“The works of the great poets have never yet been read by mankind, for only great poets can read them. They have only been read as the multitude read the stars, at most astrologically, not astronomically. Most men have learned to read to serve a paltry convenience, as they have learned to cipher in order to keep accounts and not be cheated in trade; but of reading as a noble intellectual exercise they know little or nothing; yet this only is reading, in a high sense, not that which lulls us as a luxury and suffers the nobler faculties to sleep the while, but what we have to stand on tiptoe to read and devote our most alert and wakeful hours to.†Thoreau, Walden
Could Thoreau equally have been writing about the “great philosophersâ€, that they too have not been read by mankind? When texts and ideas appear “too hardâ€, “too complexâ€, not “near enough to lifeâ€, are we at most reading them “astrologicallyâ€, and not “astronomicallyâ€? Does it take a great philosopher to read a great philosopher? We all would like philosophical truths to be simple, and there is an argument for that, but there is something about the truly philosophical, the great texts in its tradition, that force us to stand on our tiptoes, and to awake the nobler faculties, to stretch the mind beyond simple “keeping accounts so as not to be treated in tradeâ€. This seems to be the difference between doxa and aletheia, opinion and truth, the difference that philosophy is always attempting to mark out.
Yes, I also think that we should read philosophers carefully and not misunderstand what they have written. And that we should seek truth and not opinion. Who would (dare to) disagree? It is a platitude. So, now what?
Well, my terms are, “literally” “carefully” and “critically”. And if I think a philosopher is talking nonsense, then I point it out. As Cicero said, “there is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not said it.” As a matter of fact, that is true of human beings in general. Of course, some philosophers make it a practice to utter absurdities, and are known for it.
“And if I think a philosopher is talking nonsense, then I point it out.”
Sadly under Thoreau’s thought, what you call “talking nonsense” is something that is forcing you to raise your heels off the ground. An impossibility no doubt.
“An intrinsic archaeological contradiction is not a fact, purely and simply, that it is enough to state as a principle or explain as an effect. It is a complex phenomenon that is distributed over different levels of the discursive formation. Thus, for systematic Natural History and methodical Natural History, which were in constant opposition for a good part of the eighteenth century, one can recognize: an inadequation of the objects (in the one case one describes the general appearance of the plant; in the other certain predetermined variables; in the one case, one describes the totality of the plant, or at least its most important parts, in the other one describes a number of elements chosen arbitrarily for their taxonomic convenience; sometimes one takes account of the plant’s different states. of growth and maturity, at others one confines one’s attention to a single moment, a stage of optimum visibility); a divergence of enunciative modalities (in the case of the systematic analysis of plants, one applies a rigorous perceptual and linguistic code, and in accordance with a constant scale; for methodical description, the codes are relatively free, and the scales of mapping may oscillate); an incompatibility of concepts (in the ‘systems’, the concept of generic character is an arbitrary, though misleading mark to designate the genera; in the methods this same concept must include the real definition of the genus); lastly, an exclusion of theoretical options (systematic taxonomy makes ‘fixism’ possible, even if it is rectified by the idea of a continuous creation in time, gradually unfolding the elements of the tables, or by the idea of natural catastrophes having disturbed by our present gaze the linear order of natural proximities, but excludes the possibility of a transformation that the method accepts without absolutely implying it.”
I refuse to believe there is anything inherent in the ideas of Kant that require his text to be so prolix and ponderous. Many “greats” try very hard in one area, no doubt, but try less so in feeding the hatchlings with the love of a mother bird. That takes work and added digestion, too, I believe, which is key.
The truly powerful has the strength to push against the sky with his toes so that he might reach his listener. If it truly matters they will have no choice but to listen and become astronomers. “My God, it’s full of stars.”
Because you can’t even understand the elementary question “What are the rational foundations of rationality?”, I defy anyone to tell you what Foucault means either. You would have to get up off your heels. You are severely limited in your capacity to understand.
“The truly powerful has the strength to push against the sky with his toes so that he might reach his listener. If it truly matters they will have no choice but to listen and become astronomers. “My God, it’s full of stars.””
Nice Kubrick reference, but what do you mean by it (other than I am clever)? Am I allow to ask that? “My god, its full of stars” is incomprensible to anyone who does not tiptoe…The truly powerful (writer?), has the strength to push up against the stars with his toes (no, Thoreau suggests that the tiptoeing is on the part of the reader, you are placing the reader above the writer, beyond the stars – nice reversal of imagery, but you are just playing games because you are too lazy to buy Kant and open it). It truly matters - oh you mean it interupts the ciphers people have learned so as to keep the books and keep themselves from being cheated - people automatically become astronomers - fo’ shizzle.
If people want to stand on their toes, great. But, remember, this was written by a frustrated genius who probably felt the sting of being ignored or not digested by a lazy populace. My advice is to him: get to the point, simplify, coax, foreplay, remember foreplay. Lure the reader into larger realms until they can fly on their own. If only my gradeschool teachers could have taken THAT advice I might not be such a fuckup today. The reality is a genius’s journey – that is to communicate profound realizations – should be built on the directive of reaching the receiver like a hunter reaches his prey, a desire to connect. The success should not be contingent on being met halfway.
“Aside from me, what do you think that passage means?”
I haven’t bothered to read it. I’ve read plenty of Foucault and never had a problem understanding him at any point. Because you stand flatfooted it would be a waste of time to try to reduce it to your rather limited +/- thinking.
You seem to be obsessed with me. Now, I am not your type, and you will never get anywhere. Try Imp. He is more your age (not to say, brainpower). Anyway, I thought you promised that you would never discuss with me again. What happened? I’m too attractive, huh? Sorry. I am taken. You can read what I write, and learn things though.
“Anyway, I thought you promised that you would never discuss with me again. What happened?”
I promised nothing. I ended that conversation. But I must admit there is something tempting when people blatantly say something stupid, an easy point to be made. But then of course the apple is poisoned because when someone repeatedly says something stupid, - for instance bringing up points that refute their own position -, there’s a reason for it. And no point made to them will make any sense, hopefully other readers might see the point though.
I would like to point out that you have posted here on a thread I started, so perhaps it is you that is focused on me.
Ironically it was Thoreau who admonished us to “simplify…simplify.” Maybe it’s 22 years in sales and marketing but there is much truth here. If the message isn’t being understood, then maybe the messenger needs to reconfigure the message. That can be terribly frustrating and it’s tempting to blame the audience.
Maybe it depends on who one wants to reach, other philosophers, or the “mass of men”.
How the hell does does that follow? You mean that whenever I post on a thread started by X, what I post is focused on X, and not on the issue? Where did you get that from? You are strange.
Which is fine (and noble) for an individual’s journey. But if one seeks to share one’s revelations (and something about the great philosophers actually writing down their thoughts tells me they had this in mind at least somewhat), then one ought to consider one’s audience.
Now it could be that the greats can’t do that. It requires a certain amount of empathy to understand how to write for another’s perspective, an empathy the greats might not possess, being a cut or so above their audience. Ted Williams might have been the best natural hitter of all times but he made a terrible manager as he had no ability (or patience) to communicate his skill to others.