2013-04-30
|
Why bother? It's not philosophical.
|
Eric v.d. LuftSUNY Upstate Medical University
|
What possible significance could this article have? I'm surprised that
it has even been accepted for publication. If it is publishable
anywhere, it belongs in a sociology journal. Its methods are
sociological, not philosophical, and terminally flawed by their lack of
comprehensiveness with regard to formulating the survey.
Its
questions are simplistic, dichotomous, and non-exhaustive. Moreover,
many of these dichotomies are false, e.g., "analytic" vs. "continental"
juxtaposes a conceptual category with a geographical category, i.e., it
should be either "analytic" vs. "speculative" or "Anglo-American" vs.
"continental."
Another example: "Theistic" vs. "atheistic" made
me laugh. There are just so many other unmentioned options here. Maybe
the high-school-educated-person-in-the-street could answer that
question, but how could a philosopher answer it?
|