I have no philosophical work of which I am aware. What I mean is, I'm writing more. I'm reading more stuff relevant to my interests. You know, at some point, last August, I was actually considering reading Kant. I can't even begin to account for the colossal waste of time that would've amounted to. I have no real use for it. I aim to know my Nietzsche well. Apart from that, it's pretty much lit-crit and modern novels for me. I haven't much use for anything else. My whole interest in philosophy stemmed from a desire to better acquaint myself with the intellectual background of much contemporary literary criticism. I'm confident I have a clear enough picture of what's at stake, now.
On the other hand, I think those guys tend to define "philosophy" way too narrowly. That's one problem. So maybe I do have "philosophical work," just not the kind that would satisfy the criteria for analytics.
You'd asked what was up with those guys. After thinking about it for the afternoon, I'll put my money on many of them not feeling appreciated in their daily lives. That and many of the educators on those two communities remain quiet, oftentimes. I don't think the mods have any students, at present. . . hell, or even any reputations to worry about.
Or maybe they do. I dunno, but I doubt it.
Good on you for reading outside of school. Sounds like you're living the good life. Thanks for writing.
You know, at some point, last August, I was actually considering reading Kant. I can't even begin to account for the colossal waste of time that would've amounted to.
He he. Yeah, I like Kant, but all of my readings of him have done little to influence my practical life. But that's probably because I'm most interested in the first Critique at the moment. The remaining Kant that I'm most looking forward to is his discussion of the sublime in the Critique of Judgment... that might not be so useless in daily life (or even for an aspiring writer).
I aim to know my Nietzsche well.
Me, too, but probably for different reasons. He's the philosopher who is most in need of being overcome, in my view. And damn, the man knows how to write a dangerous sentence... "'Truth' is the will to be master over the multiplicity of sensations." Shit. That'll make your toes curl.
Apart from that, it's pretty much lit-crit and modern novels for me.
Or as Kant would say, escapism. ;)
On the other hand, I think those guys tend to define "philosophy" way too narrowly. That's one problem. So maybe I do have "philosophical work"...
For sure novels can be philosophical. Some libertarian classics come to mind... The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Atlas Shrugged to name two.
So does your interest in Marx have to do with his economics and theory of history, or is it also somehow related to your writings?
Trying, and failing, to be briefrjhudsonNovember 3 2006, 19:15:58 UTC
Blue collar upbringing lends me a lot of incentive to follow Marx. Moreover, the thesis that our material conditions determine our consciousness is. . . well, he's one of the guys that proposed it. I'm a fan of some of the Frankfurt School's work. Weber and Tillich would be my favorites, I guess. Marx was a pretty decent writer, and I've always felt "at home," with his style. I also appreciate a lot of his personal traits that. . . don't necessarily come into his work, but make him the person that he was. I'm thinking of his tendency to get distracted and waste a lot of time belittling the work of flash in the pan theorists and pulp novelists. He sometimes lacked a sense of priorities which is both amusing and a warning.
I'm pretty much opposed to scholarship and thought divorced from action.
As far as Nietzsche goes: There's a lot I could say, at the moment, but can't. I'm not sure how difficult he is to read, anymore. . . or how easy he is to misinterpret. I've been reading him for ten years. He's the philosopher that most consistently rewards repeated readings, I've found. Emerson takes a close second, Plato gets third place.
Nietzsche is interesting to me primarily because so much of his work. . . Well, he worked alone, basically. I mean alone. Read the "Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life" and ask yourself if any university would ever hire him in again. So much of his work he published on his own and never really heard much of a response to it. Yet, he kept on.
There's a quality to his work, a literary one, that he bequeathed to the existentialists (or inherited) that I also admire. The existentialists were the first sellable philosophers because their artistic output was so great. Something on par with Sartre's plays hadn't been seen before, nor has it been seen since.
It's kind of where that intersects with the Kantian experience of the sublime that interests me, as far as the history of lit-crit goes. How can we enjoy a piece of art in itself, while at the same time gleaning some sort of truth from it?
This question gets more important with the moderns (Wolfe, Miller, Joyce, Lawrence, Kafka, Ellison, Ford, and so on. . .).
On the other hand, I think those guys tend to define "philosophy" way too narrowly. That's one problem. So maybe I do have "philosophical work," just not the kind that would satisfy the criteria for analytics.
You'd asked what was up with those guys. After thinking about it for the afternoon, I'll put my money on many of them not feeling appreciated in their daily lives. That and many of the educators on those two communities remain quiet, oftentimes. I don't think the mods have any students, at present. . . hell, or even any reputations to worry about.
Or maybe they do. I dunno, but I doubt it.
Good on you for reading outside of school. Sounds like you're living the good life. Thanks for writing.
Reply
He he. Yeah, I like Kant, but all of my readings of him have done little to influence my practical life. But that's probably because I'm most interested in the first Critique at the moment. The remaining Kant that I'm most looking forward to is his discussion of the sublime in the Critique of Judgment... that might not be so useless in daily life (or even for an aspiring writer).
I aim to know my Nietzsche well.
Me, too, but probably for different reasons. He's the philosopher who is most in need of being overcome, in my view. And damn, the man knows how to write a dangerous sentence... "'Truth' is the will to be master over the multiplicity of sensations." Shit. That'll make your toes curl.
Apart from that, it's pretty much lit-crit and modern novels for me.
Or as Kant would say, escapism. ;)
On the other hand, I think those guys tend to define "philosophy" way too narrowly. That's one problem. So maybe I do have "philosophical work"...
For sure novels can be philosophical. Some libertarian classics come to mind... The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Atlas Shrugged to name two.
So does your interest in Marx have to do with his economics and theory of history, or is it also somehow related to your writings?
Reply
I'm pretty much opposed to scholarship and thought divorced from action.
As far as Nietzsche goes: There's a lot I could say, at the moment, but can't. I'm not sure how difficult he is to read, anymore. . . or how easy he is to misinterpret. I've been reading him for ten years. He's the philosopher that most consistently rewards repeated readings, I've found. Emerson takes a close second, Plato gets third place.
Nietzsche is interesting to me primarily because so much of his work. . . Well, he worked alone, basically. I mean alone. Read the "Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life" and ask yourself if any university would ever hire him in again. So much of his work he published on his own and never really heard much of a response to it. Yet, he kept on.
There's a quality to his work, a literary one, that he bequeathed to the existentialists (or inherited) that I also admire. The existentialists were the first sellable philosophers because their artistic output was so great. Something on par with Sartre's plays hadn't been seen before, nor has it been seen since.
It's kind of where that intersects with the Kantian experience of the sublime that interests me, as far as the history of lit-crit goes. How can we enjoy a piece of art in itself, while at the same time gleaning some sort of truth from it?
This question gets more important with the moderns (Wolfe, Miller, Joyce, Lawrence, Kafka, Ellison, Ford, and so on. . .).
Reply
Leave a comment