A Leopard’s Proposal for Changing the Name of his Spots

We are fond of the philosopher Colin McGinn, a man of good sense, and have quoted him in several essays.   But now he has written a piece (featured in today’s ALDaily hit parade) that is either quite silly, or slyly tongue-in-cheek. 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/philosophy-by-another-name/?ref=opinion

He proposes, as a marketing gimmick, to abolish the name of “philosophy”, while continuing to pursue the subject.  Let us listen to our wordsmith:

To load the dice, we might also wish to describe ourselves as doing “ontical science,” at least until our affinity with the sciences sinks in — then we might abbreviate to “ontics.” Other possibilities might include “beology” or “beological science,” “conceptive science” (like “cognitive science”), “beotics” (like “semiotics”).

The only use for this afterbirth ontics, is for a poetaster needing a near-rhyme for Ebonics.   For myself, I shall favor his latter suggestion, beotics, and dub those who might follow that lead -- the Beoetians.

Compare that earlier move, whereby philology was morphed into linguistics, and later certain of the sillier linguists, wishing to sound scientific, re-christened themselves linguisticians.   (That unlovely coinage had a brief vogue, before being turned over to the undertaker, or, as they prefer to call themselves, the mortician.)

We have elsewhere quoted our favorite Neothomist, against such slight-of-hand, such dressing up in science drag in lieu of actual science:

“Aujourd’hui, on se contente de tenir ces problèmes philosophiques pour résolus  en vertu d’un simple décret préalable  de ne pas philosopher.  Il ne suffit pourtant pas  qu’une solution ne soit pas philosophique  pour qu’elle devienne scientifique.  Qu’est-ce que cet « object concret »  qui ne serait qu’un « exemplaire »  du concept ?  Platon, Aristote, Abélard et Ockham  demandent aussitôt la parole,  et on ne peut aujourd’hui que se taire  ou reprendre le problème  au point où ils l’ont laissé.”

-- Etienne Gilson, Linguistique et philosophie  (1969)

In charity, we wish to assume that Professor McGinn’s suggestion was a Swiftian modest proposal;  yet are perturbed at the precedent of the otherwise-intelligent Richard Dawkins, who proposed that atheists should be re-christened… er, rebranded, as … wait for it ….   “brights” (not making this up), in imitation of the successful self-re-branding by the Sodomites, as "gays".   Apparently not as a merry jest, but in all earnest. 

And most of those who post comments on McGinn's essay  are taking him at his word. --  Unless, of course, they too are all satirizing  deadpan.   (Wheels within wheels within a Moebius-band...)

For a critique of a similar auto-abnegating proposal, that philosophy should intussuscept into the body of psychology (rather like that native superstition known as koro (**), in which the testicles are believed to disappear up the body cavity), click here:   

Philosophical felo da se.


(**) We thank our colleague Commander Buckwalter, who has studied the matter in all the jungles of the globe,   for reminding us of the name of this affliction. It seems peculiarly to affect American Republicans, who attempt to compensate by launching wars on distant smaller nations.