Socrates, Plato, Sartre, oh my... - by Mr.Duck
Mr.Duck on 28/10/2009 at 18:18
Morte - Always good to have an oversight by a pro. Bird's view of things, eh? :)
Inertname - Heh...well...at least he's always a fun read ;)
Rug Burn Junky on 28/10/2009 at 19:31
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think the most inclusive but still honest way to define what's a philosophical work is if it's offering a postive answer, or a method to get to an answer, to a standard philosophical question (not an answer they take by faith, but something they argue for in a positive way) ... what is time, space, & self; what is free will & do we have it; what are the categories of stuff in reality; what is knowledge & how (far) can we trust it; what's the right standard for moral or noble behavior, or for organizing society; what is the cosmological origin, nature, and ultimate end of the universe; etc. (That doesn't mean they're doing philosophy
well, or that people doing other things aren't important to it; but I think that's the line for actually doing philosophy.)
I think works that are religious or scientific or economic or literary can still be philosophical too if they're engaging those category of questions in that way ... So I'd say Augustine was definitely doing philosophy (but not Luther); Einstein & Heisenberg were doing philosophy when they framed their theories as an answer to some of those questions (but not Rutherford); Ayn Rand and Amartya Sen were (are) doing philosophy (but not Hayek). Hesse and Dostoyevsky and Kafka, guys like that, I don't think are doing philosophy, but their works are relevant to it. Derrida and Foucault and guys like that I don't think are doing philosophy, but work relevant to it. I think Camus and Emerson did it some in their essays, Sartre definitely, Nietzsche definitely.
I would tend to agree with all of this, save for one thing to which I will return. I've been too lazy to jump in here sooner, but I had the same reservations about Hesse's recommendation. He is a novelist, and his books are quite philosophical, and read in tandem with the philosophers of his day can be quite rewarding. That said, given Mr.D's interest in eastern philosophy, Siddhartha is a must read, if only as a cross-over. As an avowed fan of Hesse, I think they're all worthwhile, but that's the most relevant.
The one thing I disagree with, however, is any statement that Derrida isn't "philosophy" (and to a lesser extent Foucault). How can you come to this sort of conclusion?
Mr.Duck on 28/10/2009 at 21:17
Ruggums - Read Siddhartha quite a few years ago. Lovely book. Must re-read it sometime soon. :)
Bisquit - Interesting, interesting...:)
I'm curious now you guys, what would your top 5 list of philosophers be?
I think I might start with the basics and go forth with Plato's Dialogues.
Unrelated, but on an interesting note, I'm reading a book by Georges Sadoul titled "History Of World Cinema (From it's origins)" (more or less translated the title there...). Good stuff so far.
Cheers :)
demagogue on 28/10/2009 at 22:44
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The one thing I disagree with, however, is any statement that Derrida isn't "philosophy" (and to a lesser extent Foucault). How can you come to this sort of conclusion?
Yes, if I stick to my test that philosophy is about the kinds of questions you're answering, not your methods, and bad philosophers still count as philosophers, then Derrida should count, and definitely Foucault.
The angle I should have taken is that Derrida deserves a little thumb on the scale because he gets a much bigger reputation than his actual influence in philosophy circles counts, and people should at least be aware of that. The people that care about him most aren't practicing philosophers ... It's journalists and LitCrits that are calling it philosophy.
That's a slightly different test, though; does the community of philosophers, across different schools (analytic and continental) accept your work as contributing to what they do, and that might kick Derrida at least out on the fringes if not out (but Foucault might stay; Einstein and Heisenberg would be out; Rand would be out save for a very few people.) But if Duckeh is trying to be more inclusive, than the first test I mentioned might be better.
While the topic is up, though, I should point out a post explaining just why most professional philosophers (English-speaking anyway) loath Derrida so much, at least from its author's perspective: (
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/the_derrida_ind.html) The Derrida Industry and a (
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/07/simon-critchley.html) follow up.
Edit: I will say Derrida is worth reading for the thrill of getting people going and getting into a good row over what good philosophy is. My attitude is always to be inclusive, read everybody; but know why some people reject this guy or that for this reason or that. My friendly
advice is, even if you read Derrida, I don't recommend you practice what he teaches. I think you should always strive to read anybody as honestly as possible... Don't intentionally twist others' words or try to add something not there or take something away that is -- that's an asshole thing to do no matter how celebrated you are -- and work hard not to do it unintentionally. And be as clear as possible with your own arguments; try to explain your thinking as clearly as possible so others won't misunderstand your meaning.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/10/2009 at 23:40
Leiter, really? Come on, he's enough of a crank w/r/t the law school rankings, but he's definitely got a dog in the fight when dissing Derrida. Let's leave him out of it.
And actually, what I've been taught recently is the exact opposite: Derrida himself was the philosopher, Foucault anything but. Foucault never claimed himself to be a philosopher. Other than his (only recently published) lectures his work is strictly that of an historian. Though I'm merely parroting my girlfriend on this one (who's taken graduate classes as micro-focused as "The Late Writings of Foucault" - as taught by former colleagues and contemporaries of Foucault - so I'll gladly take her word on it).
As to their worth and influence within "philosophy" proper, I'll agree (though again, I flip the order). I was barely introduced to them in my philosophical studies, and it's only in discussing art history with my girlfriend that they've become meaningful to me.
