[lit-ideas] Re: [Christmas Special] What percentage of 'great' and 'not-so-great' philosophers are 'dysfunctional'?
- From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
- To: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:18:26 -0330
Some remarks on Eric Yost's contributions -------------->
Quoting Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> WO: what relevance to their philosophical arguments do such sundry,
> personal and private biographical details actually have? Shouldn't a
> philosopher be judged by the cogency of her arguments?
>
>
> Depends what you mean by "judged" doesn't it?
--------> Yes, but that rhetorical question simply restates in variant form the
disagreement we are having. We can go for a long time arguing who is begging
the question here with a preselected definition of "judge." So let us return to
substantive arguments rather than rejoicing in victory by definition.
> How to separate Nietzsche's assessment of Wagner from Nietzsche's
> experiences as a member of Wagner's salon? How to assess Nietzsche's
> search for a new musical hero in Bizet while exempting the biographical
> data of Nietzsche's musical compositions being lampooned by Wagner? How
> to separate Nietzsche's growing madness in Turin from the tone of his
> late works?
------------> I haven't read much of N., and have studied him even less. What
I've read didn't seem to be philosophy to me. He doesn't inspire me
philosophically. Did he have any philosophical theses or arguments? Regarding
tone and madness: as an amateur psychologist, I would guess there may well be
some sort of connection there. But it's of no philosophical interest, as far as
I can see.
> Sure you can pigeonhole the personal aspects of a thinker and
> concentrate on the thinker's arguments ... to judge arguments.
I believe that a very fundamental violation of the norms of argumentation and
critique is to use words rhetorically in such a way that they paint your
adversary or antithesis in less than compelling or credible terms even before
you consider the soundness of the relevant arguments. "Pigeonholing" is a
lexical term found in the same area of a journalist's cerebral cortex as
"disecting" - as in "disecting a poem." (Is that how one spells "disecting"
btw?)
> Yet isn't
> a philosopher more than his or her arguments?
-----> No.
>Isn't something lost
> thereby?
-----------------> No. Everything is thereby gained.
> Style matters.
-------------> Not in philosophical terms.
> Motives matter.
-------------> Only in moral philosophy. One's motives in presenting i.e.,
epistemological, metaphysical, or logical arguments are irrelevant to the truth
or correctness of the arguments.
(Note the interesting dove-tailing of democracy as a distinct form of governance
of the individual and social body, and philosophical argumentation.)
Walter O.
MUN
>
>
> Eric
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
