Three hours ago, Michael said something about me in the comments section on this blog that touched me very deeply. In a way, it is the loveliest thing anybody has ever said about me and I would like to thank him and – this is, after all, my way – tell once again a story about something that happened to me 35 years ago. Here is what Michael said:
“Before I go far off-topic (like others, I have a
questionable habit of treating this blog like an all-purpose conversation
forum), I should thank Prof. Wolff for what he does. As Charles and Jerry
Fresia said in response to the previous entry, Prof. Wolff's honesty and
authenticity are refreshing. I'll add that I often get a good feeling watching
his YouTube videos in particular; the feeling is that the intellectual and
academic showboating that seem typical of philosophical discussion have
completely receded from view, and have given way to something more pure,
pleasant, intriguing, and even childlike (in the best possible way) - I can't
quite pin it down, but it reminds me of the "wonder" of the Ancient
Greeks, or, less pretentiously, of very young children learning to explore their
minds (or some more grown-up friends enjoying a psychoactive trip of some
sort). It's a good thing - one of the best things - and it makes me want to try
to share it in some way. Thanks, Prof. Wolff.”
In 1986, as my first marriage was ending, I spent time
seeing a therapist once a week. It was, God knows, hardly the first time I had
seen a therapist! I started when I was 14, struggling with obsessive fears of
death, and what with a full-scale Freudian analysis during my seven Columbia
years and one thing and another I had spent by that time 15 years in one sort
of therapy or another.
Now, It may seem odd, but in all that time I had never cried
on the analytic couch or in the analytic chair. Tears had never welled up in my
eyes as I went on about my troubles, although I am in other contexts, as Jude
Law says in that lovely movie The Holiday, something of a weeper. I mean, I
tear up at the end of movies and even when I am telling someone else about
them. But not once had I wept for a therapist.
One day, I somehow got off the topic of my troubles and
started talking about my work. I explained to my therapist that all my life I
had sought to engage with complex and deep ideas, to tell the story of them in
my head until they were so clear to me that I could show them to my readers or
my students and allow them to see how lovely and powerful and simple they were.
As I said this, unexpectedly and quite unbidden, tears came
to my eyes and I began to choke up.
Thank you, Michael.
10 comments:
There's an astounding essay by Paul Goodman called 'On the Intellectual Inhibition of Explosive Grief and Anger' wherein he discusses when and why the 'intellectual sensitive man' cries. He suggests that such a person can only cry on two types of occasion: (a) "when he attends to something of pure and simple beauty that suddenly surprises him." The 'sensitive man' is drawn in by something that promises happiness, and then is surprised and touched by a turn that is resolving and even simpler than expected [like the movies?]; and (b) when there is relenting, "the relaxation of an unnecessary torture," as when a judge who has condemned you reaches out to shake your hand. Goodman provisionally concludes that the man weeps "for beauty and the remnants of self-security." He thinks that those in such a condition are still afflicted with an inability and/or unwillingness to stake themselves. The cure, Goodman thinks, is to identify oneself with the present hope for paradise and to engage oneself in actively making it. To do this, he claims, the habitually reasonable and cautious self must relent, dropping its constraining standards of "the need to be always right; to be consistent; unwillingness to be a fool; satisfaction with the situation when it is well enough."--In any case, Michael's remark was perhaps an instance where hope and reality coincided in paradise.
That really clears things up, John.
Thanks for your kind response, Anonymous! But alas I wasn't trying to clear anything up, but rather raise possibilities for reflection.
You are very welcome, Prof. Wolff.
I thought John's response was quite cool, too. I did have to read it a couple times, but it isn't as difficult as Anonymous implies. Paul Goodman definitely sounds worth checking out.
I wish Prof. Wolff and all readers and commentators of this blog a happy new year and above all good health. ... this comes a little late, but why should wishes have an expiration date.
"The cure, Goodman thinks, is to identify oneself with the present hope for paradise and to work actively toward it." (John Rapko)
Perhaps a little less apocalypticism will do the trick. Maybe working on concrete utopias is a better way to cope with our own. And in the process also, little by little, to drop one's own vanities. The latter is perhaps even more difficult. But the lack of vanity was one of the things (not the only thing !!) that I liked so much about the lessons on Kant, Marx and ideology critique, and that I also recognize in this blog.
I know that Prof. Wolff doesn't like Hegel and I would guess that he is even more obscure in the German original than in the English translation, but I still like a quote of him: "As for the individual, each is anyway a son of his time; so is philosophy, its time grasped in thought." Isn't that nice, "a son of his time"? has something performative.
My wishes for 2022
However, if one can change already hardly something at the course of the things, I wish myself at least, that one does not let the liars of this world with the feeling of having duped me.
A.K. i would so much like to know, as this is clearly important to you and i respect your writing, what you mean by "that one does not let the liars of this world with the feeling of having duped me". In trying to translate it back to the German, is it "Wenn man jedoch am Lauf der Dinge schon kaum etwas ändern kann, wünsche ich mir zumindest, dass man sich von den Lügnern dieser Welt nicht mit dem Gefühl betrogen hat."? If that is the case i am not sure i understand its meaning. Can you explain a little please?
@ decessero,
i know my english is not the best. i always check with translation software, but sometimes that just increases the confusion.
To answer your question, I'll just do it with an example; Trump is a liar. He is even a powerful liar who reaches a lot of people with his lies. A lie is "bullshit" coupled with an agenda.
If you can't stop the Trumps of this world from exercising their power, then you should at least make their lies visible.
Now, the lies of this Mr. Trump are mostly so blatant that it is easy to expose him. It is more difficult with self-deception, that is, when one lies to oneself. This self-deception is the basis for whole classes within a society to deceive themselves. Example: When Americans in precarious circumstances - or those who are afraid of getting into such circumstances - believe that a billionaire is their salvation.
As naive and simplistic as this all sounds, I think philosophers are committed to the truth, even if you can't always stop the liars with the truth.
Thank you, Achim, for your explanation. Then i would have to believe from all the comments you have written that you are quite clear-eyed and principled, so not so much in danger of that happening.
dear decessero,
if by " principled " you mean the principle: "Thou shalt not lie", then for me there are exceptions. For example, when my wife asks me if she is dressed correctly for dinner.
So let's play a little, Achim (whose name means "brothers" in Hebrew):
Dressed "correctly"? i would hope you would tell her if her choice were glaringly inappropriate. If merely, shall we say, "not quite right" by your judgment, we can invoke the delicate subject you raise: There are LIES ("thou shalt not lie") = Lügen (roughly deliberate deceptions) and then, as in the case at hand, there are "WHITE LIES" ≈ Notlügen (those small untruths primarily told to avoid hurting someone's feelings). [N.B. in German these are "Not" Lügen, i.e. born of necessity; in English, they are "white" = weiße Lügen (jedoch nicht weise Lügen) — so, although it sounds the same, they may be white, but they are not by definition wise.] As i said, just playing :)
Post a Comment