[lit-ideas] Re: Heidegger and the Night Watchmen
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:43:16 -0330
There is an unfortunate dualism marring Wolin's views below and he also gets the
philosopher's hours wrong.
The philosopher is on guard 24/7.
The dualism reminds me of the error in thinking that there is a clear conceptual
distinction between negative and positive freedom. Surely neither is possible
without the other as all "freedom from" is a "freedom to" do something, or be
something, or kiss someone ... We also fall prey to the fallacy of dualism in
believing that the critique of knowledge is possible independent of some
conviction and insight into the nature and conditions of knowledge. I can
criticize the Toronto Maple Leafs for quite a number of pages; but the validity
of my critique depends upon my understanding of hockey and the skills and
dispositions its excellent performance requires.
Walter O
MUN
Quoting Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> J.L.
>
> Well, yes, Robert Paul announced that he intended to "stir things up." When
> one reaches a certain age one likes to do that, or (in my case) one likes to
> be "stirred up." At the very least one can thereby assure oneself that one
> isn't quite ready for the senility ward at the local old-folk's home.
>
> But in keeping with the tenor of the Robert Paul note, consider the
> following from the introduction to Richard Wolin's Heidegger's Children,
> Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse:
>
> "Today, philosophy departments are ruled by the methods of linguistic
> analysis. Yet this school of philosophy represents another manner of
> narrowing philosophy's influence and range. The existential concerns that
> occupied pride of place in Heidegger's rich phenomenological inquiries seem
> banished from philosophy's horizon. History and social criticism, too, seem
> to have forfeited their place. Wittgenstein claimed that language games
> must be understood as 'forms of life,' all language games make sense
> internally. Thus, the goals of philosophy should be therapeutic rather than
> substantive. The elimination of misunderstandings, rather than the
> establishment of positive goals or agendas, is the end toward which thought
> should aspire. Philosophy should, we are told, place more trust in common
> sense or everyday linguistic practice. As a perceptive critic has remarked:
>
> 'Linguistic philosophy is conceived not merely as therapy or euthanasia, but
> also as prophylaxis, and as a prophylaxis against a necessarily ever-present
> danger. . . . This is the Night Watchman theory of philosophy: it has no
> positive contribution of its own to make, but must ever be on guard against
> possible abuses that would interfere with, or confuse, genuine knowledge.'"
>
> Lawrence
>
> From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:28 AM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] "Petit Bourgeois" Strawson (Was: "Nazi" Heidegger
>
> I love the way L. Helm takes things seriously. There is R. Paul jocularly
> having an interrogation mark, "?" on "Heil Heidegger" (Heil originally
> means, "Holy") and L. Helm brilliantly arguing for the nonsense of it all --
> the way he takes into consideration the remarks by commenters on his blog
> and sharing with the forum is also an example of etiquette and things.
>
> But yes, politics and philosophy can be a bother. I never knew what H. Paul
> Grice was, _politically speaking_. His obit in The St. John's Records
> describes him as 'typical Establishment', indeed _above_ Oxford
> establishment: his 'public school persona' was above the rest, or average --
> but then, as I was told, the obit writer, a Geo. Richardson -- 'came from
> the worst part of Glasgow', so perhaps he _was_ exaggerating.
>
> Now, at a later stage, Grice's 'upper' class background (*) reacted against
> him; and as a sign, he sent his two children to _state-run_ schools, if you
> can believe that!
>
> (*) I don't follow 'upper class' criticisms as evidenced in large measure by
> S. R. Chapman's bio of Grice (Macmillan, Palgrave). Chapman does not allow
> _one_ sign of upper-classness go unnoticed; but since the types of
> Englishmen _I_ am familiar with (via literature, films, and stuff) _are_
> high class, I think Chapman overdoes it a bit. Why should a philosopher
> _have_ to be "working-class"? Chapman objects that even when Grice settled
> in the USA, his philosophical prose became _more_ of an example of the
> "high-class" Englishman, populated by butlers and royalty! I did notice
> that, but thought it was the _rule_.
>
> Now, what _did_ infuriate me is Strawson's petit bourgeoisie. In "The
> Library of Living Philosophers", Strawson, as he once _was_ a living
> philosopher (now he's in the Third World of Popper), describes his
> "Intellectual Autobiography". Strawson was in the real Third World (almost!)
> -- and I mean the bad neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires! (He was invited by the
> Argentine Society for Philosophical Analysis of which I'm a corresponding
> member). But that did not trouble me. He also visited the Slavic Countries,
> and India -- always in his 'persona' of Oxford persona grata. It is when he
> was in Hungary or something, that, as he recollects in his "Autobiography",
> a student challenged him:
>
> "Your metaphysics is not discrete; it's the result
> of the middle-class Englishman"
>
> (echoing Lord Russell's comments re: the background of ordinary-language
> philosopher -- 'silly things that silly people say', in the early Saturday
> morning usual lack of imagination).
>
> "Your metaphysics -- and philosophy of
> language", the student went on, "only reflects
> your petit bourgeoisie".
>
> Strawson, unchallenged, famously added,
>
> "But I _am_ a petit bourgeois," implicating -- 'so what do you expect'.
>
> This disimplicating effect cannot travel with Heidegger ("But I am a Nazi --
> so what do you expect?")
>
> Geary is of course slightly wrong about the Nordic types as he calls them.
> His brother (Geary's, not Heidegger's) married a Danish, and he (Geary's
> brother) has almost _turned_ into these Nordic types. But the Nazis were
> _not_ into Nordic types: they were into _central_ Indo-European types,
> "Aryan". The idea that they are Nordic is misguided. Only in
> post-paleolithic times did SOME of those Aryans find refuge in the North
> (Scandinavia).
>
> I have witnessed that the Romans (and Italians in General) during
> Mussolini's times -- were in fact _more_ racist than ... Heidegger. It was
> pretty painful for the Italians for races _other_ than Aryan have mixed with
> them so that who got deported (Franchetti, the opera composer, almost --
> born Frinkelstein-Rothschild) were very 'assimilated' types (not ghetto).
>
> But Western civilisation (cf. Spengler) has always taken more seriously the
> 'racism' of the Hun (Spengler) than of one Abbagnano!
>
> Cheers,
>
> J. L. Speranza, Bordighera, etc.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
