[lit-ideas] Re: Christopher Hill and thinking for oneself

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:11:43 -0700

Richard,
 
I wrote a response but saw that it would probably exceed the Lit-Ideas'
length limit, if not immediately, then surely with any subsequent comments;
so I posted in on my blog, leaving out your last name.  I hope that was
okay.  It was posted at
http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2010/08/on-nietzsches-superman-and-faulty.html
 
Lawrence
 
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Henninge
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 5:01 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Christopher Hill and thinking for oneself
 

To what extent [d]o we rely upon others to do our thinking for us? ...
[From Lawrence Helms's blog this past Monday under the title in the subject
line]...

While today neither the Church nor the State imposes their authority upon
us, we are not free of the authority of the Journalist. Many, as a recent
discussion I was in suggested, would rather invoke a Journalist of the Left
or Right than think the various issues they are concerned with through for
themselves. While this phenomenon seems to go against the Leftist view that
man is in a state of continuous "progress," it wouldn't surprise such
philosophers as Nietzsche ... who argued that the common man would always
need a "leader" to tell him what to think.
It would, for instance, be a sorry thing to invoke this as an example of
Nietzsche's philosophy, "that the common man would always need a 'leader' to
tell him what to think."
There is a Biblical concept that would probably occur to any Christian
during a discussion of the Nuremberg trials, namely that we shall be held
accountable for the teachers we set over us. The blind that follow the blind
shall both end up in the ditch. But in this age where many, perhaps most,
fear neither God nor man, it is interesting that they do not use their
"freedom" to formulate their own philosophy, but instead rely upon
Journalists and political hacks who use nothing but their extremely-faulty
opinions to influence the ordinary descendants of those who lived during a
time in which "The World Turned Upside Down."
"Extremely-faulty opinions": did you ever ask yourself why it makes no sense
to call opinions "faulty"? That would be like criticizing someone for his
false beliefs or her faulty imagination. Even the tacking-on of the
qualifying "extremely" is a tacit acknowledgement of the faulty construction
"faulty opinions," as if to say, "OK, all opinions are of course a little
faulty, but these go beyond the acceptable extremes of off-base,
out-of-line, wacko opinions, so don't go there; don't be persuaded by them."
On the other hand, "faulty memory" seems to make perfect sense. Why is that?
I'll tell you why. It's ordinary language (philosophy).
Richard Henninge
University of Mainz

Other related posts: