Well, we see the world differently. And I think if you're going to invoke a thinker, their personal context is part of their story. Aristotle being a misogynist isn't a slander when it's a historically verified fact by his own writing. Same goes for Thomas Jefferson. Same goes for most other historical figures. It doesn't make them horrible people. Or does it?
Why are you now making it about slander?
Fun question. I kind of enjoy chewing on it. It's good exercise. Builds character, I think. And I use that exercise to work on myself. That's why I don't think it's very hard for me to do. I can give myself the same hard treatment I give them. It's something I've thought any white man should learn to do if they want to stay honest in this world.
"Fun" is not the word that springs to my mind. But I remain intrigued why you think here is an appropriate place to do it.
If we're going there, the way you were tearing into Thomas Jefferson's legacy a while back made me think you were of that ilk, fairly. Maybe that's why I'm a little confused the way you keep circling back and getting defensive if I say similar remarks about other dead philosophers. They're all hypocrites, and - by degrees - so are we. And we should all be kinda hard on ourselves and try to do better.
Aside from his thoughts about copyright, I'm not that interested in Jefferson's legacy. You introduced his personal life into a discussion about hell and capitalism (which had turned into a discussion about Hannah Arendt's book) in order to make a point about hypocrisy. And you keep on bringing it up, for reasons which seem to make rather more sense to you than they do to me. Treating all dead philosophers as hypocrites is an interesting idea - but the idea that we should all be hard on ourselves seems like a non sequitur.
I find your references to me tearing into Jefferson's legacy rather mystifying. I presume that was the Epiphanies thread, but "tearing into Thomas Jefferson's legacy" wasn't what it was about, for me. The idea that this made me "of that ilk" has just made me laugh.
To me, that's just ethical common sense, and a fundamental moral duty. The way I see it I'm not "denigrating" the dead, I'm finding their humanity and trying to use it to correct myself.
There's the common sense argument again.
The present isn't that much better than the past. Just look at Jeffrey Epstein, if you have the stomach. I was hearing MeToo stories before it was cool. I have a history of being one of those quiet guys people talk to because they think I'm a safe one. If that's uncomfortable...well, the world is a quietly horrifying place and maybe we all should be made a little more aware of that fact.
I think many of us are already aware how horrifying a place the world is. As well as the maelstrom of our own humanity.
Common sense does exist, I think. But it's relative to culture and we operate according to different cultural norms. And as I've learned, the hard way, in many places...different people do things differently.
People do indeed do things differently. But these days, I see common sense only as a thing that people want to make appeals to.
And honestly, I'm getting tired of defending myself on an online forum to a relative stranger on the internet. So please figure out what you're trying to figure out. I think I've made my case and I'm not changing it. I'm earnestly not here to judge, but I will retain my opinions and attitudes because I'm too busy to carefully censor what I type. Honestly, I'm too busy to do that kind of intensive content editing on my posts.
OK. Personally, I'd appreciate a bit more censoring. I find the unexpected violence in your posts disconcerting, but am starting to understand where it comes from.
It's worth questioning whether the misogyny is a structural feature of past thinking or whether it can be removed.
It's been said that political common sense is the accumulated ghosts of dead economists. (I think it was Keynes.) If you don't consider old philosophers (theologians, economists, sociologists, etc) explicitly that doesn't mean you move on from them. It means you recycle their cruder ideas uncritically.
I think it's vital to consider them explicitly, but there's more than one way to do that.
In relation to misogyny and sexism, I've been thinking about Oxford University allowing women to matriculate in 1920, Somerville College, and the consequences for twentieth-century moral philosophy.
10 And the Lord said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labour, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
The problem I find is that the West is so much bigger than we think when we say that. It means us, it means our kids, it means the disabled kids, it means the great-grandchildren of former slaves, it means the unemployed youth in our cities, it means the second-generation immigrant from the three-quarters world, and I could go on. If it was only the rich and powerful who'd suffer, I think I would be standing in line, but they are the least likely to suffer. They buy a ticket out like rats leaving a sinking ship.
10 And the Lord said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labour, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
The problem I find is that the West is so much bigger than we think when we say that. It means us, it means our kids, it means the disabled kids, it means the great-grandchildren of former slaves, it means the unemployed youth in our cities, it means the second-generation immigrant from the three-quarters world, and I could go on. If it was only the rich and powerful who'd suffer, I think I would be standing in line, but they are the least likely to suffer. They buy a ticket out like rats leaving a sinking ship.
I don't think it's a great idea to use a regional term like that to mean privileged people only. That sort of thinking is what results in people (like my country, God help us all) dropping bombs on others and forgetting the schoolchildren, etc. who will suffer along with the heads of state.
Agreed. For me, it makes very little sense, if the goal is to reach understanding.
I'd note that its use at that point was particularly hyperbolic. I have mixed feelings about the unrestrained expression of violence in text, but I do understand it.
It's worth questioning whether the misogyny is a structural feature of past thinking or whether it can be removed.
It's been said that political common sense is the accumulated ghosts of dead economists. (I think it was Keynes.) If you don't consider old philosophers (theologians, economists, sociologists, etc) explicitly that doesn't mean you move on from them. It means you recycle their cruder ideas uncritically.
I think that's a better way to put it.
And maybe it's the Thomas Jefferson effect. Once you allow for personal history to enter in, it's a very interesting question how you allow that to influence your take on a thinker's thinking. Once you dig into personal context - and that's a lot easier for more "recent" thinkers than ancient, you start looking at their thoughts as less abstract eternal truths and more arguments driven by their specific times and places.
A gadfly looks heroic when the surrounding world is evil. But when the surrounding world is good, the successful gadfly becomes a villain.
Thomas Hobbes is a case. I remember in undergrad, we were talking about how he made this argument that was so influential that we still consider it even today. And a friend of mine at the table scoffed at him. According to this guy, Hobbes as a monarchist who had lost his social status because of a revolution. So - my friend quipped - all of his writing was just his attempt to put himself back into a secure job with a proper monarch. Of course he'd make a fine argument for a strong monarch to keep everyone in line! He wanted his old job back! Poor old Machiavelli is considered a byword for cynical manipulation, but at least Machiavelli was honest about his intentions with The Prince!
Or take another Thomas, this one Aquinas. All of these amazing logical constructions to try to defend God. I read a pretty convincing essay that all of his strenuous logical argumentation was itself an act of faith, put forth in defense of his religious belief. He was trying to do what our own Apostle Paul said wasn't possible (and I think I'm with Paul on this one.) Faith is belief before proof. You can't prove it. His attempt at proof is itself an incredible performance of faith. And that's kind of pathetic, but also kind of awesome.
We all have personal angles in these arguments. Is it really so embarrassing to admit that?
I think it's perfectly fair to criticize thinkers as if they were alive today if we're going to quote them as if their thoughts are still salient today. Maybe I've just seen too many conservative Christians try to recreate Roman "family values" and I've seen the very direct harm caused by that kind of thinking.
"Context determines meaning" are the three most powerful words I ever learned in seminary. "If the text you're working from wasn't written to you, be careful how you handle it!" That might be a universal truism.
In my experience "the west" is a vaguely ethnocentric philosophical term that defines an imaginary line that runs straight from Ancient Greece to the modern era.
I think as a canon it's questionable. And maybe that's why I tend to think Aristotle is somewhat unfairly placed on a pedestal. It's a little unfair to him too, on reflection. Pedestals aren't good for people.
I don't think it's a great idea to use a regional term like that to mean privileged people only. That sort of thinking is what results in people (like my country, God help us all) dropping bombs on others and forgetting the schoolchildren, etc. who will suffer along with the heads of state.
And that. I'm an American and I am absolutely sick of this garbage behavior from "the west." I have more compassion for those recently dead schoolchildren and their families than for long-dead Aristotle, and I am presently living in triage where I don't have enough time to articulate everything as perfectly as I might wish to.
It's worth questioning whether the misogyny is a structural feature of past thinking or whether it can be removed.
It's been said that political common sense is the accumulated ghosts of dead economists. (I think it was Keynes.) If you don't consider old philosophers (theologians, economists, sociologists, etc) explicitly that doesn't mean you move on from them. It means you recycle their cruder ideas uncritically.
I think that's a better way to put it.
And maybe it's the Thomas Jefferson effect. Once you allow for personal history to enter in, it's a very interesting question how you allow that to influence your take on a thinker's thinking. Once you dig into personal context - and that's a lot easier for more "recent" thinkers than ancient, you start looking at their thoughts as less abstract eternal truths and more arguments driven by their specific times and places.
A gadfly looks heroic when the surrounding world is evil. But when the surrounding world is good, the successful gadfly becomes a villain.
Thomas Hobbes is a case. I remember in undergrad, we were talking about how he made this argument that was so influential that we still consider it even today. And a friend of mine at the table scoffed at him. According to this guy, Hobbes as a monarchist who had lost his social status because of a revolution. So - my friend quipped - all of his writing was just his attempt to put himself back into a secure job with a proper monarch. Of course he'd make a fine argument for a strong monarch to keep everyone in line! He wanted his old job back! Poor old Machiavelli is considered a byword for cynical manipulation, but at least Machiavelli was honest about his intentions with The Prince!
Or take another Thomas, this one Aquinas. All of these amazing logical constructions to try to defend God. I read a pretty convincing essay that all of his strenuous logical argumentation was itself an act of faith, put forth in defense of his religious belief. He was trying to do what our own Apostle Paul said wasn't possible (and I think I'm with Paul on this one.) Faith is belief before proof. You can't prove it. His attempt at proof is itself an incredible performance of faith. And that's kind of pathetic, but also kind of awesome.
We all have personal angles in these arguments. Is it really so embarrassing to admit that?
I think it's perfectly fair to criticize thinkers as if they were alive today if we're going to quote them as if their thoughts are still salient today. Maybe I've just seen too many conservative Christians try to recreate Roman "family values" and I've seen the very direct harm caused by that kind of thinking.
"Context determines meaning" are the three most powerful words I ever learned in seminary. "If the text you're working from wasn't written to you, be careful how you handle it!" That might be a universal truism.
It cannot be any other way. We are all persons, not logicbots.
"If the text you're working from wasn't written to you, be careful how you handle it!" That might be a universal truism.
I think the truism illustrated by this particular thread is that “if the text you're working from wasn't written *by* you, be careful how you handle it!”
A couple of years ago, our local library received a print of Thomas Jefferson. It was placed on display in the main reading room. Of course, some people objected primarily because of his personal history; but others insisted it be kept up due to him writing the Declaration of Independence and his support of public libraries. Put the library board in quite a quandary. Eventually, they decided to include it with other prints and rotate it through the library displays. Just recently, when I was in the library it was up on a wall again, though not in the reading room. It will likely stay up until the end of the month. No complaints so far.
Comments
"Fun" is not the word that springs to my mind. But I remain intrigued why you think here is an appropriate place to do it.
Aside from his thoughts about copyright, I'm not that interested in Jefferson's legacy. You introduced his personal life into a discussion about hell and capitalism (which had turned into a discussion about Hannah Arendt's book) in order to make a point about hypocrisy. And you keep on bringing it up, for reasons which seem to make rather more sense to you than they do to me. Treating all dead philosophers as hypocrites is an interesting idea - but the idea that we should all be hard on ourselves seems like a non sequitur.
I find your references to me tearing into Jefferson's legacy rather mystifying. I presume that was the Epiphanies thread, but "tearing into Thomas Jefferson's legacy" wasn't what it was about, for me. The idea that this made me "of that ilk" has just made me laugh.
There's the common sense argument again.
I think many of us are already aware how horrifying a place the world is. As well as the maelstrom of our own humanity.
People do indeed do things differently. But these days, I see common sense only as a thing that people want to make appeals to.
OK. Personally, I'd appreciate a bit more censoring. I find the unexpected violence in your posts disconcerting, but am starting to understand where it comes from.
In relation to misogyny and sexism, I've been thinking about Oxford University allowing women to matriculate in 1920, Somerville College, and the consequences for twentieth-century moral philosophy.
The problem I find is that the West is so much bigger than we think when we say that. It means us, it means our kids, it means the disabled kids, it means the great-grandchildren of former slaves, it means the unemployed youth in our cities, it means the second-generation immigrant from the three-quarters world, and I could go on. If it was only the rich and powerful who'd suffer, I think I would be standing in line, but they are the least likely to suffer. They buy a ticket out like rats leaving a sinking ship.
I'd note that its use at that point was particularly hyperbolic. I have mixed feelings about the unrestrained expression of violence in text, but I do understand it.
I think that's a better way to put it.
And maybe it's the Thomas Jefferson effect. Once you allow for personal history to enter in, it's a very interesting question how you allow that to influence your take on a thinker's thinking. Once you dig into personal context - and that's a lot easier for more "recent" thinkers than ancient, you start looking at their thoughts as less abstract eternal truths and more arguments driven by their specific times and places.
A gadfly looks heroic when the surrounding world is evil. But when the surrounding world is good, the successful gadfly becomes a villain.
Thomas Hobbes is a case. I remember in undergrad, we were talking about how he made this argument that was so influential that we still consider it even today. And a friend of mine at the table scoffed at him. According to this guy, Hobbes as a monarchist who had lost his social status because of a revolution. So - my friend quipped - all of his writing was just his attempt to put himself back into a secure job with a proper monarch. Of course he'd make a fine argument for a strong monarch to keep everyone in line! He wanted his old job back! Poor old Machiavelli is considered a byword for cynical manipulation, but at least Machiavelli was honest about his intentions with The Prince!
Or take another Thomas, this one Aquinas. All of these amazing logical constructions to try to defend God. I read a pretty convincing essay that all of his strenuous logical argumentation was itself an act of faith, put forth in defense of his religious belief. He was trying to do what our own Apostle Paul said wasn't possible (and I think I'm with Paul on this one.) Faith is belief before proof. You can't prove it. His attempt at proof is itself an incredible performance of faith. And that's kind of pathetic, but also kind of awesome.
We all have personal angles in these arguments. Is it really so embarrassing to admit that?
I think it's perfectly fair to criticize thinkers as if they were alive today if we're going to quote them as if their thoughts are still salient today. Maybe I've just seen too many conservative Christians try to recreate Roman "family values" and I've seen the very direct harm caused by that kind of thinking.
"Context determines meaning" are the three most powerful words I ever learned in seminary. "If the text you're working from wasn't written to you, be careful how you handle it!" That might be a universal truism.
I think as a canon it's questionable. And maybe that's why I tend to think Aristotle is somewhat unfairly placed on a pedestal. It's a little unfair to him too, on reflection. Pedestals aren't good for people.
And that. I'm an American and I am absolutely sick of this garbage behavior from "the west." I have more compassion for those recently dead schoolchildren and their families than for long-dead Aristotle, and I am presently living in triage where I don't have enough time to articulate everything as perfectly as I might wish to.
It cannot be any other way. We are all persons, not logicbots.