m@ (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} archas) wrote, |
Hey, you! Thanks for reading, and thanks for the thoughtful comments! So, let's see:
I'd agree that one way we could take your yoga teacher's comments is to suggest that yoga ought to be a process, and not an "object"--or, perhaps, not a simple "technology" to be "applied." Yoga as an open-ended quest, and not a fixed set of answers? I like it...
...Though, there's maybe another way of interpreting the same comment? "Do" is an "active" verb, as it were: "I do X." Whereas "experience" seems more "passive," if you'll forgive the oversimplification: "I experience X" seems to suggest that X is not solely the product of my own action, and perhaps is even something being done to me. In much the same way that Heidegger traces both the artist and the artwork back to the common source "art," which then happens through both artist and artwork...
As to definitions and rationality...At least for philosophy, dictionary definitions are notoriously unhelpful and question-begging. You're right, definition 1, though more "action-oriented," is hardly clear and distinct. As Althusser once said, though, one cannot define philosophy without at the same time doing philosophy...!
At the very least, "rationality" seems to signify calculation. Now, rationality as an irrational--or simply intersubjectively agreed-upon--standard is a contentious idea, but you're certainly not alone in suggesting it. Foucault seems to agree with you entirely. Whereas, of course, any stuffy British philosopher worth his salt is going to pass a gallstone at the very suggestion. He will then point you to things like the principle of non-contradiction, or the basic theorems of logic; "agreed upon" or not, it might seem that there's simply no way to arrange any system of "rationality" without a few basic, universal axioms. But, if that's the case, then perhaps there really is a "rationality" more fundamental than any social arrangement of intersubjective logic?
At the very least, definition 1 doesn't seem to be enough to really distinguish an activity called "philosophy" from any number of similar activities--sociology? Psychology? Even science--especially in the French sense, in which "science" seems to be any rigorously ordered body of knowledge...(Which, again, may beg the questions of rationality, rigor, etc.)
Heh--and for this, business and industry will now pay top dollar? Seriously, though, I've actually been seeing similar stories over the last year and a half or so. I think it's good news, by and large. At the very least, putting more of an emphasis on critical thinking in education is never a bad idea!
Great to hear from you--hope all's well in parts North!
I'd agree that one way we could take your yoga teacher's comments is to suggest that yoga ought to be a process, and not an "object"--or, perhaps, not a simple "technology" to be "applied." Yoga as an open-ended quest, and not a fixed set of answers? I like it...
...Though, there's maybe another way of interpreting the same comment? "Do" is an "active" verb, as it were: "I do X." Whereas "experience" seems more "passive," if you'll forgive the oversimplification: "I experience X" seems to suggest that X is not solely the product of my own action, and perhaps is even something being done to me. In much the same way that Heidegger traces both the artist and the artwork back to the common source "art," which then happens through both artist and artwork...
As to definitions and rationality...At least for philosophy, dictionary definitions are notoriously unhelpful and question-begging. You're right, definition 1, though more "action-oriented," is hardly clear and distinct. As Althusser once said, though, one cannot define philosophy without at the same time doing philosophy...!
At the very least, "rationality" seems to signify calculation. Now, rationality as an irrational--or simply intersubjectively agreed-upon--standard is a contentious idea, but you're certainly not alone in suggesting it. Foucault seems to agree with you entirely. Whereas, of course, any stuffy British philosopher worth his salt is going to pass a gallstone at the very suggestion. He will then point you to things like the principle of non-contradiction, or the basic theorems of logic; "agreed upon" or not, it might seem that there's simply no way to arrange any system of "rationality" without a few basic, universal axioms. But, if that's the case, then perhaps there really is a "rationality" more fundamental than any social arrangement of intersubjective logic?
At the very least, definition 1 doesn't seem to be enough to really distinguish an activity called "philosophy" from any number of similar activities--sociology? Psychology? Even science--especially in the French sense, in which "science" seems to be any rigorously ordered body of knowledge...(Which, again, may beg the questions of rationality, rigor, etc.)
Heh--and for this, business and industry will now pay top dollar? Seriously, though, I've actually been seeing similar stories over the last year and a half or so. I think it's good news, by and large. At the very least, putting more of an emphasis on critical thinking in education is never a bad idea!
Great to hear from you--hope all's well in parts North!
