of this paper is ... ."
This is a paper that describes its matter as a kind of business.
Indeed, much philosophy is written in a businesslike way, befitting a
sober profession. The story of philosophy as a kind of business
provides another plot-line for the development of a philosophical
argument. First, the philosopher-salesperson introduces the product,
then stresses its benefits, along with the insufficiencies of the
competition. Finally, it goes for the close. Clearly, the reader in
the text is inclined to take up the offer to buy.
Philosophy as a journey
The journey from ignorance to wisdom is a traditional narrative of
philosophical reasoning. Plato's story of the philosopher's escape
from the cave of ignorance and illusion is a good example. The cave
dweller turns away from the comfortable features of 'so-called'
reality to another reality that is nothing to the world or the
worldly. It is a journey to enlightenment. The draw of this
narrative has been such that its metaphors have found their way into
philosophical writings that are anything but Platonic.
Next consider the position of the reader in the text. What is it to
learn? Unless it is ignorant or misled in some respects, then the
author has nothing of interest to say to the reader, and the point of
writing disappears. For example, one sentence I found stands in need
of further interpretation, viz. "I do not intend to persuade readers
of anything they did not already believe." Here the author-narrator
identifies with the ideal reader, since both of them believe the
same things. The difference is that the author is aware of what
they are, but the reader, presumably, is not. Normally, the author
brings its readers to a better understanding of the argument, if not
from ignorance to wisdom.
The metaphors of light and vision
The very term 'enlightenment' points to a journey toward the light.
It also invokes the metaphor of vision in philosophy. Plato's cave
is shadowy, the fire is flickering, but outside the light is strong
and clear, the sun shines with a constant power. We can see
properly for the first time, for we are seeing things in the light
of the sun, and thus seeing them for what they are. This story has
a compelling hold on philosophical vocabulary. We can see it
reflected in the many metaphors of seeing and light that frequent
philosophy articles.
The following terms and phrases are found in the fragments of
articles that appear in the appendix: be visible, visualize,
view and be viewed as, envision, point to, display, survey,
watch, glance at, outline, look at, see, as we shall see,
see nothing wrong with, see why or that, be hard to see,
observe, sketch, portray, depict, show, focus, outline,
face, be faced with, in the face of, highlight, underline,
cast a light on, the light of day, bring to light, shed light,
in the light of, reflect, mirror, show clearly, reveal,
illustrate, delineate, depict, preview, purview, foresee,
overlook, read with an eye for, a glance shows that, is seen
to, as we have seen, before us lies.
What is it about the metaphor of vision that makes it so useful to
philosophical writing? I suggest that it is again a matter of
establishing the correct distance of address for professional
debate.
Derrida warns us against thinking that a metaphorology of
philosophical writing will solve all philosophical problems.
True, but it can certainly help to frame philosophical debate and
throw out limits and structures for future discussion. Philosophy
seems to have followed Mill in thinking that only ideas tested
against fierce criticism is worthy of acclaim. However,
interestingly in light of what you said about the dearth of women
philosophers, it turns out that the metaphors of war and trial are
mainly absent from the writings of women philosophers in the journal
called Hypatia. They salute their sisters and try to learn from
each other and build on each other's work rather than engage in
simple refutation.
I personally, now, when I give a paper try to disarm my audience by
presenting it not as a bombproof theory but as a work in progress.
I need the help of the audience to complete and perfect my work, and
if that involves criticism, it will be for the sake of that work
that I accept it, and not feel that I am losing out to debating
points. You are right that philosophy can produce shallow
smart-asses, who are quick to clever rejoinders and attacks, but slow
to learn. I am glad you put your essay on the web.
Jeff Mason
Middlesex University
London, England
email: jeff4@mdx.ac.uk
|