Should philosophy have something to say to non-philosophers? Should philosophy be pursued only by those trained in philosophy? Should academic teachers of philosophy consider themselves philosophers in virtue of the fact that they teach philosophy? And should analytic philosophers deny that continental philosophers are philosophers at all, or acknowledge that they represent different modes of philosophizing? Cogito poses some big questions to four prominent British and US philosophers.
(via
wood s lot)
Which got me to wondering...
Should
art have something to say to non-
artists? Should
art be pursued only by those trained in
art? Should academic teachers of
art consider themselves
artists in virtue of the fact that they teach
art? And should
formalist artists deny that
conceptual artists are
artists at all, or acknowledge that they represent different modes of
art-making?
Or, since some painters resist the label "artist":
Should
painting have something to say to non-
painters? Should
painting be pursued only by those trained in
painting?
Or, in a literary vein:
Should
poetry have something to say to non-
poets? Should
poetry be pursued only by those trained in
poetry?