I start off the topic about quotes with a quote,
“I think quotes are very dangerous things” Kate Bush.
then she says something like, quite often you are just stringing words together and then you think back on it, and you think, well I didn’t really mean that. It is frustrated to be quoted on things that you said in other points in time.
What do you think about the morality and credibility of using quotes?
(I got this from: youtube.com/watch?v=b7zsx6PAY5o in the last 4/5 of the interview.)
does it maybe depend on the time frame of the quote and the time that has lapsed between quotes and the frame of mind the person was in when making the quote?
Would a 5 minute ago quote be more credible than a 5 year old quote?
Michel Foucault didn’t like giving interviews. This was probably because he didn’t like his ‘strings of words put together on the spur of the moment’ being quoted.
Quotes are often used in place of personal thought.
If I can replace the void in my mind with another’s perspective, I can claim to be thinking.
Also the benefits of association are sought after.
If I quote from this person - usually a dead person because they cannot shame us or lower our self-esteem with their presence - then I bask in the glory of his fame and intellect. I find power through association.
Sometimes they are an attempt to avoid a personal stake in the outcome.
If I place another in between me and the person I am conversing with then I can firstly claim that I know what I am talking about, because the person I quote must be, and that I, personally, don’t completely adhere to this other’s beliefs, if and when these beliefs are confronted and discredited.
Incessant quotes are often a sing of sophistry or dependence.
An academic might use philosophical quotes to pretend personal insight or philosophical thought, when he is simply regurgitating and repeating.
In modern times philosophy has become the discipline of understanding and debating who understood the best or a discipline of comparing dead men’s perspectives.
I call this frame of mind ‘institutional’ because it rests on the authority of institutional sanctioning of thought and it analyzes reality once removed, in the third-person.
If you notice in many philosophy boards the debates aren’t over personal insights on reality or the world but about personal insights concerning another’s personal insights about reality and the world.
This is not to say that any thought is unique.
We can see in Sartre and Heidegger Hegel’s influences as we can see in Nietzsche Heraclitus influences, but to be influenced is not the same as to be obsessed or dominated.
I think a healthy amount of quoting can be good. If someone quotes Nietzsche and another quotes Aquinas, I know I am dealing with two different types of thinkers. While influence form philosophers is usually fairly obvious, occasionally it is a good and worthwhile means to declare one’s bias and influences.
Additionally, quotes do lend some authority to one’s ramblings. If I resepct the quoted person more than the person doing the quoting, I will be more receptive to their arguments. Especially when people start talking metaphysics, where it is very easy to go off the deep and and get lost in the muck. A well-placed quote helps bring an essay into focus.
I think Satyr hit it on the head.