Hi Derek,

Perhaps I am more forgiving/tolerant than you. Be that as it may, I think that we just have to accept that some people, perhaps many people, will be inspired or captivated by a certain tradition or thinker and work within that tradition or in line with that thinker. I am sure you would agree this is acceptable. Whether or not you stop to look at the more grandiose claims made within that tradition or by that thinker (particularly in its/their early days) is another matter. Just taking up on your comment regarding psychology, often its better not to focus on those kinds of statements for the sake of your own self-relation or self-respect. We can understand why people pass over certain aspects of their tradition without endorsing their doing so. 

But of course it is right to suggest that every one should climb the mast and look back at where there ship has taken them once and a while. Clearly this should be done in a way that is both objective on the one hand (so not defensively rationalizing or justifying matters) and critical on the other, so actively being critical not just of the rout taken, but also of the choice of destination. I think two things are required to do this. Firstly one has to find clear and objective internal criteria that relate to first order maters; so, what is this tradition of thinking trying to achieve? Filling library shelves or accumulating cash, or achieving dominance might be 'good', but they are not really a philosophical objective and if they are 'good' they are only instrumentally so. Secondly one has draw in some external criteria, which is best done, in my opinion, from a broad perspective on what it is to do philosophy and, of course, an understanding of how this tradition fits in.

In any case this is not necessarily easy and while, at the abstract level, everyone should do this, I don’t thing everyone can. Further there are certain barriers against voicing a negative result even if one does climb the mast. Most people these days are more concerned with careers than with wisdom, virtue or truth – this is one of the conditions of contemporary knowledge production. Pretty much philosophy is like any other ‘business’ these days, if you want to ‘succeed’ (read make a living out of it) you have to be strategic. What does this include? First and foremost it includes being connected to people with influence! What else is necessary for success? Well it includes having a keen nose for the winds of intellectual fashion so that you can be ‘where the action is’ (read, jump on the band-wagon). You have to be doing something that is ‘relevant’, you have to be publishing stuff that is ‘relevant’. This happens in both traditions, so within analytic philosophy you have to be switched on to whatever micro area is sexy at present and be writing to that, in continental philosophy you have to be switched on to who is the latest Saint and be writing to that. Ah, the bracing smell of the pursuit of wisdom, virtue and truth! But if these things constitute the bases for success then imagine our obituaries – ‘Philip was a great philosopher, he had a great nose for the winds of intellectual fashion, an uncanny ability to set his sails so as to catch that wind and an exquisite talent for slipstreaming, he sailed fast over waters others struggled through ’.

As I was driving to the pool yesterday, after writing to you in my last post, I was listening to the Style Council song ‘Money-go-round’ it struck me that the first four lines of the second verse, while not so relevant to the whole string, were relevant to our discussion.

Philip