 those of Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, Hegel, or Lotze. The price has been diffidence for any attempts to build philosophical systems, and the concomitant preference for the brief essay or even the aphorism. Nowadays the expression esprit de systeme is used in a pejorative sense. But this diffidence is as unreasonable as it would be to mistrust physics or engineering because sometimes they fail. What is wrong is not to systematize (organize) ideas, but to cling dogmatically to this or that product of such effort. It is wrong because all things and all ideas come in systems. We ought to systematize ideas because stray ideas are unintelligible; because we need logical consistency; because deductive power is desirable; and because the world is not a pile of unrelated facts but a system of interrelated things and processes. In context, every idea drags other ideas. For example, every concept of truth involves the concepts of proposition and meaning. Second example: Relativistic physics has taught us that the notion of time must be treated in combination with the ideas of space, matter, and event. Third: The idea of human action relates the concepts of person, intention, value, goal, norm, outcome, social environment, and circumstance. In short, we need systems of ideas in all fields of learning and all walks of life, because the world is a system, our knowledge another system, and living involves interacting with systems. Why should philosophy be the exception? Just because the puny and ephemeral is easier than the great and durable? (9) Detachment from the intellectual engines of modern civilization. These engines are science, technology, and ideology. Detachment from them expedites wild and anachronistic speculation. Examples: The philosophies of mind that ignore the very existence of cognitive neuroscience; the philosophies of language that ignore that language is primarily a tool of cognition and social action; the action theories that ignore the most important types of action, namely work and social interaction, as well as the disciplines that deal with action, such as management science and political science; the philosophies of history that ignore the systemic, realist, and materialist approach of the Annales school. (10) Ivory tower. Most philosophers live in the proverbial tower. They do not care to know what goes on in other departments or in the society that feeds them. They only read other philosophers and write exclusively for colleagues. They behave
those of Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, Hegel, or Lotze. The price has been diffidence for any attempts to build philosophical system, and the attendant preference for the brief essay or even the aphorism. Nowadays the formula esprit de systeme is use in a pejorative sense. But this diffidence is equally unreasonable as it would be to mistrust physics or technology because sometimes they fail. What is amiss is not to systematize (organize) ideas, but to cling dogmatically to this or that intersection of such effort. It is wrong because all thing and all ideas come in systems. We ought to systematize ideas because stray ideas are opaque; because we need logical consistency; because deductive power is desirable; and because the earth is not a pile of unrelated facts but a arrangement of interrelated thing and processes. In context, every idea drags other ideas. For case, every concept of truth involves the concepts of proposition and meaning. Second example: Relativistic physics has taught us that the notion of time must be treated in combination with the ideas of space, matter, and event. Third: The idea of human action relates the concept of person, purpose, value, goal, norm, outcome, social environment, and circumstance. In light, we need systems of ideas in all sphere of learning and all walks of life, because the world is a arrangement, our knowledge another system, and living involves interacting with systems. Why should doctrine be the exception? Just because the puny and ephemeral is easier than the great and durable? (9) Detachment from the intellectual engines of modern civilization. These engine are science, technology, and ideology. Detachment from them expedites wild and anachronic speculation. Examples: The philosophies of mind that ignore the very existence of cognitive neuroscience; the philosophies of language that neglect that language is chiefly a tool of cognition and social action; the action theories that ignore the about important types of action, namely work and social interaction, equally well as the disciplines that deal with action, such as management skill and political science; the philosophies of history that ignore the systemic, realist, and materialist approach of the Annales school. (10) Ivory tower. Most philosophers live in the proverbial tower. They do not care to know what goes on in other department or in the society that feeds them. They entirely read other philosopher and write exclusively for colleagues. They act
 thlse of Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, Hejel, or Motze. Thd price has been diffidence hor qny aunempts to build philorophical dystems, qnd uhe concomitant pcsferencc for bhe bxixf essay or evek the aphorhsm. Nowadays tve erpression esprit de systeme is used yn a pekogative sense. Bot thps difrpdtnce is as unreasonable as it woumd be tm mistrust phusics or engineering becaude slmetimes they fail. What is wring yw not to sysgematize (ogyanize) ideaa, but to cling dogmatically to ghis pr that pridyct mf such effirt. In is wrong begsuse anl thinbs and all idess rome in systems. We ought vo systematize ideas because vtxay ideas are uninteloitible; becduse qe vees kofical fonaistency; bscause deduxtive power is desitafoe; and becauss the rowld is not a pile of unrelated facts buu a sgstem of interrelated tyings and processes. Ij context, every idea drags other ideas. For example, every cmncepv uf urmbh ivcopves the concepts of proposition and meaning. Fscpnc example: Relabivistic physics hss tsoght us that tfe notnkn of time must be tgeated yn conbination witn the ideas of space, matter, and event. Tkire: The idea of humau action relctes tne comcepts of person, intentnon, vamue, goal, nogm, outcoms, social environmdnt, atd circumstance. In short, wq need sywtemx of iddas on all fields of learkhng and all walks lf liye, bewause the aorld is a system, our knowledge another systek, dnd living nnvolvcs interacting rith systems. Wky shoulb philusophy be nhe excepvion? Just besause the punf and ephemerel is easyer rhan the grdxt and durable? (9) Detachmvnu from the intellectual engikes ow modern civilizcuiob. These engines ard ssivncx, tecrtology, and igeolugy. Cetacfment from bheo exledites wild and anawhrohistic speculation. Ewamples: Tye philofophies of mimd that ignore the very exmstencr os cognitive neuroscience; the pgilosophifs jf language ehat ignore that language is primarily a tool of cognitmon and social action; jhe action theories tkau ignore the kost ymportant types of action, namwly work and socisl interaction, as welm as tve didciplines that deal with action, such as management science and political wciencx; ehe philosolhiex of vifcory thwt ijnure the systemic, realist, and materialist approarh of the Dnuales school. (10) Ivory tower. Mosy ohilosophers uive in the proverbial tkwer. Theu do not care to know what goes on in other departments or in tye sodiety ngav feeds them. They onky reab othee philowophcrs and write dxckudively fog coklzagues. They behave
those of Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Wolff, Kant, Lotze. price has diffidence for any and concomitant preference for brief essay or the aphorism. Nowadays the expression esprit systeme is used in a pejorative sense. But this diffidence is as unreasonable it would be to mistrust physics or engineering because sometimes they fail. What wrong not systematize ideas, but to cling dogmatically to this or that product of such effort. It is wrong all things and all ideas come in systems. ought to systematize ideas stray ideas are unintelligible; because need consistency; because power desirable; because the world not a pile of unrelated facts but a system of interrelated things and processes. In context, every drags other example, every of involves concepts of proposition Second example: Relativistic physics has taught notion of time must be treated in combination the ideas space, matter, and event. Third: The of human action relates the concepts of person, value, goal, norm, outcome, social environment, and circumstance. In short, we need systems of ideas fields of learning and walks of life, the is system, knowledge another and living involves interacting with systems. Why should philosophy be the Just because the puny and ephemeral is easier than the durable? Detachment from the engines of modern civilization. engines science, technology, and ideology. them wild Examples: philosophies mind that ignore the existence of cognitive neuroscience; the of language that ignore tool of cognition and social action; the action that ignore the most important types of namely work and social interaction, as well as the disciplines that deal action, such science and political science; the philosophies of history ignore the systemic, realist, materialist approach of the Annales school. (10) Ivory tower. philosophers in the tower. They do care to know goes on in or in society feeds read other philosophers and write exclusively colleagues. behave
 those of Aristotle, Aquinas, LeIbniz, Wolff, kant, HEgeL, or loTze. THe prIce has been diffIDencE for any attempts to build PhiloSoPHicaL SyStems, And the cONcOMItaNt PrEfeReNCe For thE brIef essaY or even the AphOrIsm. Nowadays tHE eXpression eSprIt de systeme iS usEd in a pEjOraTIve seNse. but thIs diffIDence iS as unreasOnABle as iT Would be TO MiStruSt physics or engineERiNG because sometiMes theY fAIl. wHAt iS wrOng is not to SyStemaTIze (orgaNIzE) IDEas, BUt to cling dogmAtically to tHIs oR that pRoDucT Of such EfforT. IT Is wRong because All tHings and aLl ideaS Come in sYStems. We Ought tO sySteMatiZE iDeAs bEcAUse STrAy iDEas Are unintElLiGible; BecaUSE WE neeD loGicaL consIstency; becausE deDuctIVe pOwer iS desiRablE; aNd becAuse thE worlD iS not a pile of unreLateD facts but A syStEm oF iNterrELated tHinGs aNd proceSses. In cONteXt, EVERy Idea drags other ideaS. FOR ExAmple, eveRy concEPt Of TRuth invoLvEs tHe coNCEpts oF proPOsItion and MeaninG. seCoNd exampLe: relatiViStiC phYsics HAs taUght us That the nOtion OF time must be treATed in combinatIOn WITh THe idEas Of space, mattEr, anD EvenT. ThiRD: THe iDEa of hUman aCtIOn RElates the concepts of PeRson, inTentiOn, value, goal, noRm, outcome, sOCIAl enviroNmenT, AnD Circumstance. In Short, We need systEMs of ideaS in alL fields oF learning AND all walkS of LifE, beCauSE ThE world is a systEM, Our kNoWledge aNotHer systEm, aNd lIviNg iNvOlves inteRacting wItH sYsTeMs. WHy shoULd philosOpHy bE tHe eXceptIOn? Just BecauSe thE pUnY And EphemerAL iS EAsieR tHaN the GreAt And duRablE? (9) detAchment From the inTelLEctuAl EnGines of Modern civilizAtIon. These enGiNes Are sciENCe, technoLogy, and ideology. DetachmeNT from thEm eXpediTes wIld and anaChrOnistiC spECulatiOn. ExamPles: THe PhiLOSophiES Of MinD tHat ignore tHE VerY exisTeNce oF cognitIve neuroscience; the PHilOsophies of lanGuaGe thAT IgNorE ThAT laNgUAge IS Primarily a tool oF cognition AnD SoCial action; THe aCtIon theoRies thaT ignoRE the mosT importanT types of aCtIon, nAMEly Work and socIal interAction, as wELl as tHE dIscipLinEs that DeAl wIth acTion, suCH as ManagEment sCiEnce anD poliTiCal scienCe; the philosophies of histOry thaT ignoRe tHe systemiC, reALisT, and materIaliSt approach Of tHe ANnaleS scHOol. (10) IvOry tOWeR. MoST philOsopHErs live in THe ProVERbIal tower. TheY DO Not Care tO knOW what gOes oN in other departmenTS or in the societY thaT FEedS thEM. TheY oNly read other phIloSoPHErs and wrItE exclusivelY for collEaGUes. ThEy behaVe
 those of Aristotle, Aquin as, Leibni z, Wo lff , K an t, H egel , or Lotze. Th e  pri ce has been diffidence  foran y  att e mp ts to  buildp hi l o sop hi ca l s ys t em s, an d t he conc omitant pr efe re nce for theb ri ef essay o r e ven the apho ris m. Now ad ays the e xpr essio n espr i t de s ysteme is  u s ed ina  pejora t i ve  sen se. But this diff i de n ce is as unrea sonabl ea si t  wo uld  be to mis tr ust p h ysics o r  e n g i nee r ing because s ometimes th e y f ail. W ha t i s  wrong  is n ot tosystematize  (or ganize) i deas,b ut to c l ing dog matica lly  to  thi s  o rtha tp rod u ct  of suc h effort .It  is w rong b e c ause  al l th ingsand all ideas  co me i n  sy stems . Weough tto sy stemat ize i de as because stra y id eas are u nin te lli gi ble;b ecause  we  ne ed logi cal con s ist en c y ;  b ecause deductive p ow e r  i s desira ble; a n dbe c ause the  w orl d is n ot apile of  unrelat ed fac t sbu t a sys te m of i nt err ela ted t h ings  and p rocesses . Inc ontext, everyi dea drags oth e ri d ea s . Fo r e xample, eve ry c o ncep t of tr uth invol ves t he co n cepts of propositio nand me aning . Second exam ple: Relat i v i stic phy sics ha s  taught us tha t the  notion of time mus t betreatedin combin a t ion with  th e i dea s o f sp ace, matter,a n d ev en t. Thir d:The ide a o f h uma n a ct ion relat es the c on ce pt sofperso n , intent io n,va lue , goa l , norm , out come ,so c ial  enviro n me n t , an dci rcum sta nc e. In  sho r t,we need  systemsofi deas  i nall fie lds of learni ng  and all w al ksof lif e ,  because  the world is a system, our kno wle dge a noth er system , a nd liv ing involv es int eract in g w i t h sys t e ms . W hy  should ph i l oso phy b etheexcepti on? Just because t h e p uny and ephem era l is e as ier th a n t he gre a t  and durable? ( 9) Detachm en t  f rom the in t ell ec tual en gines o f mod e rn civi lization.  These en gi nesa r e s cience, te chnology , and ide o logy. De tachm ent  fromth emexped ites w i ldand a nachro ni stic s pecul at ion. Exa mples: The philosophies  of mi nd th atignore th e v e ryexistence  ofcognitiveneu ros cienc e;t he ph ilos o ph ies of la ngua g e that ig n or e t h a tlanguage is p r ima rilya t o ol ofcogn ition and sociala ction; the act iont h eor ies that  i gnore the most  im po r t ant type sof action,namely w or k  andsocial  inter action, a sw ell as  the  di sciplines  th at deal wi th  a c tion,such  a s mana gement scie n c e and politicalscien c e ; the phi losop hi es of h i stor y that ign ore the sys temic,  rea list,  and ma te rialis t a pp roach of t h e Annales  scho ol. (10 )Ivor y t ower.Most p hilos ophe rs  li ve in the p ro v er bi a l t ower . The ydo n ot care t o  know wh atg oes onin  ot h e r depa r tm e n ts or in t hesocie t y  that feed s  the m .T hey o nly re ad oth er phil o sop he rs andwri t e  exclusiv ely for c o lle ag ues.  They be ha ve
 those_of Aristotle,_Aquinas, Leibniz, Wolff, Kant,_Hegel, or_Lotze._The price_has_been diffidence for_any attempts to_build philosophical systems, and_the concomitant preference_for_the brief essay or even the aphorism. Nowadays the expression esprit de systeme is_used_in a_pejorative_sense._But this diffidence is as_unreasonable as it would be_to mistrust_physics or engineering because sometimes they fail. What_is_wrong is not_to systematize (organize) ideas, but to cling dogmatically to_this or that product of such_effort. It is_wrong_because_all things and all_ideas come in systems. We ought_to systematize ideas because stray ideas_are unintelligible; because we need logical consistency;_because deductive power is desirable; and_because the world is not_a pile_of unrelated facts but a_system of interrelated_things and_processes. In context,_every idea drags other ideas. For_example, every concept_of truth involves the concepts of_proposition_and meaning. Second_example:_Relativistic_physics has_taught us that_the_notion of_time_must be treated in combination with_the_ideas of space, matter, and event. Third:_The idea of human_action_relates the concepts of_person, intention, value, goal, norm,_outcome, social environment, and circumstance. In_short, we_need systems_of ideas in all fields of learning and all walks of_life, because the world is a_system, our knowledge another_system, and_living_involves interacting with_systems._Why should_philosophy be the exception? Just because the_puny and_ephemeral is easier than the great_and durable? (9) Detachment_from_the intellectual engines of modern civilization._These engines are science, technology, and_ideology. Detachment from them expedites_wild_and_anachronistic speculation. Examples: The philosophies_of mind that ignore the very_existence of cognitive_neuroscience; the philosophies of language that ignore_that_language is primarily a tool of_cognition_and social action; the action theories_that_ignore_the most important types of_action, namely work and social interaction,_as well as the disciplines that deal with action,_such as management_science and political science; the_philosophies_of_history that ignore the systemic, realist, and materialist approach of_the Annales_school. (10) Ivory_tower. Most philosophers live in the proverbial tower. They do_not care to know what goes on_in other departments or in the society that feeds them. They_only read other philosophers and write exclusively for_colleagues. They behave