by Christopher Fulkerson
CF's Desk at His Capp Street Studio
If you are serious about philosophy, I suppose you should get this book. But use it cautiously.
…Have you ever heard the joke, "Did you know the word 'gullible' is not in the dictionary?" It's a "gotcha" joke. If someone believes you, they are shown to be gullible.
Be cautious with philosophers... you are entering a domain where some of the smartest people who've ever lived have redirected a lot of humanity using only words. You might be one of the gullible. I say: there is a reason there is no entry for "insight" in this Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Let the reader beware: this tome may prove hazardous to your development of insight. And is not the development of personal insight something that most everyday folks believe philosophy is for?
One of the reasons philosophy can be difficult to understand is that philosophers are not necessarily telling you the answers to any philosophical problems: they are telling you THEIR PHILOSOPHY. This goes for when they talk about somebody else's philosophy. There is no such thing as a completely objective summary of anybody else's philosophy. You are always giving your own philosophy when you describe someone else's. The question is, are you doing so in a transparent way? These guys don't always do their philosophy in a completely transparent way... in short, some of the stuff here is rather darkside... and there is also no entry for "dissemblance" in this dictionary.
In the case of "insight," there is a silent agreement among philosophers (apparently at least the ones at Cambridge, but also many others like them) that the "terms of discourse" will not be about "insight." The philosophers won’t allow such talk. Instead, they want you to talk about "induction." But the definition here of "induction" applies as a useful definition of "insight:" "...inference to a generalization from its instances; ... any ampliative inference - i.e., any inference where the claim made by the conclusion goes beyond the claim jointly made by the premises."
That's insight, all right. But if, in your philosophizing, you reach for "insight" itself, you can't actually get what you want. The reason this matters is that no reasonable person can be expected to accept the denial of their own insight. If any thinking, feeling person were instructed that insight is not allowed, is not, for example, part of scientific process or the manner of understanding phenomena or even their own minds, they would question a teaching right away.
However, in order to get others to believe their philosophy is reasonable, a noticeable number of philosophers want you to do just that, to deprive yourself of your insight. So they use a different term, "induction," that means the same thing, and then they tell you it doesn’t necessarily exist. For when discussing "induction," some writers thus may claim that "induction" is not part of scientific process. In such a way many philosophers get people to go along with ideas which are on the face of them shear buncombe.
If you believe this sort of thing you are discouraged from using your own insight to solve serious questions. Therefore, such philosophers as deny "induction" are doing you a great disservice, dis-empowering you from trusting one of your most important tools in your own method of solving problems, and leading you down their own preferred path.
I hope you understand that in saying this I am not engaging in some kind of language analysis. I am doing the very opposite. I am saying that the spirit of meaning is being betrayed by a wicked categorization of ideas.
There are examples among specific philosophers of this sort of sheer use of denial to persuade you to their way of thinking... or rather, their way of empire building. Some of the most hallowed names in philosophy are manipulating your mind in ways you ought to be cautious about. Of course, I am giving you a whole philosophy in the form of a simple key. This example, about the wicked attempt to evict “insight” from your vocabulary, is plain enough that everyone should understand it, and if I make even one point here, namely, that philosophers are not automatically to be trusted, it will be enough.
Update of 1/9/2012
************
First posted February 7, 2011
Copyright c 2011 by Christopher Fulkerson.