places of design

Professor Lovejoy remarks that “dialogue, discussion, and the interaction of two or more minds is the very essence of the [dialectical] method” by which philosophy could hope to make progress … I had Professor Lovejoy’s essay in mind when I wrote Dialectic in 1927 and projected a dialectical undertaking on the part of philosophers that would enable them to make progress in the pursuit of truth. This should occur before they engaged in argument with one another about their doctrinal disagreements. They could at least agree dialectically, if not doctrinally; that is, they could agree about the issues that confronted them.

Mortimer Adler, Four Dimensions of Philosophy, in the Prologue, p. xxii

I find it interesting that Adler differentiates looking at the world as a dialectician from a philosopher. He states that to proceed dialectically,

… one must deal with all the differing views one encounters with complete impartiality and neutrality – that is, without favoring one point of view against another. One must be point of viewless in treating all points of view. p. xxiv

Immediately following this thought, he writes,

To be a philosopher, one must make up one’s own mind about where the truth lies on the great issues that have filled the pages of philosophical controversy. p. xxiv

My goals for the next 4 (hopefully just 4 although I’ve heard that the average in my program is 6-8 years. Yikes!) years are as follows:

1. Be humble and look at the design/management world as a dialectician. Before I can form my own point of view, gain a knowledge of the issues. The beauty of dialectics is that two opposing view points can come together in agreement on an issue (and they can be on opposite ends of the issue).
2. Formulate a philosophy of design and management.

Another great influence on Adler was his reading of Jacques Maritain’s An Introduction to Philosophy. Adler distilled 4 main insights from this book. What’s interesting for me is the similarity between philosophy (which Adler says is everybody’s business) and design. Substituting “design” for Adler’s usage of “philosophy” seems to bring even more insight for me in these 4 points:

• Only in ancient Greece was philosophy (or design) distinct and separate from the religious beliefs and practices of the local culture, and totally unaffected by them.
  (This has personal meaning for me because my faith is very important to my identity. Yet, in the realm of design there can be a suspension of my personal beliefs in order to understand other designers, manager and employees, and clients)
• In relation to modern empirical science, philosophy (or design) is autonomous in the sense that its principles and conclusions are not in any way dependent on the current state or the advances in the empirical sciences.
  (As Adler distinguishes the naturalist framework from philosophy, I too feel the need to differentiate between empirical science from design AND management)
• Philosophy (or design) has a method of its own that enables it to answer questions that cannot be answered by the method of the empirical sciences, of historical research, or of mathematics.
  (Adler believes the 4 main branches of knowledge are historical research/scholarly research in the field of humanities, empirical sciences, mathematical thought, and philsophy. I also feel that design has methods of its own that demand its own kind of exploration)
• While it corrects and refines some of the opinions and convictions held by common sense, philosophy (or design) is nevertheless continuous with common sense and elucidates its deepest convictions by providing their rational basis and elaboration.
  (By common sense, Adler is referring to the human experience – hence, philosophy has a role in contemporary human experience. Dewey calls this macroscopic experience. Design, at the end of the day, has something to contribute in this world because it, too, is a fundamental human activity and aligns with human experience – regardless of geography or culture)