I agree with the debunking of the assumption that the left and right packages aren't ideologies whose components have some necessary connection but I emphatically disagree with the notion of 'philosophy' you assume--that there are 'philosophies', which are overarching worldviews or systems. Philosophy is analytic--it clarifies and shows distinctions.
I got into philosophy in part because I was bothered the unreflective, indiscriminate commitment to the kinds of package deals the author describes. I went in idealistically imagining that I could set students straight, show them the difference between entailment and conventional association, etc. It's close to impossible. In bluebooks, in discussion, they don't talk about consistency, inconsistency, entailment, contradiction, etc. They see theses as connected or disconnected, 'going together, or not.
Even worse, fully educated, full-fledged grown-ups do too and in conversation when they discover that I don't buy a package of views they assume are necessarily connected they are positively patronizing. They think it's cute and eccentric, or just strange, hat, e.g. I'm far 'left' on economic issues and gung-ho for affirmative action, but have no problem with guns, am a hawk, and less than enthusiastic about environmentalism.
I hope the book convinces some people, but I'm not optimistic.
I did enjoy listening to this discussion with one of the authors, yet there didn’t seem to be much new offered up in this context. However I would like to check out the actual book, but will wait for it to become available at my local library (the cost of the ebook being rather pricey). 🥸
I agree with the debunking of the assumption that the left and right packages aren't ideologies whose components have some necessary connection but I emphatically disagree with the notion of 'philosophy' you assume--that there are 'philosophies', which are overarching worldviews or systems. Philosophy is analytic--it clarifies and shows distinctions.
I got into philosophy in part because I was bothered the unreflective, indiscriminate commitment to the kinds of package deals the author describes. I went in idealistically imagining that I could set students straight, show them the difference between entailment and conventional association, etc. It's close to impossible. In bluebooks, in discussion, they don't talk about consistency, inconsistency, entailment, contradiction, etc. They see theses as connected or disconnected, 'going together, or not.
Even worse, fully educated, full-fledged grown-ups do too and in conversation when they discover that I don't buy a package of views they assume are necessarily connected they are positively patronizing. They think it's cute and eccentric, or just strange, hat, e.g. I'm far 'left' on economic issues and gung-ho for affirmative action, but have no problem with guns, am a hawk, and less than enthusiastic about environmentalism.
I hope the book convinces some people, but I'm not optimistic.
I did enjoy listening to this discussion with one of the authors, yet there didn’t seem to be much new offered up in this context. However I would like to check out the actual book, but will wait for it to become available at my local library (the cost of the ebook being rather pricey). 🥸