[lit-ideas] Re: Philosophical League Tables
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:41:52 +0600
Walter O. wrote:
"This is just silly."
Walter doesn't make clear his reasons, but I share the sentiment. To
me, it is symptomatic of so much of what passes for philosophy today.
And it brings to mind something from Hegel's introduction to his
Philosophy of Religion, that I think applies to philosophers.
'It is to be noted that there is a type of theology that wants to
adopt only a historical attitude toward religion; it even has an
abundance of cognition, though only of a historical kind. This
cognition is of no concern of ours, for if the cognition of religion
were merely historical, we would have to compare such theologians with
countinghouse clerks, who keep the ledgers and accounts of other
people's wealth, a wealth that passes through their hands without
their retaining any of it, clerks who act only for others without
acquiring assets of their own. They do of course receive a salary, but
their merit lies only in keeping records of the assets of other
people. In philosophy and religion, however, the essential thing is
that one's own spirit itself should recognize a possession and
content, deem itself worthy of cognition, and not keep itself humbly
outside.'
There is no philosophical significance to a text having more or less
votes regarding 'intrinsic merit'. I do think there is significance to
such lists, but it isn't what the makers of such lists think it is.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
In Siberia, both figuratively and literally
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
