My intuition was correct that Jerry Fresia would understand what I was trying inadequately to express. Clearly his experience as an artist is different from mine as a philosopher but at some deeper level I think we are quite similar. There are a number of texts of course that achieve this integration and transcendence, and not at all surprisingly I find some of them in the Dialogues of Plato. But the single text that seems to me the most perfect expression of what I am trying to capture is the two and a half page preface to Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments. That is a truly astonishing text, so inward, so intense, so perfectly clear and powerful, going on from image to image, metaphor to metaphor, unrelenting, without so much as the relief of an explanatory sub phrase. Kierkegaard must have been in a fugue state when he wrote it. It is I think pound for pound, word for word, the greatest piece of philosophical writing I have ever read.
As for Charles Mills’s observations about Kant, they do not
at all change my interpretation of the text but it goes without saying that
they have a powerful effect on my judgment of Kant as a human being. Kant was a
casual stone cold racist, there is no way around that fact. So in his graceful
manner was David Hume. Can we excuse them on the ground that they were writing
in the 18th century? Well, it is striking that that quite insignificant
contemporary thinker, James Beattie, who accidentally served as the vital
conduit of Hume’s critique of causal inference to Kant, was in fact not a
racist but rather quite liberated in his view of the illegitimacy of slavery.
As I have on various occasions observed, Karl Marx, the great
theorist of exploitation, was himself in a variety of ways an exploiter of
those around him.
I am glad I did not have the opportunity to meet any of
these great thinkers.
243 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243s. wallerstein,
I never claimed that I could persuade Putin, or Bezos, or Trump, or you, etc. that objective moral precepts exist. As Thoreau said, a man who is correct in his moral principles constitutes a majority of one.
It is David who claims that he has a methodology by which he can demonstrate to an adversary that his conduct is immoral, assuming the adversary makes certain concessions. I dispute the general applicability of his method.
To Marc:
You say: "It is David who claims that he has a methodology by which he can demonstrate to an adversary that his conduct is immoral, assuming the adversary makes certain concessions. I dispute the general applicability of his method."
I have never claimed that the method implicit in the dialogue over slavery in the BC has "general applicability," if by that you mean "can resolve all moral disagreements."
I have explicitly if DISAVOWED that claim, by acknowledging that applying all the uncontroversial standards of rationality (getting the facts, etc) may still leave some disputes unresolved precisely because the idealized attitude analysis leaves it an open question whether there can be two idealized observers who end up embracing contradictory moral views.
I make this acknowledgment with regret because I do wish that there were a decision procedure that guaranteed that all such moral disputes were rationally resolvable. But, as I keep urging on you, wishing does not make it so.
The more I read your comments on the idealized attitude approach, Marc, the more I think that you do not understand it at all.
David Z
s. wallerstein,
I never claimed that I could prove to Putin, or Bezos, or Trump, or you that there are objective moral precepts. As Thoreua said, an individual who advocates a correct moral principle constitutes a majority of one.
It is David who maintains that he has a methodology by which he can demonstrate to an adversary who is willing to concede certain preliminary propositions, and ho is rational, that particular conduct is immoral. I dispute that his methodology is generally applicable.
By the way, Karl Popper believed there was at least one objective moral precept: Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers.
s. wallerstein,
I never claimed that I could prove to Putin, or Bezos, or Trump, or you that there are objective moral precepts. As Thoreua said, an individual who advocates a correct moral principle constitutes a majority of one.
It is David who maintains that he has a methodology by which he can demonstrate to an adversary who is willing to concede certain preliminary propositions, and ho is rational, that particular conduct is immoral. I dispute that his methodology is generally applicable.
Karl Popper believed there was at least one objective moral precept: Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers.
David Zimmerman,
You may need thin concepts, but I don't.
I don't have them in my head: I've lived 76 years without them.
I do have thick ones.
In the case you mention of friendship, I'd be kind because kindness trumps honesty for me, almost always.
Why does kindness trump honesty? That's the way I am.
Now you may be a more scrupulous person than I am. I concede that. You burned your draft card and I faked a 1-Y.
Still I lead a decent life if I compare my life to those around me. I pay my taxes, I vote, I donate money to progressive candidates, I haven't hit anyone for 60 years, I
step aside when people in wheelchairs or on crutches pass on the sidewalk, I'm courteous to everyone, except those who insult me.
To S Wallerstein:
Sir, the last thing I would ever claim is to be a more scrupulous person than you or anyone else. (Well, almost anyone else... there are real jerks in the world, as we well know.)
I stopped a long time ago thinking that I exhibited any particular virtue in resisting the draft in the sixties... there has to be a statute of limitations on claiming moral virtue... and at 80 I am well past mine.
As for your capacity to do without "thin" moral concepts like "right" and "wrong".... I wonder.
What happens when you yourself have doubts about which "thick" moral consideration outweighs another when they conflict. Isn't it very tempting to pose your quandary in thin moral terms by asking "Which of these, kindness or honesty, REALLY captures what is the right thing for me to do here and now?"
You are confident that in this particular example kindness always trumps honesty. For you that may be true. But, surely there are some "thick" moral considerations that could conflict even for you.
As long as there are many diverse thick considerations, and there are, the potential for conflict is always there. And that is where the more abstract thin moral concepts enter into our moral thinking. Or so it seems to me.
Good comment though... thanks.
Cheers,
David Z
David Zimmerman,
You talk about "our" thinking.
I just never use thin moral concepts. My parents didn't either. They never talked about things being "moral" or "immoral" or "good" or "evil" or wicked". Their moral vocabulary was entirely thick.
I just talked to a woman friend and she agreed that she never uses thin concepts either.
It seems to me that people I know don't talk and probably don't think in those terms. Religious people probably do and philosophers do too obviously. But my social circle,
composed of non-religious people, don't.
David Zimmerman,
One more point.
When I say that in my social circle people don't uses thin moral terms, people in my social circle basically talk politics, not about their cars or their new computers or sports or the "in" restaurants". and to talk politics one needs thick moral terms. Yes, they use thick moral terms, but never thin ones.
No one I know supported rightwing billionaire president Piñera, but he was never labeled "immoral", but rather corrupt, a liar, a hypocrite, greedy, untrustworthy, superficial, uncaring, etc.
To S Wallerstein:
I hear you, Sir.... However....
My point about the indispensability of "thin" moral concepts is that no one really (not even you) has a genuine choice but to use them in situations when he must decide how to adjudicate a decision that involves a conflict between two "thick" moral considerations.
I doubt that any any reflective moral agent (such as you, Mr Wallenstein) can avoid the use of "thin" moral concepts like "right" and "wrong" in making such decisions.
When you think about the moral dilemmas you have faced.... what do you think of the Moorean "open question" argument that (I have claimed) induces the person making the moral judgment to take a stand about what he decides is all things considered morally right, i.e. favoured by the "thin" moral predicate?
Cheers,
David Z
David Zimmerman,
Maybe you make pure moral decisions based on thin concepts, but to be honest, my moral decisions are generally mixed up with prudential considerations.
Honesty is the best policy (that's largely true); I admit to moral grandstanding at times.
I give money to the homeless in my neighborhood, but their gratitude swells my vanity and I enjoy that. I'm courteous to everyone because I want to cultivate a reputation for being a gentleman.
My father was a fund-raiser for various Jewish causes and I used to listen to him work the telephone playing on people's moral egos and vanities, on their need to be thought of as
generous within the Jewish community.
From what I observe, most people are like that and I don't see what's wrong with that unless they are complete hypocrites, which is usually not the case.
Something weird is happening in the comments section here.
I generally turn off the email comments during the night and in the morning I check the blog to see if there are any new comments, but I'm not sure if new comments are registering in the blog itself.
If I've missed any comments, my apologies.
This is an interesting conversation and I hope that it continues.
I had the same problem.
It' is because this thread is so very long.
To get the latest comments, one has to press"Newest"
Ok. Thanks.
To S Wallenstein:
A a more substantive note:
No one makes "pure moral decisions based on thin concepts." That is not the point of my suggesting that thin concepts like "morally right" and "wrong" are indispensable in reflective moral thinking. The idea is that they are needed when thick concepts like "honesty" and "kindness" conflict in their application to particular cases. Courage" and "prudence" would be another example---- there are lots, once one starts to think about it.
Re your giving practices and those of your esteemed grandfather: My point was not really about how people act on a mixture of moral and self-regarding motives, including me too.)You are, of course, right about that, but it is not to my point.
Cheers,
David Z
Oh my God....
I am going cold turkey without any recent posts to think about and respond to----- from Marc S, S Wallerstein, D Palmeter, JFC, and the rest of you inmates.
What is an old retiree to do?
Get a life, maybe, Zimmerman?
David Zimmerman,
Start an argument. I'll participate.
Pretend we're a philosophy class and propose something a little controversial.
I took one semester of introductory philosophy in college. The professor would come to class and put something like the ontological argument on the blackboard (in chalk back in those days) and challenge us to disprove it.
It doesn't even have to be a philosophical controversy. It could be a political one.
Better a political argument than a philosophical one because you have much more philosophical training than the rest of us.
Hopefully nothing which involves U.S. constitutional law.
How about Israel?
Something about Israel policies toward the occupied territories or toward the Palestinians in general? That could get a good argument going.
S Wallerstein.. A post on Israel would sure get things going.
But I would be afraid of the tremors. I read Juan Cole's column about Middle Eastern Affairs everyday... He is one of the most acute critics about Israeli policy.
For a sampling of his withering critique of what can only be called Israel's apartheid policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, see his column today: https://www.juancole.com
Ok, Marc S.... what say you?
Flinchingly yours,
David Z
How about one state or two state solution?
I'm in favor of Israel withdrawing from all the territories occupied in the 1967 war and after, but continuing to exist as a Jewish state if that is the will of the Israeli voters. Palestinians who are Israeli citizens should be granted equal political and social rights, but within the context of a Jewish state.
Others on the left believe that all of what is currently Israel and the occupied territories should form a unified democratic society where Jews and Palestinians live together peacefully.
I don't see that as realistic. I don't believe that two cultures and two religions as radically different from one another can live together in one small territory after so many years of mutual hatred, violence and fear.
But, as you say, let's wait for Marc and others to opine before we blow the whistle that
sets the ball in motion.
Yes.... A two state solution of the kind you suggest.
Full withdrawal to the lines established before 1967. Full autonomy for the Palestinians who live in the West Bank.
Now.... try to get anyone to agree to this.
Brace yourself....
Can't believe you two are inviting an argument, involving Marc, on this issue. Nothing good will come of this, I'm inclined to think. (I'm not sure full withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders is do-able at this point, from any practical standpoint. Israel has already formally annexed the Golan Heights, I believe, and a fairly significant part of the electorate prob favors annexation of the West Bank.)
Btw I've been making my way very slowly and fitfully through L. Menand's seemingly interminable The Free World: Art and Thought in the Cold War. I've reached the chapter, around 380 pp. in, that opens w a discussion of Richard Wright and James Baldwin. I've never read Wright's Native Son, but I bought a good pb copy in a used bkstore today, and I may take some time to read it before continuing w The Free World (which it's taken me so long to read already that a further delay will hardly matter).
p.s. I support a two-state solution w/ the pre-6-Day-War borders. Just not sure how realistic it is. On the other hand, I don't think the status quo is really sustainable either. And Lebanon is in a state of virtually complete collapse, which can't be good for the region as a whole.
LFC,
As you know, Israel has no right to annex the Golan Heights.
As for the settlers, they will have to return to Israel. The Israeli government may have to compensate them economically for the loss of their homes. They wouldn't be happy about that, I know.
In addition to what I said above, the places in Jerusalem which are holy to the three monotheistic religions should be supervised by the UN and not under Israeli or at least not under wholly Israeli control.
The topic of Israel didn't start a good debate.
Come on, people, we can't be so dependent on Wolff to post something to begin to talk, especially since in general, our conversations quickly stray from the subject of the original post.
Is Wolff some kind of father figure whose presence and permission is needed for us kids to begin to converse?
If so, that would be pretty weird since many of the commenters here (not me) are sworn anarchists and against all authorities on high.
Maybe David Zimmerman can come up with a topic from the world of philosophy, hopefully not too technical. Wolff's posts about famous philosophers he has known always seem to be a hit, so maybe someone like David Zimmerman or others can say something about famous philosophers or infamous philosophers he or she has run into.
To S Wallerstein:
I think that you are right: we do consider Professor Wolff a father figure, and wait for him to post something interesting before we dive in, even off the topic of his OP.
I'll try to follow your suggestion by coming up with a philosophical topic or anecdote about the famous or infamous from that world.... But I do hope that you folks will not wait for me. I am eager to hear what philosophical topics or people are on other "Wolff cubs" minds.
Cheers,
David Z
David Zimmerman,
Thanks for the feedback.
David Zimmerman,
No pasa nada. Nothing happening.
So if you're interested, let me ask you a couple of questions. There's no trap here: I'm not searching for your inner contradictions, just conversing.
Why did you decide to study philosophy and why did you decide to specialize in ethics?
I first got interested in philosophy in high school. I read Will and Ariel Durant's the Story of Philosophy. Not that I expected philosophy to solve my existential problems, but that it was a completely undiscovered land that I felt I should travel into, just as I felt that I ought to see Paris, London and San Francisco some day.
That led me to read Schopenhauer (I was a depressive teenager) and after that, some dialogues of Plato. I then tried Nietzsche's Zarathustra, which at that time, 1963, my parents still associated with Nazism.
When I entered college in 1964, philosophy was something I considered majoring in, but that was the heyday of analytic philosophy and my idea of philosophy was Nietzsche, Marx, Sartre, maybe Camus back then and so I entered up majoring in literature.
Has the blog, or this thread, become a message board?
I would suggest taking these conversations to another venue (I actually think that'd be kind of cool, and probably less irksome for Prof. Wolff), but I have no idea what a good venue would be - a Facebook discussion group, or anything involving social media or big names like Reddit, would not sound appealing to me. But something more private and low-key, without the endless black hole of distractions, pettiness, and toxicity... (Well, it is the Internet, after all, so that may be too much to ask.)
Or, if it's cool to continue the conversation here, I am curious to hear more from s. wallerstein on Schopenhauer. I had a pretty rough depressive phase myself, and am not perfectly recovered from it. Schopenhauer was a friend/enabler during that, and an early favorite in philosophy. I, however, did not have the excuse of being a teenager. :)
Michael,
I did not mean to imply that Schopenhauer is only for teenagers.
I recently reread his Aphorism on the Art of Living and have recommended it to several people, all of them over the age of 40.
His essays On Noise and that on Reading are classics. Great sense of humor, very insightful psychologist, certainly on my list of people who I'll reread again if I live long enough. I believe he's one of the few people I've come across who had a worse and more competitive relation with his mother than I did.
Rudiger Safranski's philosophical biography is worth reading as are his philosophical biographies of Nietzsche and Heidegger.
To S Wallerstein:
Thank you for your thoughtful question about my reasons for going into philosophy. I will try to respond soon to that and to your observations about your own first flirtation with philosophy, which I found resonant.
As for Michael's apt post about "The Philosophers Stone" as a message board.... where the messages are often little more than orthogonal to Poppa Wolff's OP..... I too am at a loss where we could go to air our thoughts and grievances. None of the obvious options seems very appealing me either.
Nobody out there have some ideas about how we could fid a venues that would enable us to stop highjacking Prof Wolff's site?
Cheers,
David Z
David Zimmerman,
Great idea!
I don't have Facebook. I had it for a few weeks when it first came out over 10 years ago, but the photos of family members eating in fancy restaurants and showing off their vacations on tropical beaches turned me off and I haven't looked at it since.
However, I'd be happy to open a new Facebook account designed to facilitate discussion with other commenters here who don't want to use Wolff's blog to communicate stuff that has nothing to do with his posts. We could call it "Friends of Wolff" in his honor.
Personally I would prefer a WordPress site. They're easy to set up and don't really have the privacy etc issues that FB (which I've never been on) does. But I'm not sure how often I'd participate, so my preference shdnt be decisive of course.
I set up a WordPress blog site some time ago for myself. The only drawback is that when I last checked this, a few weeks ago, Google wasn't indexing the site, for reasons that are unclear to me. (Other search engines seem to be indexing it.) But for a site mostly intended for quasi-private discussion, as this 'friends of Wolff' one wd be, that's not a big issue.
Another alternative is to set up a site w Blogger, just as this one is. Prob even easier than setting up a WordPress site. (I had a blog on the Blogger platform for a number of years.)
The fact that the site under discussion wd not be a traditional blog is irrelevant: you can set it up as a blog, say w s.w. as the admin, and then just use it for open discussion. The post headings wd be 'open thread' or something like that. This, again, avoids the issues w Facebook (which, as I say, I don't happen to be on).
I have no special reason for preferring Facebook. Blogger is fine with me. Passwords should be shared among group members and all decisions democratically decided.
I have zero leadership ability in this kind of thing. I've learned that from previous experience, although I do seem to have or to have had a certain ability to spark spontaneous acts of protests against patently unjust or rather patently stupid authoritarian situations.
That being the case, someone else has to take charge of this project or it will not get off the ground. Maybe LFC, maybe David Zimmerman.
Heck, S Wallerstein..... I can barely boot up my computer on a bad day
David Zimmerman,
If there were a need, I could open a blogger account. I did so many years ago, although LFC seems more expert than me.
However, there are only three or maybe four people who are interested in continuing this conversation, me, you, LFC and probably Michael.
If more people aren't interested, why don't we all just exchange emails and send each other links to comment on, as I do with other friends, from time to time?
In that situation after a while you get to know the other person's rhythm of response, what hours of the day they're more receptive, what their real interests and values are, etc., and things generally flow well.
I'd wait a couple of days and if there's no more support for a new blog, I'll publish my email here.
I'll be willing to give my email here too, except I'll do it with [at] where the actual @ sign should be.
Also I don't know at this pt how much I will participate. But Michael definitely seems interested in this, if I'm reading his recent post(s) aright.
Yes, I'm interested. I could see an e-mail group having a certain charm. Not sure how much I'll have to contribute on a regular basis, but I am very slowly working on a philosophy-related project or two that could be of interest. I'll check back here over the next couple days to see what develops.
Here's my email.
vivepablo@gmail.com
I'll read and comment on anything that you people send me. I sometimes delay a while because
I have back problems and can't spend much time seated at the computer, even though I have a back-friendly gamer computer chair.
Thanks. Sent you something just now.
My email is:
lfc08 [at] verizon.net
Michael and others involved here are welcome to email me, but my response may not be rapid.
LFC,
Ok. I'll put your address in "My Contacts".
ok. (note that the 0 in the address is a zero, not the letter O.)
Hello Wolff Folk:
My preferred email address, should anyone be interested, is:
zimmerma@sfu.ca
Cheers,
David Z
Post a Comment