Philosophy as Mapmaking Indulge me in this extended analogy: a good philosopher is like a good map-maker. A good map-maker, quite obviously, makes good maps and good maps have certain general features. In the first place, all maps are simplified representations of reality. No map is a true one-to-one representation of reality--such a map, as Borges reminds us, would be entirely useless. Given this first feature, every map has to be selective in what it represents. A good map only includes representations of those features or landmarks that are necessary for achieving the goal of getting around. It does not include minutiae that would make that task difficult, nor does it represent landmarks that are irrelevant. Third, it represents the relevant landmarks in such a way that they are easily recognizable by someone reading the map--there is sufficient similarity between the representation of the Eiffel Tower and the real thing so that one can know when they've encountered it in travelling around Paris. Finally, a good map doesn't just represent the various landmarks, roads, subway stops, but also shows the (spatial) relations that hold between them. We know where Grand Central Station stands in relation to the Penn Station and other stops and that knowledge allows us to understand how we need to get to where we want to go.
Philosophy as Mapmaking
Philosophy as Mapmaking
Philosophy as Mapmaking
Philosophy as Mapmaking Indulge me in this extended analogy: a good philosopher is like a good map-maker. A good map-maker, quite obviously, makes good maps and good maps have certain general features. In the first place, all maps are simplified representations of reality. No map is a true one-to-one representation of reality--such a map, as Borges reminds us, would be entirely useless. Given this first feature, every map has to be selective in what it represents. A good map only includes representations of those features or landmarks that are necessary for achieving the goal of getting around. It does not include minutiae that would make that task difficult, nor does it represent landmarks that are irrelevant. Third, it represents the relevant landmarks in such a way that they are easily recognizable by someone reading the map--there is sufficient similarity between the representation of the Eiffel Tower and the real thing so that one can know when they've encountered it in travelling around Paris. Finally, a good map doesn't just represent the various landmarks, roads, subway stops, but also shows the (spatial) relations that hold between them. We know where Grand Central Station stands in relation to the Penn Station and other stops and that knowledge allows us to understand how we need to get to where we want to go.