5 ms·

Honestly, I don't think this is the right path for inquiry. Philosophy isn't just the accumulation of arguments and scholarship; it's a discipline, and by that

by andkon 10y ago

Honestly, I don't think this is the right path for inquiry. Philosophy isn't just the accumulation of arguments and scholarship; it's a discipline, and by that measure, some folks are better or worse, absolutely. When it comes to Plato specifically, I did a lot of pre-Socratic and later Plato work in my philosophy degree, and you can basically watch Plato go from reiterating Socrates to becoming a truly great philosopher in his own right. He does it by learning, as we all must, to do good philosophy: to take seriously his forebears on their own terms, and then communicate carefully and thoroughly what's inadequate. It's funny, because the tools he has are very weak. Logic isn't well developed; they just started grappling with basic concepts like what-is and what-is-not. But eventually, as any truly great philosopher must, Plato builds out his own positive program. The Parmenides is a great example; he finds a way to reconcile the paradoxes the pre-Socratics were obsessed with, and comes out with a richer toolkit and a stronger ontology as a result. Oh, and it's just as rigorous as any modern work of philosophy. This article, though, seems kinda narrowly concerned about impact and exposure and all that stuff. Like in tech, you don't get to decide your impact, but you can become a really great philosopher by doing just what Plato did back then.

n0us 10y ago
Completely agree on the early/late Plato stuff. I took a Nietzsche class during my degree. Although he has a reputation as a cliche/hipster philosopher it's really interesting to read his early, middle, and late works just to see the evolution of his thinking. Personally I am more a fan of his earlier stuff, particularly Birth of Tragedy.
- slantaclaus 10y ago
  Nietzsche is a very, very notable member of a category of philosophers I've come up with called "atheist sons of ministers"
- Bluestrike2 10y ago
  Generally speaking, I don't think he has that sort of reputation. Some of the people who fetishize quotes ripped from his work certainly do, but that's confusing the follower with the author. In his own words, he bade his readers to "learn to read me well!" The people you're thinking of largely never bothered to read him, let alone read him well: > Nowadays it is not only my habit, it is also to my taste—a malicious taste, perhaps?—no longer to write anything which does not reduce to despair every sort of man who is “in a hurry.” For philology is that venerable art which demands of its votaries one thing above all: to go aside, to take time, to become still, to become slow—it is a goldsmith’s art and connoisseurship of the word which has nothing but delicate, cautious work to do and achieves nothing if it does not achieve it lento. But for precisely this reason it is more necessary than ever today, by precisely this means does it entice and enchant us the most, in the midst of an age of “work,” that is to say, of hurry, of indecent and perspiring haste, which wants to “get everything done” at once, including every old or new book: this art does not so easily get anything done, it teaches to read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers . . . My patient friends, this book desires for itself only perfect readers and philologists: learn to read me well! But his reputation was battered for years after his death through no fault of his own. That's nothing new. More than anyone, his proto-Nazi horror of a sister can be blamed for that: she ripped through his writings like a whirlwind, editing and rewriting them to support her own anti-semitism and political beliefs. His work was twisted for a purpose that he abhorred, and railed against in his later life. But that's what Nazis ideologues did: by manipulating the works of others, they were able to use them to give themselves a degree of falsified credibility they never would have had otherwise. With Nietzsche dead, it wasn't like he was going to challenge them on it. Had he survived longer, there is no doubt that he would have used his every breath to fight against the sickening ideology that arose in Germany and its deliberate manipulations of his work to lend their beliefs credibility. Given the regime that was to come, that would have meant a bullet in the head. But for Nietzsche, that wouldn't have been stopped him from standing the "anti-Semitic canaille." In The Gay Science, he posits a demon who declares "[t]his life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more." A paralyzing, heavy burden, his idea of the eternal return would require no less for him. In Ecce Homo, he states that his "formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it." Amor fati. In any case, it took decades to repair his reputation. There's a certain popularity to Nietzsche quotes online--what you call the hipster readings--but I think that's largely because Nietzsche's work is life-affirming. There's something incredibly appealing in the challenge that's implicit to his eternal return: to live a good life, one that you would be content to re-live throughout eternity. Most of the people who blindly quote Nietzsche haven't really engaged his work, but even from that disability, I think it can be argued that they glimpse something appealing to them. Thus the popularity of those tiny quotations. Not to mention that much of his writing style lends itself well to that, even though he'd be apoplectic at the idea of it. One of my favorite professors was Patrick Miller, whose work on Nietzsche really opened a door that I'd left closed for many of the same reasons that most ignore or reject Nietzsche.
maxerickson 10y ago
A high school class might do better avoiding working from a historical survey. I think an interesting way to structure a book would be a moderate sized section on ideas and then a larger accompanying manual explaining where the ideas come from. It would certainly be weird to study in the way you speak of while ignoring history.
igravious 10y ago
I both agree and disagree. Philosophy _is_ a disciple, but it is an unusual one in that the answers to philosophical questions contain the seeds of other disciplines. It is kind of a meta-discipline. Like any other human practice some are better at it and some are worse, agreed. Logic is no more central to philosophy than it is to any other human activity. What is central to philosophy is _abstraction_. From that vantage point it more closely resembles software engineering than any other human activity and, I would argue, and this distinction is going to blur over time as the use of computers becomes habitual, as it must, within the activity of philosophy. I think the counter-argument to this article is -- these great philosophers must be in our midst so why is it that we do not recognise them? That is the question that should have been asked. But to finish with a bit of snark, apologies in advance, the ability to ask that question takes a certain philosophical mindset.
- personjerry 10y ago
  Because most forms of media we have emphasize day-to-day thoughts and useless information, rather than act as a forum for discussion with likeminded people.
  - igravious 10y ago
    That was more cynical than what I was aiming for :) What is the alternative would you say?
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      What is the alternative would you say? Hacker news, of course :)
    - personjerry 10y ago
      I think we just need something like a platform where the goal isn't to just "add everyone you know " and "share everything you do". Something like a social blogging site where you only write thoughts of decent quality and only add people you actually tend to talk to? I'd say maybe something like Tumblr, but Tumblr users just seem to emulate Facebook using Tumblr. Also, the above ideals make the platform difficult for any investor to support, because it is in contrast to the normal "grow!!!!!!!" direction that most startups want to take.
joe_the_user 10y ago
Philosophy isn't just the accumulation of arguments and scholarship; it's a discipline, and by that measure, some folks are better or worse, absolutely. I'd say philosophy is more than either an accumulation of argument or discipline. It something like a dialogue with history. The rightness or wrongness of Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Popper or similar figures is still "in play" given that the development of our society is far from over. One can say a given philosopher is a great exemplar of a given historical current (capitalism, socialism, Christianity, etc) but absolute greatness is going to depend on the fate of that current.

by andkon 10y ago

n0us 10y ago

Completely agree on the early/late Plato stuff. I took a Nietzsche class during my degree. Although he has a reputation as a cliche/hipster philosopher it's really interesting to read his early, middle, and late works just to see the evolution of his thinking. Personally I am more a fan of his earlier stuff, particularly Birth of Tragedy.

slantaclaus 10y ago
Nietzsche is a very, very notable member of a category of philosophers I've come up with called "atheist sons of ministers"
Bluestrike2 10y ago
Generally speaking, I don't think he has that sort of reputation. Some of the people who fetishize quotes ripped from his work certainly do, but that's confusing the follower with the author. In his own words, he bade his readers to "learn to read me well!" The people you're thinking of largely never bothered to read him, let alone read him well: > Nowadays it is not only my habit, it is also to my taste—a malicious taste, perhaps?—no longer to write anything which does not reduce to despair every sort of man who is “in a hurry.” For philology is that venerable art which demands of its votaries one thing above all: to go aside, to take time, to become still, to become slow—it is a goldsmith’s art and connoisseurship of the word which has nothing but delicate, cautious work to do and achieves nothing if it does not achieve it lento. But for precisely this reason it is more necessary than ever today, by precisely this means does it entice and enchant us the most, in the midst of an age of “work,” that is to say, of hurry, of indecent and perspiring haste, which wants to “get everything done” at once, including every old or new book: this art does not so easily get anything done, it teaches to read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers . . . My patient friends, this book desires for itself only perfect readers and philologists: learn to read me well! But his reputation was battered for years after his death through no fault of his own. That's nothing new. More than anyone, his proto-Nazi horror of a sister can be blamed for that: she ripped through his writings like a whirlwind, editing and rewriting them to support her own anti-semitism and political beliefs. His work was twisted for a purpose that he abhorred, and railed against in his later life. But that's what Nazis ideologues did: by manipulating the works of others, they were able to use them to give themselves a degree of falsified credibility they never would have had otherwise. With Nietzsche dead, it wasn't like he was going to challenge them on it. Had he survived longer, there is no doubt that he would have used his every breath to fight against the sickening ideology that arose in Germany and its deliberate manipulations of his work to lend their beliefs credibility. Given the regime that was to come, that would have meant a bullet in the head. But for Nietzsche, that wouldn't have been stopped him from standing the "anti-Semitic canaille." In The Gay Science, he posits a demon who declares "[t]his life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more." A paralyzing, heavy burden, his idea of the eternal return would require no less for him. In Ecce Homo, he states that his "formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it—all idealism is mendacity in the face of what is necessary—but love it." Amor fati. In any case, it took decades to repair his reputation. There's a certain popularity to Nietzsche quotes online--what you call the hipster readings--but I think that's largely because Nietzsche's work is life-affirming. There's something incredibly appealing in the challenge that's implicit to his eternal return: to live a good life, one that you would be content to re-live throughout eternity. Most of the people who blindly quote Nietzsche haven't really engaged his work, but even from that disability, I think it can be argued that they glimpse something appealing to them. Thus the popularity of those tiny quotations. Not to mention that much of his writing style lends itself well to that, even though he'd be apoplectic at the idea of it. One of my favorite professors was Patrick Miller, whose work on Nietzsche really opened a door that I'd left closed for many of the same reasons that most ignore or reject Nietzsche.

maxerickson 10y ago

A high school class might do better avoiding working from a historical survey. I think an interesting way to structure a book would be a moderate sized section on ideas and then a larger accompanying manual explaining where the ideas come from. It would certainly be weird to study in the way you speak of while ignoring history.

igravious 10y ago

I both agree and disagree. Philosophy _is_ a disciple, but it is an unusual one in that the answers to philosophical questions contain the seeds of other disciplines. It is kind of a meta-discipline. Like any other human practice some are better at it and some are worse, agreed. Logic is no more central to philosophy than it is to any other human activity. What is central to philosophy is _abstraction_. From that vantage point it more closely resembles software engineering than any other human activity and, I would argue, and this distinction is going to blur over time as the use of computers becomes habitual, as it must, within the activity of philosophy. I think the counter-argument to this article is -- these great philosophers must be in our midst so why is it that we do not recognise them? That is the question that should have been asked. But to finish with a bit of snark, apologies in advance, the ability to ask that question takes a certain philosophical mindset.

personjerry 10y ago
Because most forms of media we have emphasize day-to-day thoughts and useless information, rather than act as a forum for discussion with likeminded people.
- igravious 10y ago
  That was more cynical than what I was aiming for :) What is the alternative would you say?
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    What is the alternative would you say? Hacker news, of course :)
  - personjerry 10y ago
    I think we just need something like a platform where the goal isn't to just "add everyone you know " and "share everything you do". Something like a social blogging site where you only write thoughts of decent quality and only add people you actually tend to talk to? I'd say maybe something like Tumblr, but Tumblr users just seem to emulate Facebook using Tumblr. Also, the above ideals make the platform difficult for any investor to support, because it is in contrast to the normal "grow!!!!!!!" direction that most startups want to take.

joe_the_user 10y ago

Philosophy isn't just the accumulation of arguments and scholarship; it's a discipline, and by that measure, some folks are better or worse, absolutely. I'd say philosophy is more than either an accumulation of argument or discipline. It something like a dialogue with history. The rightness or wrongness of Marx, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Popper or similar figures is still "in play" given that the development of our society is far from over. One can say a given philosopher is a great exemplar of a given historical current (capitalism, socialism, Christianity, etc) but absolute greatness is going to depend on the fate of that current.