Hi All,
I was thinking a little more on my last contribution and some of the additional comments made to the list.
Always assume that I have a smile on my face and mischief in my mind, unless I say otherwise (and even then…). I meant no harm by my comments about krakens and was making fun of me as much as anyone else.
But I thought, in retrospect, it might be useful to cast the Wittgensteinian (not sure of the spelling here) point of view within a slightly larger frame.
This is a phd list and a phd is supposed to be a contribution to knowledge. It is not surprising therefore that a list of this type should ask questions about the nature of knowledge, and in doing so turn to theories of knowledge that derive from philosophy and in particular epistemology. In doing so, the exploration of ideas about knowledge turn to the history of philosophy. To make sense of the history of philosophy we often turn to the historical contexts in which the various philosophers have tried to develop their ideas about knowledge. None of what I have just written is either new or original, it’s just a way of framing epistemology.
Much of what I’m about to write is not new or original either. The debate of ideas about the nature of knowledge sits alongside some other ‘profound’ ideas within western thought. I say ‘western thought’ to make it clear that I am locating these ideas within an extremely narrow cultural frame. I am aware of other frames of reference from other cultures which need too be taken very seriously. But I’m going to stick within this western frame because I’m talking about PhDs which are a western construct. The other ‘profound’ ideas which sit alongside knowledge are ‘truth’ and ‘understanding’. I could now go on a long linguistic, etymological, and cultural exploration of these ideas, but I’ll leave it to you to join the dots. Suffice to say that it is almost impossible in our time in the western world to discuss any one of these without implying some notion of the others. I think this is one of the reasons, though not the only one, why discussions of epistemology, can become some fraught, especially in our time where knowledge in the form of science dominates our life
But moving on, and turning to Wittgenstein. Throughout his life Wittgenstein struggled with these ideas. He changed his mind on a number of occasions like all good serious thinkers, and this last attempt by him to make sense of knowledge, or at least the idea of knowledge, was a masterpiece. He takes us on a journey of the many ways in which we use the the idea of knowledge in a whole variety of contexts What he shows us is that the idea of what is knowledge not only has many usages but only makes sense to us in use in the particular contexts in which we use the idea.
There is no single KNOWLEDGE. There is only a series of interlinked usages which make sense only within the specific context in which we choose to use them and agree to do so as a community of language users. In his earlier work he talked about language games by which he meant the rules of usage we apply in particular context. In a sense what he is saying is you cannot use the idea of KNOWLEDGE across contexts, any more than you can take a chess piece out of a chess set and use it in a game of tiddly winks. Both games use pieces, but they are quite different games as are the pieces used in each. The fact that we call them pieces is no more helpful in learning the rules of a specific game than calling something KNOWLEDGE in two different contexts.
This insight by Wittgenstein has many consequences, most particularly if you are a professional philosopher of epistemology. In one sense it totally undermines the philosophical project of epistemology and its close colleagues: truth and understanding. But in another sense it makes no difference.
You are doing a PhD and whatever the context you are working in will determine what contributing to KNOWLEDGE means in that context. You can, of course, contest what might constitute acceptable knowledge in that context, and many of us do that as a matter of routine. It’s called pushing the boundaries, moving to a new paradigm, being impossible to work with, undermining standards, ignoring good advice, etc etc.
The only thing I can say in defence of such annoying behaviour by those who challenge the Krakens is that if you don’t fight, you lose. That is by no means original either, but I hope it helps.
BTW on a totally different subject, I am greatly enjoying the live pantomime in the USA called How the Messenger Shot the Boss. Even the name of the ‘hero' is apt. Eat your heart out Tom Wolfe!
Life is made out of simple pleasures and even simpler tragedies.
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/blo <http://communication.org.au/blo>g/
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (03) 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|