PLATO WOULD LIKE IT TO BE THE
CASE THAT ALL THEORIES HAVE
THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE.
THAT THERE SHOULD BE, IN THE
LAST RESORT, ONLY ONE KIND
OF THEORY.
AND THIS THEORY WHICH
TOOK A MATHEMATICAL FORM.
SO THAT FOR HIM,
AND FOR THOSE WHO
THINK ACCORDING TO
THIS MODEL, WHICH
WE THINK OF AS ESSENTIALLY
PLATONIST, TO THE EXTENT
THAT THERE ARE FIELDS
OF INQUIRY WHICH
DON'T SEEM TO LEND
THEMSELVES TO THAT KIND
OF FORMAL MATHEMATICAL
THEORETICAL ELEGANCE,
THEY SEEM LESS SATISFACTORY.
THEY SEEM TO BE INFERIOR,
AS AREAS OF INQUIRY.
AND AS ANYONE WHO'S READ
A BIT IN PHILOSOPHY,
OR BEEN INVOLVED IN THE
PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE
DURING THE MIDDLE OF
THE 20TH CENTURY KNOWS,
THERE WAS A LONG PERIOD IN
THE 20TH CENTURY WHEN PEOPLE
IDOLIZED THOSE DISCIPLINES
WHICH COULD BE FORMALIZED
IN THIS KIND OF WAY,
AND RATHER DESPISED
THOSE FIELDS OF INQUIRY WHICH
DIDN'T LEND THEMSELVES TO THAT.
SO THAT THERE WILL BE A
TENDENCY TO REGARD PSYCHOLOGY,
FOR INSTANCE, AS A SORT
OF INFERIOR-- ESSENTIALLY,
SECOND RATE-- FIELD
OF INQUIRY COMPARED
WITH THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN
THAT STATE OF AFFAIRS NOW.
BUT CERTAINLY FOR QUITE
A LOT OF THE TIME THAT I
WAS GROWING UP AND
BECOMING INTRODUCED
TO TECHNICAL PHILOSOPHY, THIS
WAS A VERY WIDESPREAD ATTITUDE.
I THINK TO THIS
EXTENT, SINCE THE '60S,
WE'VE BEEN MOVING BACK
INTO SOMETHING THAT I'D
BE INCLINED TO CALL A
MUCH MORE ARISTOTELIAN,
RATHER THAN PLATONIST PHASE,
IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.
THE DIFFERENCE BEING THAT
WE'RE QUITE OPEN TO THE IDEA
THAT DIFFERENT INQUIRIES,
DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES,
DIFFERENT KINDS OF
ENTERPRISE ARE ENTITLED
TO DEVELOP THERE OWN
METHODS, THEIR OWN PROCEDURES
FOR PRESENTING THEIR ARGUMENTS,
FOR EXPLAINING THEIR CONCEPTS,
FOR DEVELOPING THEIR IDEAS.
AND THIS IS REALLY INCOMPATIBLE
WITH THE IMPERIALIST IDEA--
THE IDEA THAT THE
THEORIES OF PHYSICS
HAVE A KIND OF AUTHORITY OVER
US WHICH OTHER ENTERPRISES HAD
BETTER CONFORM TO, OR
ELSE CONDEMN THEMSELVES
AS SECOND RATE.
