Article contents
The Art of Philosophy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
Extract
Any account of knowledge has to take account both of the contribution of the world and the contribution of man. Every human endeavour, every activity, every art, every science is a product of a unique interaction between man and the world. Where man is most passive, he merely reflects and reports the world; this is pure discovery, if it ever exists. Where man is most active, the world's contribution lies merely in the provision of the raw material; this is pure invention, if it ever exists. All the arts, all the sciences can be ordered in a continuous array or spectrum ranging from pure discovery to pure invention. That they are all at some point on this continuum gives them a common but fragile thread, justifying our thinking and talking of the unity of the arts and sciences. Philosophy is neither pure discovery nor pure invention; it bears resemblances to both a science and an art. In this paper I propose to try to give reasons why we should regard the philosopher as an artist and philosophy as an art; or, at any rate, I shall try to show that there is an Art of Philosophy.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1991
References
1 Cf Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1980).Google Scholar
2 Only one philosopher was to have the genius to combine crafted arguments with the charms of poetry, Lucretius, the poet who ‘beautified the sect’. His imitators (e.g. Pope, Bridges) have for the most part been thin on thought even when mildly inspired. It is given to few to be blessed by all the Muses.
- 2
- Cited by