TRUTH BY ANALYSIS: GAMES, NAMES AND PHILOSOPHY by Colin McGinn came out last year. And it is a brilliant book discussing the topic of meta-philosophy (what kind of subject philosophy is).
Colin McGinn is a superb writer - and I am in awe at how smart he is. Anyway - this book now resides as being the best book on philosophy I have read. And it is quite an easy read (apart from 2-3 chapters). So - I encourage others to check it out.
The book was inspired by a book that Colin McGinn recently came across. The book is THE GRASSHOPPER: GAMES. LIFE AND UTOPIA by Bernard Suits. Bernard died back in 2007. And his book (the only book he ever wrote) was published back in 1978.
This book is little known in philosophy. But its reputation is rising as it becomes something of a cult classic.
And the book, McGinn has written, is partly written in tribute to the work of Bernard Suits. And uses that work to analyse the subject of philosophy itself.
The book starts with an appraisal of Bernard Suits' work in providing a conceptual analysis of the concept 'Games'. The analysis Bernard Suits offers is as follows:
Quote:"To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude]."
A shorter definiton is given as
"the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles".
Now why is this important? It is important because Ludwig Wittgenstein (the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century) argued in his book 'Philosophical Investigations' that such conceptual analysis was impossible.
And the goal of philosophy is to resist trying to discover such formulations when analysing concepts (a way of thinking that Wittgenstein disliked and considered an invasion from the world of science). And instead should search for 'family resemblences' when trying to classify different examples of the same concept.
As such - Wittgenstein's view of philosophy was as a therapeutic activity in which language was analysed and parsed back to prevent ourselves tangling ourselves in conceptual confusions. Indeed - Wittgenstein took the viewpoint that genuine philosophical problems did not exist. And instead the goal of the philosopher was to clear up the muddy thinking which leads people astray into pseduo-philosophical confusion.
And one of the prime examples of this was in Wittgenstein's analysis of the concept of 'Games'. Over many pages - Wittgenstein anaylses the concept. Before declaring that there is no way of formulating a analysis which covers all types of 'Games'.
Instead - the best we can do is show 'family resemblences' between different types of games. And as such - philosophy has to reconceptualise itself as a less ambitious project which is there to help others from falling prey of such attampts to carry out traditional philosophy.
And with that one sentence consisting of 55 words - Bernard Suits shows that Wittgenstein is dead wrong. A conceptual analysis of 'Games'
is possible.
The book by Bernard Suits is a witty, playful and brilliant defense of all the objections that may be thrown at his analysis. And Colin McGinn encourages everyone to check out Bernard Suits book.
So - with that as a background. Colin McGinn runs with the idea of 'conceptual analysis' and over 2-3 philosophically dense chapters he argues that
all philosophy can be properly defined as conceptual analysis.
This is important and interesting work.
Later in the book - McGinn returns to the Bernard Suits book.
Let's look again at the title of the Suits book -
The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia.
What the hell does
Utopia have to do with anything?
Well this is where it gets fun.
You see - later in the Suits book - Bernard Suits goes on to imagine what life would be like in Utopia? Imagine a world where you could press a button - and all your earthly desires would be met. Instantly. Anything you want - you got it.
Want sex with Marilyn Monroe? Bang!
Want to bring your dead grandma back to life? Cool - what next?
Want to travel back in time and witness the assasination of Julius Caesar? You got it!
Hell - you want to
be Julius Caesar? Not a problem!
Now - what would that be like?
After a few million years of having all your worldly desires met. Things might get a bit boring. So how would we then occupy our time?
By playing games.
And nothing else.
You see - everything in this paradise can be had at the push of a button.
Indeed - even most intellectual pursuits would become boring.
You want the secret to
Life, The Universe and Everything? Yawn - have you not learned by now? Press the button.
And whatever formula which links gravity with quantum mechanics and explains the existence of dark energy, dark matter, the Higgs boson, superstring theory and why there is
something instead of
nothing will be implanted into your brain with full understanding - instantaneously...
You want the greatest book it is possible to write? Press the button.
You want the most moving piece of music possible? Press the button.
But you want to beat me at ten-pin bowling? Whoops. Sorry. You can't press the button!
You see - the means and the goals of playing a game are intertwined in a fundamental way. The only way you can get the genuine satisfaction of
beating me in a game of ten-pin bowling. Is to actually put aside an hour - risk defeat - and
beat me at ten pin bowling.
Everything else would be a cheat (like hypnotising me into losing) - and would not replicate the genuine sense of achievement which comes from genuinely playing a game.
So - according to Bernard Suits - games are much more profound than we realise. Since they ultimately represent the very pinnacle of life. Since the playing of games is such that even living in Utopia wouldn't provide a substitution for it.
And Colin McGinn follows this up by wondering if this is why playing games is so much fun and enjoyable? Since they give us a glimpse of a care free world, where all our bodily needs and desires are met, and where the only thing which matters is the goal at hand?
At this point. Colin McGinn challenges Bernard Suits. Since Bernard Suits says in Utopis - all scientific and philosophical knowledge can be had at the push of a button. McGinn agrees when it comes to Science. But things are a bit different for Philosophy.
To see why - let's press the button and find out which philosophical theories are true and which are false.
Okay - let's say we pressed it. And it spits out the answer that Plato's
Theory Of Forms (the most famous idea in the history of philosophy) is completely true.
Great! And now what?
See - at this point. It is a bit like sitting a 16 year old boy down (who knows nothing about art and has never seen a painting) and showing him the Greatest Painting Of All Time.
Let's imagine it was decided (by a group of experts) that
The Mona Lisa was the greatest painting of all time. Well - without the context of knowing the history of the painting, how it differs from the styles that preceded and followed it, it's mysterious subject (and theories that surround that). And without being able to look at the painting in the context of the other brilliant work (both artistic and scientific) done by Leonardo Da Vinci - much of the impact and pleasure of the painting would be lost.
Without that understanding to provide context - it cannot be fully appreciated.
Unlike Science - the true pleasure in philosophy is understanding the subject as a whole. And being able to judge the merits of one position over another.
So whilst - Science and Philosophy are both interested in Truth. Science tackles this with a 'work' like approach where the only thing that matters is the result.
Whereas Philosophy - tackles this goal in the spirt of play. Such that the intellectual play involved in arriving at your conclusions is an essential part of the goal of philosophy.
It is hard to get your head around. But philosophy is stuck in it's own world - almost like a mixture of chess and science.
This makes sense if we think about it. If Plato's
Theory Of Forms is correct. And I tell my brother (who has never studied philosophy) this. It will be a meaningless statement to him - since the only way you can truly appreciate (and enjoy) this fact. Is by first spending years - studying Plato's position. It's importance and how it differs from those which came before and after.
It is the context which surrounds our knowledge - which is just as important as our knowledge. In the way that it isn't with Science - where just plugging in the formula
F=ma is all that is important.
So - with Colin Mcginn's analysis. My metaphilosophy is one I am finally comfortable with.
And in a round about way - I hope this provides an analysis of what
value philosophy has that is different to science. Since if Utopia exists - people will still have philosophical discussions. Long after all scientific questions have being answered at the touch of a button.
I should add as well - that this brilliant book by Colin McGinn also has a superb analysis of metaphysics which was a revelation to me.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 2 users Like Wutang's post:
