'The Very Idea of a Miscellany' at robertwilliams.org

Updated: December 31, 1999

"T h e V e r y I d e a o f a M i s c e l l a n y"

by Robert W. Williams

Where to locate Web pages that don't fit anywhere else on a site? Crafting a Miscellany page led me to feverishly ponder that burning metaphysical question. How do we make sense of our world? One way is via classificatory systems into which we group like items: taxonomies, typologies, categories, and their ilk. Yet not every item can be fit into such a system. How can we classify the unclassifiable? This classic philosophical problem has practical---perhaps, humorous---implications, as we shall witness.

As with all difficult matters, start simply. In the words of the analytically inclined, assume a set of categories, C, B, A, each of which is respectively characterized by c-ness, b-ness, and a-ness. Using those categories, classify the following: a, bbb, cc, aa, bb, aaa, gg, c. Obviously, "gg" can not be classified by the posited scheme of 3 categories.

Where to put "gg?" If we cannot stick it into Category C, B, or A, then "gg" can be deemed unclassifiable (outside of French film archives, that is). Yet if we can find a way to classify "gg," then we will refute its putative unclassifiability. But what does that say about the similarities that characterize Categories C, B, and A?

Hmmmm.

Is "gg" really unclassifiable? Or is the problem space of this example too narrow to incorporate a manifold existence that our humble "gg" represents? Any classificatory system risks diminishing those qualities and attributes that do not fit within it. As humans, we seek to classify so as to make our world more understandable. Yet some things elude our categories, slipping outside the typologies as slick melons slip from the hands of the melon harvesters after a spring rain. In this we hear the admonishing voice of Friedrich Nietzsche, the begatter of some strains of late 20th Century philosophy. Concepts are but straitjackets, he argues, that crush the manifest diversity of life.

CUT TO SCENE:  Nietzsche, on a brisk walk through the countryside, encounters the melon pickers after their hard day of toil. Together, they find a rare camaraderie as they walk off beneath the unhurried drizzle to partake of the fruity bounty.

Questions are begged here. Where do the categories and typologies come from? Do they exist outside of, and independent from, the terrene phenomena? (The Platonists among us raise such issues but I set that question aside for the moment to query about the distance to the melon farmers' homes. Alas, that question too must be set aside for now). The categories and typologies derive from our human propensity to use our reasoning faculties to group similar and dissimilar items together, and from the equally human trait to find causal connections and correlative relationships between the phenomena that bombard our senses. (Thank you, David Hume---le Bon Scot eternally doubting if the processed bread of today will be nourishing tomorrow. On second thought....). Thus, our classificatory schemes (including others in their family, like concepts and ideas) arise from the phenomena that constitute them. Categories, typologies, and such, exist in a tension-filled relationship with the phenomena that they purport to include within themselves.

Further vexations now occur. (A) If concepts arise somehow from, and relate to, phenomena, then how do we know what to include in the concept if the concept does not exist prior to its constitutive phenomena? (B) If concepts never fully enclose the worldly phenomena ....then our concepts and categories are not solidly grounded. They are ephemeral and provide no firm footing by which to make sense of the world. Yikes! Is reason thrown out the window? And from this is it that far to philosophies that extol feeling above all else?

CUT TO SCENE:  Conservative types, momentarily look up from their evening repasts and glance idly at Nietzsche and the melon pickers walking by along the muddy road outside. Soon, the conservative Man goes back to the realism of his beef and potatoes lying unequivocally before him on the plate. He flips through the evening newspaper, and scans for the latest stock prices in far flung parts of the empire. The conservative Lady shooshes the children so as not to disturb the Man at his meal. The rain steadily falls but does not disturb the family under their stolidly built roof.

Other attempts to subvert, supplant, even sublate, the thorny relationship between category/concept and phenomena have been put forth. Thomas Kuhn's much vaunted notion of paradigms and Karl Marx's concept of praxis figure into the intellectual exploits undertaken to "wrassle" with the problem. (In due course they shall be discussed, but for now we must hurry to catch up with Freddy and the melon farmers).

What would the pragmatists, like William James and John Dewey, say to all this? Perhaps they'd suggest, "Given an infinitely open-ended numbering system and a flexible, extensible language, just tack on another category and call it 'Miscellaneous.'" A simple, even practical solution, but one which takes the 'Given' as unproblematic. (A beast that lurks in all of our minds, the Given must await interrogation, baring incidents, until later).

CUT TO SCENE:  In the gathering dusk James and Dewey hurry after Nietzsche and the melon pickers. They seek a warm spot before a fire. Even philosophers need to find respite from the sudden torrents of spring.

The End . . . .

but only for the moment.