4 ms·
"Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting." This is the heart of so many things that do not have easy answers,
by dmreedy 8y ago
"Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting."
This is the heart of so many things that do not have easy answers, especially philosophy. I see the field dismissed frequently as an exercise in the generation of hot air, but there is so much value to be had in the act of the search, even if the destination is unclear, or even unreachable. The process of description is simultaneously a process of understanding, and while the ongoing philosophical dialectic may not find an answer, it has presented so many ways to possibly represent things such that the answer becomes apparent. Or at the very least, such that it is apparent that some given system cannot contain the answer. These systems of logic, of discovery, then become models useful for all kinds of pragmatic thinking, or if nothing else stand as monuments to the limits of our understanding, and possibly to our ability to understand.
Borges says he's not a thinker in the interview. But I dunno, even if his influences are clear, his ability to understand, and then convey these ideas in such a way as to make them self-evident is in some ways the greater act of philosophy than the raw conception of the ideas.
What a phenomenal interview.
- trgv 8y agoI really enjoyed the interview as well. Borges' manner of speaking is wonderful. > Borges says he's not a thinker in the interview. But I dunno, even if his influences are clear, his ability to understand, and then convey these ideas in such a way as to make them self-evident is in some ways the greater act of philosophy than the raw conception of the ideas. I disagree here. Borges is a storyteller: he's interested in provoking a response from his readers. He's not arguing for or against a philosophy, but rather he finds inspiration in the philosophical writings of people who are arguing one way or another (ie philosophers). What he's doing is no more or less impressive than what they're doing, but the two things very different. I think he's absolutely right to point that out to the interviewers.
- beat 8y agoI agree. I've done the same thing in works of art - used art as a vehicle for communicating philosophical concepts. Which is fine, but there's no rigor there, no defense of the concept, no detailing the implications. There's no need, because I'm not creating or defending philosophical concepts, only sharing them. I recently wrote a song called "Everything Is Made of Love", which lifted pretty heavily from Spinoza. The song works well, but it no way makes me Spinoza's peer. More recently, I've been reading some of the Frankfurt School thinkers, and their idea of art as a means of expressing revolutionary (in a political sense) ideas. I looked back on a play I wrote/produced last year in that context, and was very pleased to see how well I expressed the ideas of Marcuse et al, manipulating pop culture in order to criticize society on other levels, even though I wasn't really cognizant of the Frankfurt School at the time.