Subject/Object

I haven’t really had time to write in a while, spending most of my time preparing to look for a a summer job as well as gearing up for the final push to the end of the year. However, I do get to post a bit of research.

If you remember from before I was discussing Philosophy as a discipline and its problems in classification theory. Here is the fruits of that discussion.

The paper in good even as an introduction to the theoretical foundations of Bliss’ classification, as well as a discussion of education warrant or consensus in general classification schemes.

Warning, this is long. Get the PDF to print if you wish.

The Problems of Philosophy as a Discipline in
Bibliographic Classification: The Example BC1

Abstract

The following paper examines the problems of Philosophy as a discipline in general bibliographic classifications based on educational consensus. Through an examination of the first edition of Bliss’ Bibliographic Classification (BC1) and its basis in a theory of a pedagogical order, the following problems are addressed: philosophy and its relation to other disciplines, the distinction between literature and science in philosophy, and the distinction between primary and secondary works in philosophy. Concludes that Bliss’ extensive use of alternative locations, particularly in the main class of Philosophy, represents Bliss’ inability to successfully deal with these issues.

Continue Reading »

Some thoughts on my essay on Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC1)

If we are building a library or bibliographic classification, then Philosophy presents a problem, particularly if we are building our classification on the lines of consensus with science and education, that is, matching our main classes to the university disciplines.

1. What is the relationship between Philosophy and the other disciplines? How is X related to the Philosophy of X? Should Aesthetics, the philosophy of the beautiful, be classed with Art? Bliss does does so, feeling this collocation is efficient. Yet, given the rule of consensus, is it more worth wild to keep these discussions with philosophy?

2. What is the nature of philosophical writing? At one hand, it aims at Truth and is written as non-fiction. Yet, at the same time, a great bulk of what philosophy does is comment on and dialogue with other philosophers; in this way it resembles literature. Should we therefore class philosophy by topic? Or should we arrange it alphabetically by author? Or, to see the dialogue, arrange it by broad historical periods?

3. What is the nature of secondary writing in Philosophy? In most disciplines, literary criticism for instance, we separate the act of creating literature and writing about literature. However, in almost all cases, writing about philosophers is itself doing philosophy. Except if we were writing the most general survey, adding one’s own commentary and interpretation is itself philosophizing. Are we to keep all secondary commentaries along with their primary texts? What about Averroes’ commentary on Aristotle, worth reading in its own write, or Heidegger’s commentaries on Hegel and Schelling? When does a commentator not deserve their own attention? What about if we are writing about multiple philosophers, even in the same micro-document (an essay in a book of essays)?