tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post3634869805315639952..comments2024-03-29T02:27:32.635-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: IDEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE PART FOURRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-39805049267452595462015-01-05T06:07:36.286-05:002015-01-05T06:07:36.286-05:00Prof.
Only now I've come to your tutorial on ...Prof.<br /><br />Only now I've come to your tutorial on Mannheim and I find it fascinating.<br /><br />First, let me explain in my own words (please, bear with me and remember that I'm not a philosopher): In Mannheim's views, "free-floating intellectuals" seem to be characters who, by virtue of their superior knowledge and lack of class attachments, manage to overcome the influence of ideologies. That's why they can see things clearly. Therefore, they can judge what theories are right (or are closer to be right) and can presumably take decisions for the general good.<br /><br />A few questions about the "free-floating intellectuals": <br /><br />Aren't they the modern day equivalent to Plato's Philosopher-King?<br /><br />And don't contemporary economists see themselves in similar ways?Magpiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07528637318288802178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-18615789594434930662011-06-04T07:21:54.609-04:002011-06-04T07:21:54.609-04:00All of this takes us off on a tangent, but I did w...All of this takes us off on a tangent, but I did want to nod in and say a word or two about these comments. Andreas has it exactly right. This turn to the subject, sometimes called the Epistemological Turn, had the effect of making questions of knowing prior to questions of being. One need only look at the writings of Aristotle, which were the dominant influence for two meillennia, to see what a revolution this was. It is striking to look at the titles of some of the major books written in the century and a half between Descartes and Kant: Essay on Human Understanding, Treatise of Human Nature, Principles of Human Knowledge, Critique of Pure Reason. None of those is a title that one would have expected from the philosophers writing before Descartes. The privileging of epistemology over metaphysics continued for two centuries, and although the work of Sayl Kripke and others has somewhat reversed this order of priority in analytic philosophical work, it continues to be important.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-58716494458930679992011-06-04T06:26:44.708-04:002011-06-04T06:26:44.708-04:00The great invention of Descartes was "the tur...The great invention of Descartes was "the turn to the subject" - his firm ground is the famous <i>cogito</i>, but 'tis not the proof itself that is so fascinating: rather, it is the fact that Cartesian philosophy places the subject at the center of philosophy. Every philosophy so far was concerned with devising the grand structure of the universe, and Descartes comes along and says "The foundation of philosophy is the human subject". BANG. Here comes modernity, because that is <b>essentially</b> what the modern is all about, placing the subject solidly in a priviliged ontic status in the centre of the universe.<br /><br />That being said, the Frenchies do have a lot of great philosophers. The only rival, I think, is the Germans...<br /><br />Best,<br />AndreasAndreas Baumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524527271555279976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-86172064602097482882011-06-03T23:13:10.211-04:002011-06-03T23:13:10.211-04:00I think (the other) Michael's point was that t...I think (the other) Michael's point was that those nations have historically a great deal of pride in their philosophers, and the association of those philosophers to the nation. It might also be that Descartes and Kant can both, according to a simplified narrative of the history of philosophy, can be considered to have begun debates which set the tone for much later work in a way few philosophers ever do. It certainly doesn't seem like Satre, Abelard, Rousseau--and this is by no means meant to belittle their talent--were as influential. I mean, there has to be a reason most Modern Phil. classes start with Descartes and end with Kant.<br /><br />Also, try reading Anselm's proof of the existence of God. I've read it--or selections from it--a few times and it just makes my head spin.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781744385645937568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-12116384480752520052011-06-03T19:38:53.057-04:002011-06-03T19:38:53.057-04:00That's true. I just don't pick my favorite...That's true. I just don't pick my favorites upon nationality, and I suppose I hoped others followed in that path.<br /><br />And you're right, I'll read Sartre quite a bit more than Descartes if given the choice.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-82482477326713699972011-06-03T19:25:07.780-04:002011-06-03T19:25:07.780-04:00But Chris, none of the philosophers you mention ar...But Chris, none of the philosophers you mention are French. I agree that Descartes is overrated as a philosopher, by the French and nearly everybody else. (As a mathematician and scientist, he's in somewhat better shape.) But he's certainly the best known <i>French</i> philosopher, at least.<br /><br />Sartre is a clear alternative, but he probably came too late to attain the entrenched status Descartes has. Rousseau is the other obvious alternative, I suppose. (I like Abelard myself, but he's probably a long shot as a Descartes usurper.)Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12922719871297540449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-18723455954573855322011-06-03T16:19:57.765-04:002011-06-03T16:19:57.765-04:00Oh and his arguments for the existence of God, so ...Oh and his arguments for the existence of God, so far as I could tell, were just atrocious. I imagine numerous atheist were fuming at that paltriness of his proofs, while simultaneously unable to decimate them for fear of being a social pariah.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-24687869186901924522011-06-03T16:18:54.850-04:002011-06-03T16:18:54.850-04:00Maybe this is off topic, but why is Descartes held...Maybe this is off topic, but why is Descartes held in such high regard? I just re-read him for the third time two weeks ago, and was...underwhelmed. I just don't see how he holds a candle to Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, or Spinoza...<br /><br />I mean the cogito is impressive yes. But it's the pinnacle of his work, and could be expressed in a simple 1 page essay. The additions to Philosophy that Plato, Hume, and Kant made, fill up vastly more text, and cover vastly wider fields of analysis. I'm not trying to belittle Descartes, but I don't see him as someone who needs to be praised either; let alone read over and over.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08250295324149056708noreply@blogger.com