[lit-ideas] "Petit Bourgeois" Strawson (Was: "Nazi" Heidegger
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:28:17 EST
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.
Other related posts:
