Commensurability: Quo Vadis?
I have reached a point where I am quite satisfied with the Theory of Commensurability as I currently state it. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to really know what to do with it now that I have polished it until it shines.
I can do little but refer to my internal reviewer's comments about my Masters thesis, to know why this theory was considered a contribution. He said that it seemed to him a real contribution to discussion about the different kinds of human disagreement that are within the pale of rationality. My thought is that when we wonder about how ethics and, say, science differ, it is good to focus on the nature of disagreement in the different domains. The reviewer said this thought was a good one, and I made it well and really added to discussion that has been going on about this important issue.
So does that mean that we should be looking at how ethics differs from science?
I don't see why not. I know that I went to great lengths in a previous blog entry to justify why I was still bothering with philosophy after I have been out of the game all these years, and the project that I came up with, of defining a philosophical paradigm or tradition, no longer really inspires me.
Why not?
A large part of the reason may well be the comments from the external reviewer of my thesis. One thing that he pointed out about my ultimate goal--although he was trying to pass it off as my "stated aim"--was that it would be virtually endless if carried out thoroughly. My supervisor and internal reviewer agreed with this claim. Of course, they were both satisfied that what I had done as my real stated aim, which was exploring some of the issues that such a project must face, was fully deserving of an MPhil. But it makes me think about what it was like when I wrote a theory of conduct as the subject of my Honours thesis, and how the major weakness of the thesis was that it was too ambitious. I still got a Distinction for the thesis. But I am sure that I could have gotten an HD if only I had bitten off a smaller chunk of the noosphere, to borrow a term from Eric S Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
I had really tried to avoid that in the Masters thesis. It didn't help that some dickhead simply wanted to interpret me as doing the same thing all over again. Certainly if I had thought that his comments had been justified--which I don't!--I would have felt very cheated by my supervisor, and indeed, the external reviewer himself claimed that he suspected that I had been lacking in adequate supervision. Needless to say, however, my supervisor hotly denied this claim, and I do not doubt his professional competence for a minute myself. Nevertheless, it irked me that here I was, all over again, setting myself almighty tasks to which I could not do justice in the space provided. My extreme ambition so far only seemed to be serving to damage the cogency of my overall position.
Yet it only seems to be getting logarithmically worse each time. I went from espousing a complete theory of conduct in my Honours thesis, to moving towards an empirical theory of ethics in my Masters thesis. God forbid that I should try to move towards a philosophical paradigm for my PhD!
Not that I would really consider doing a PhD without an enormous amount of consideration beforehand. It wouldn't make sense for the scope of the claims that I typically want to make, because I would never be able to do them justice in the space of any thesis. I really should just be trying to write a book, so maybe these blog entries will ultimately result in a book deal, as they have with other bloggers-turned-authors. Given that, I would also have to seriously consider why I would be doing the PhD otherwise. Once upon a time it would have made sense, because I just saw myself as becoming an academic, out of a lack of any plausible alternative. My office work during the day over the course of writing my Masters thesis gave me that alternative, and I seized upon it with both hands. The clear direction that my life had while I was studying philosophy is very appealing, with hindsight, but I cannot believe that I need to be an academic to enjoy it.
In other words, negative feedback for overly ambitious projects in my two theses might have something to do with my decline in enthusiasm. But there is also the fact that the original impetus for the Masters thesis was just that I didn't want to be a hypocrite. I had decided by the end of the thesis that I didn't need any stupid "empirical theory of ethics" to avoid being a hypocrite. And now that the recognised contribution of the thesis is my discussion of commensurability, this would seem to throw me into a new direction entirely. So I am prepared to explore these points wherever they shall lead, just like I did in the Masters thesis, and my blog will journal this process.
I can do little but refer to my internal reviewer's comments about my Masters thesis, to know why this theory was considered a contribution. He said that it seemed to him a real contribution to discussion about the different kinds of human disagreement that are within the pale of rationality. My thought is that when we wonder about how ethics and, say, science differ, it is good to focus on the nature of disagreement in the different domains. The reviewer said this thought was a good one, and I made it well and really added to discussion that has been going on about this important issue.
So does that mean that we should be looking at how ethics differs from science?
I don't see why not. I know that I went to great lengths in a previous blog entry to justify why I was still bothering with philosophy after I have been out of the game all these years, and the project that I came up with, of defining a philosophical paradigm or tradition, no longer really inspires me.
Why not?
A large part of the reason may well be the comments from the external reviewer of my thesis. One thing that he pointed out about my ultimate goal--although he was trying to pass it off as my "stated aim"--was that it would be virtually endless if carried out thoroughly. My supervisor and internal reviewer agreed with this claim. Of course, they were both satisfied that what I had done as my real stated aim, which was exploring some of the issues that such a project must face, was fully deserving of an MPhil. But it makes me think about what it was like when I wrote a theory of conduct as the subject of my Honours thesis, and how the major weakness of the thesis was that it was too ambitious. I still got a Distinction for the thesis. But I am sure that I could have gotten an HD if only I had bitten off a smaller chunk of the noosphere, to borrow a term from Eric S Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
I had really tried to avoid that in the Masters thesis. It didn't help that some dickhead simply wanted to interpret me as doing the same thing all over again. Certainly if I had thought that his comments had been justified--which I don't!--I would have felt very cheated by my supervisor, and indeed, the external reviewer himself claimed that he suspected that I had been lacking in adequate supervision. Needless to say, however, my supervisor hotly denied this claim, and I do not doubt his professional competence for a minute myself. Nevertheless, it irked me that here I was, all over again, setting myself almighty tasks to which I could not do justice in the space provided. My extreme ambition so far only seemed to be serving to damage the cogency of my overall position.
Yet it only seems to be getting logarithmically worse each time. I went from espousing a complete theory of conduct in my Honours thesis, to moving towards an empirical theory of ethics in my Masters thesis. God forbid that I should try to move towards a philosophical paradigm for my PhD!
Not that I would really consider doing a PhD without an enormous amount of consideration beforehand. It wouldn't make sense for the scope of the claims that I typically want to make, because I would never be able to do them justice in the space of any thesis. I really should just be trying to write a book, so maybe these blog entries will ultimately result in a book deal, as they have with other bloggers-turned-authors. Given that, I would also have to seriously consider why I would be doing the PhD otherwise. Once upon a time it would have made sense, because I just saw myself as becoming an academic, out of a lack of any plausible alternative. My office work during the day over the course of writing my Masters thesis gave me that alternative, and I seized upon it with both hands. The clear direction that my life had while I was studying philosophy is very appealing, with hindsight, but I cannot believe that I need to be an academic to enjoy it.
In other words, negative feedback for overly ambitious projects in my two theses might have something to do with my decline in enthusiasm. But there is also the fact that the original impetus for the Masters thesis was just that I didn't want to be a hypocrite. I had decided by the end of the thesis that I didn't need any stupid "empirical theory of ethics" to avoid being a hypocrite. And now that the recognised contribution of the thesis is my discussion of commensurability, this would seem to throw me into a new direction entirely. So I am prepared to explore these points wherever they shall lead, just like I did in the Masters thesis, and my blog will journal this process.
Comments