Pointless argumentative thread alert

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
Hey now! You can say what you want about Mutt's other choices, but I don't think anyone would disagree that Shakespeare was one of the world's formost minds, with philosophical insights in all of his work. He wrote hard termed opinions about fate, love, god, time, and even old age. And unlike other philosophers, he gave it to his audience in easy to understand plays that showed them much more than any philosophical term paper ever could.

Shakespeare may have been a brilliant man, he may have just been a creative man. I won't deny he was a talented playwright, but I don't have any great respect for him as a philosopher--and for good reason.

Experential confirmation, I can surely extend that; but conceptual clarity? Rational cohesion? He was an entertainer, and while it may be comfortable to credit to the people that entertain us with wisdom or knowledge or truth...

...that's a bit too much like crediting Britney Spears as a philosopher, because she's an entertainment and a creativity. That wouldn't be to say that Spears is on par with Shakespeare, just that they are the same category--should we credit one, we must credit the other. Was Shakespeare chock full of great philosophy--well, not really, no. It was full of emotives and notions, but none were explanative treatises.

A sense of "I walked away with a better sense of the world" or "I learned about people" or "Reading Shakespeare's descriptions of X" is categorically no different than saying that "Lucky", "Hit Me Baby One More Time", or some other song held the same emotive, entertaining, or circumstantially meaningful weight.

I mean, damn, I don't agree with Nietzsche nor Kierkegaard (the anti-religious poster-boy nor the "leap of faith" term-coiner), but they are philosophers. Putting Garth Ennis (whose work in comic books I really like) up there is to do both the philosophers and entertainers a disservice.

 

[poohlive]

Let me give you one example of Shakespeare as a philosopher.

Julius Caeser.
In Shakespeare's tragedy of Julius Caesar, he had Cassius and Brutus, two people who were afraid of what Caesar might do if he became the leader of the roman empire.
Why? Because Caeser refused to acknowledge that he made a mistake, any mistake. He had banished someone on bad grounds, and when confronted on it, he said he could not take back his banishment, he is
"But I am as constant as the northern star,
Of whose tru-fixed and resting quality,
There is no fellow in my firmament."
JC Act 3 Sc 1 ln 60-63

It was weak to acknowledge that Caesar made a mistake, and porved that he had not won, because Caesar won everything. He came back from wars, almost unwinnable, with a victory, and all of Rome loved him, and wanted him to be Emporer.

That's why Cassius and Brutus feared him so. Because they could not allow to be lead by someone who refused to acknowledge when he'd made a mistake. Everyone loved him so, they would go with him, no matter what he did.

So, Brutus and Cassius kill Caesar... not because he did anything wrong, but because of the things he MIGHT have done, had he become empoeror, because of the way things were going, at this present state.

That's an aged old philosophy, going all the way back to Aristotle and his earlier works. Pre-emptive versus pro-emptive. Cause and effect. If you see a vase is about to fall, do you catch it?
Well, why? Cause: the vase falls, effect: the vase breaks. But how do you know the vase will break? How do you know gravity will still work, or maybe it'll stop working just for that vase. Maybe the vase is indestructable.
Maybe Caesar wouldn't have become a vicious over barren leader. He had refused the crown of Rome three times before... what makes them think he'd accept it the fourth time? How did things get so swept up as to find that the only reason to save Rome from this tyrant (which they all loved) was to kill him?

Britney Spears? You can argue she has talent, and she can sing... if you want. Personally, I like some of her songs, they do, as you say, have an emotive feel and quality to them, but they don't make me think, they don't plunge into the human pyshe.
Shakespeare did that. Shakespeare took notions and thoughts and philosophical challenges, and embroidered them in his plays.

Yes, he entertained people, but he also knew that entertainment for mere entertaining purpose was useless to the common man. He agreed with Aristotle's philosophy that the purpose of theatre (and theatrical philosophers agree) was to entertain as well as educate.
And that's what makes Shakespeare different from so many other playwrights and artists with talent and skill. Because, he entertained his audience, as well as gave them these thinking tools inside his plays. Duality of man, fate versus free will, the meaning of life as well as purpose.

It's all inside his comedies, tragedies, and histories. If you'd like more examples, go read them for yourself. There are hundreds of copies of the Complete Works of Shakespeare around... I have one myself. A very useful tool.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
Let me give you one example of Shakespeare as a philosopher.

Julius Caeser.
In Shakespeare's tragedy of Julius Caesar, he had Cassius and Brutus, two people who were afraid of what Caesar might do if he became the leader of the roman empire.
Why? Because Caeser refused to acknowledge that he made a mistake, any mistake. He had banished someone on bad grounds, and when confronted on it, he said he could not take back his banishment, he is
"But I am as constant as the northern star,
Of whose tru-fixed and resting quality,
There is no fellow in my firmament."
JC Act 3 Sc 1 ln 60-63

It was weak to acknowledge that Caesar made a mistake, and porved that he had not won, because Caesar won everything. He came back from wars, almost unwinnable, with a victory, and all of Rome loved him, and wanted him to be Emporer.

That's why Cassius and Brutus feared him so. Because they could not allow to be lead by someone who refused to acknowledge when he'd made a mistake. Everyone loved him so, they would go with him, no matter what he did.

So, Brutus and Cassius kill Caesar... not because he did anything wrong, but because of the things he MIGHT have done, had he become empoeror, because of the way things were going, at this present state.

That's an aged old philosophy, going all the way back to Aristotle and his earlier works. Pre-emptive versus pro-emptive. Cause and effect. If you see a vase is about to fall, do you catch it?
Well, why? Cause: the vase falls, effect: the vase breaks. But how do you know the vase will break? How do you know gravity will still work, or maybe it'll stop working just for that vase. Maybe the vase is indestructable.
Maybe Caesar wouldn't have become a vicious over barren leader. He had refused the crown of Rome three times before... what makes them think he'd accept it the fourth time? How did things get so swept up as to find that the only reason to save Rome from this tyrant (which they all loved) was to kill him?

Britney Spears? You can argue she has talent, and she can sing... if you want. Personally, I like some of her songs, they do, as you say, have an emotive feel and quality to them, but they don't make me think, they don't plunge into the human pyshe.
Shakespeare did that. Shakespeare took notions and thoughts and philosophical challenges, and embroidered them in his plays.

Yes, he entertained people, but he also knew that entertainment for mere entertaining purpose was useless to the common man. He agreed with Aristotle's philosophy that the purpose of theatre (and theatrical philosophers agree) was to entertain as well as educate.
And that's what makes Shakespeare different from so many other playwrights and artists with talent and skill. Because, he entertained his audience, as well as gave them these thinking tools inside his plays. Duality of man, fate versus free will, the meaning of life as well as purpose.

It's all inside his comedies, tragedies, and histories. If you'd like more examples, go read them for yourself. There are hundreds of copies of the Complete Works of Shakespeare around... I have one myself. A very useful tool.

Personally, I like Shakespeare, but I think my points on the matter are well summed up with a selection from a literature study concerning this very issue:

"Many people have thought of Shakespeare as a writer whose most valuable contributions are to the history of ideas, to psychology, to theology, to sociology. But this is a way to misread Shakespeare and to ignore what he did best; it has even been the basis for those now largely discredited claims that not Shakespeare but some better-educated or more aristocratic writer must have written his plays.

Shakespeare is not so much a "thinker" as a writer capable of bringing thoughts to life. Every one of his plays, like those of his contemporaries, is an adaptation of some story, history, or other play; many of the "ideas" for which Shakespeare is now given credit are part of the intellectual commonplace of his age. We should not read or attend his plays to find out how people lived in Elizabethan London, or what true love is, or whether God exists, though such matters are debated in them.

The nineteenth century, in particular, tended to regard the plays as slices of life and to remove characters from their dramatic context to argue their motives, speculate upon their childhoods, or predict their futures. But they are not real people who live in our world; each of the plays is its own world in miniature: the happy-go-lucky farcical world of The Comedy of Errors or The Taming of the Shrew, the romantic, fairy-tale world of Cymbeline and The Tempest, the darkly ironic world of Troilus and Cressida and the tragic world of Lear or Othello are all places different from each other and from our own.

The thirty-seven plays of Shakespeare are not moral sermons, not handbooks of etiquette, not philosophical treatises, not documentaries of English life in the Renaissance. They are exercises in dramatic imagination, demonstrations of mimetic magic, celebrations of the power of illusion over reality; and, if we come to them in the right spirit, they will move and entertain us as the works of few other writers can hope to do. [sic]"

Not to bring the topic fully around, but I think it a wise thing that people accept that the attributing of philosophical genius in likeable figures (or figures who produce likeable things) is very much akin to the attributing of philosophical genius in whatever is most amusing from one moment to the next.

Its a bit like believing David Bowie to be a great scientist because things in his songs talk about space ships and physics. Philosophy is not a practice of "thinking 'bout stuff" nor "coming up with clever phrases". Its a rational analysis on a range of very old and very difficult questions that exist as the basis for politics, society, sciences, and any number of other processes or statutes.

Shakespeare wrote from the philosophical movements of his age. But so does Britney Spears.

 

[poohlive]

Personally, I like Shakespeare too, but I think my points on the matter are well summed up with a selection from a book titled, Time Is Out of Joint: Shakespeare as a Philosopher of Time. Please, give it a read. Here's an overview:

"The Time Is Out of Joint handles the Shakespearean ouvre from a philosophical perspective, finding that Shakespeare's historical dramas reflect on issues and reveal puzzles which were taken up by philosophy proper only in the centuries following them. Shakespeare's extraordinary handling of time and temporality, the difference between truth and fact, that of theory, and that of interpretation and revelatory truth are evaluated in terms of Shakespeare's own conjectural endeavors, and are compared with early modern, modern, and postmodern thought. Heller shows that modernity, which recognized itself in Shakespeare only from the time of Romanticism, found in Shakespeare's work a revelatory character which marked the end of both metaphysical system-building and a tragic reckoning with the inaccessibility of an absolute, timeless truth. Heller distinguishes the four stages found in constantly unique relation in Shakespeare's work (historical, personal, political, and existential) and probes their significance as time comes to fall "out of joint" and may be again set aright. Heller probes the concretely situated reflections of characters who must face a blind and irrational fate either without taking responsibility for the discordance of time, or with a responsibility which may both transform history into politics, and set right the time which is out of joint. In the ruminations and undertakings of these characters, Shakespeare's dramas present a philosophy of history, a political philosophy, and a philosophy of (im)moral personality. Heller weighs each as distinctly modern confrontations with the possibility of truth and virtue within a human historical condition no less multifarious for its momentariness."

I think the problem you are coming up with comparing Shakespeare to other artists, both now and then, is that you fail to realize just how much is contained in Shakespeare's works. He has created, as your quote says, worlds upon worlds of experience. It is so tight and contained with so many things, that it's hard for people to just pick one thing and extrapolate it, without having a few dozen others come up.

Britney Spears writes what she does because people like it, and it sells records.
Shakespeare wrote his stuff... because people liked it, and it sold tickets, but that's the only comparison. You are falsely comparing why they did what they did... to their substance.
Now, show me a literary study that finds Britney Spears work as, "exercises in dramatic imagination, demonstrations of mimetic magic, celebrations of the power of illusion over reality," and I might take another look into the matter.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
Personally, I like Shakespeare too, but I think my points on the matter are well summed up with a selection from a book titled, Time Is Out of Joint: Shakespeare as a Philosopher of Time. Please, give it a read. Here's an overview:

"The Time Is Out of Joint handles the Shakespearean ouvre from a philosophical perspective, finding that Shakespeare's historical dramas reflect on issues and reveal puzzles which were taken up by philosophy proper only in the centuries following them. Shakespeare's extraordinary handling of time and temporality, the difference between truth and fact, that of theory, and that of interpretation and revelatory truth are evaluated in terms of Shakespeare's own conjectural endeavors, and are compared with early modern, modern, and postmodern thought. Heller shows that modernity, which recognized itself in Shakespeare only from the time of Romanticism, found in Shakespeare's work a revelatory character which marked the end of both metaphysical system-building and a tragic reckoning with the inaccessibility of an absolute, timeless truth. Heller distinguishes the four stages found in constantly unique relation in Shakespeare's work (historical, personal, political, and existential) and probes their significance as time comes to fall "out of joint" and may be again set aright. Heller probes the concretely situated reflections of characters who must face a blind and irrational fate either without taking responsibility for the discordance of time, or with a responsibility which may both transform history into politics, and set right the time which is out of joint. In the ruminations and undertakings of these characters, Shakespeare's dramas present a philosophy of history, a political philosophy, and a philosophy of (im)moral personality. Heller weighs each as distinctly modern confrontations with the possibility of truth and virtue within a human historical condition no less multifarious for its momentariness."

Remarkably, I own that book! I had a course on modern philosophy that included some of Agnes Heller's work (though not specifically literature). I bought "The Time is Out of Joint" to get a sense of some other works of hers.

In "Time", she isn't really saying that Shakespeare was a philosopher... she was analyzing his plays from a philosophical perspective, arguing that Shakespeare wrote on some important issues that predated some philosophical movements (although, some of Santiago's work reveals that it wasn't actually the case that Shakespeare wrote in a vaccum or predicting-the-future-of-philosophy way, and that several movements that she identifies that came after had their roots well in his time, him being in the unique aristocratic position to be exposed to them--but that's a soft point for Heller, not hard, as she does lay the point down with arguments about Shakespeare being indicative, frequently).

I don't recall (though its been a few months since I've finished the book) her saying that Shakespeare was a true philosopher, only that he brings up some important issues that, when approached philosophically, led to big things (basically).

Which part of the book are you referring to, though?

I think the problem you are coming up with comparing Shakespeare to other artists, both now and then, is that you fail to realize just how much is contained in Shakespeare's works. He has created, as your quote says, worlds upon worlds of experience. It is so tight and contained with so many things, that it's hard for people to just pick one thing and extrapolate it, without having a few dozen others come up.

Britney Spears writes what she does because people like it, and it sells records.
Shakespeare wrote his stuff... because people liked it, and it sold tickets, but that's the only comparison. You are falsely comparing why they did what they did... to their substance.
Now, show me a literary study that finds Britney Spears work as, "exercises in dramatic imagination, demonstrations of mimetic magic, celebrations of the power of illusion over reality," and I might take another look into the matter.

Several worlds or one, enummeration does not really play that large of a factor. It could well be argued that she also is creating worlds of experiences. We're starting to slide into much my point, neither are philosophers... both are creative entertainers who undeniably wrote from their time periods and produced some manner of art that can be construed as being "wise" or "deep" or, along with Heller's points, "riddled with real human concerns".

If we open the door to Shakespeare being a philosopher by virtue of him writing likeable things (even many, many, many of them) that reveal things about humanity, through art or extrapolation... we open the door for a /lot/ of people to be considered, categorically, the same way.

 

[poohlive]

I think that's what we should do. I don't know what your definition of philosophy, or a philosopher is, but why do you feel that it can't include people that take humanity or the status quo of thought and feeling, and turn it on its ear, to make one think and argue certain logics in the world. Or, in that right, have a character do it in their play? Or, have a theme that goes through several different devolutions during the course thereof.

I think I agree with Heller that Shakespeare's works are taken as philosophically inclined, and he wrote them in there for a reason. He wasn't just trying to play to the masses... because if he was, then he would have been forgotten hundreds of years ago.
There were lots of playwrights just like him, all trying to do nothing more than write something that could work well enough to give them a good meal.
Shakespeare worked in the same venue for the same reason, but why are his works still around, why are his thoughts still talked about to this day, argued over, and even killed over (small skirmish, where two great shakespeare actors were performing a the same play in the same town, and a group of people thought this one was better, or that was was better, ended up burning a theatre to the group, and having a mob run loose).

You really do have a thing for Britney Spears, don't you? Look, I know your opinion on Britney Spears, and your version of why she is just like Shakespeare, and I can accept that as your opinion, but you give me no fact. Show me one study where Britney's work is described as a "world" of experience, or deep, or thoughtful, or anything else other than good and creative music that people (especially teen girls and middle aged men) like. I've danced and hummed along to a good Britney Spears song every now and then (especially her new one, Toxic, I liked it) but I don't think it's filled with worlds of anything other than back-up dancers and synthasizers.

They are both creative, yes, and they are both popular, in their own right, but that's all your showing me as a comparative, and then inferring that they are either both philosophers or not, based on that alone.
What I'm saying is, Shakespeare wrote his works that dealt with such complex and interrogative themes, works, philosophies, and otherwise, that he is a variable force to be reckoned with, and he should be considered, if not a true philosopher, than a great reference to those wondering about philosophy and the will of humanity.
Britney Spears is not.
David Bowie? Hmmm, I'll get back to you on that one... I did like Labrynth. And he has that wonderful hair... hmmmm....

 

[The Mutt]

The problem with academia is that it creates an insulated view of things. An "If you don't play by my rules, you aren't allowed to play" way of thinking that allows for absurdities like comparing Shakespeare to a titty dancer.
Philosophy is nothing more than entertainment for the mind. The difference between Kant and Hume and two guys sitting in a bar talking about ethics and morality is that philosophers think that only other philosophers have opinions that matter. Everyone else's are "mere." They get so hung up in minutia they can't see obvious truths when they are staring them in the face.
Philosophy majors rack their brains wondering why Mutt said, "put down your Kant and Hume." A great thinker like Robert B. Parker would have looked at the post and recognized immediately that he picked those two philosophers because their names are short and he was sure how to spell them.

 

[poohlive]

Thank you for that Mutt. I think philosophers can be found in a lot of venues, not simply those who have dedicated their lives to studying philosophy and then writing their own views. A philosopher can be as simple as someone posing a question, or rather, answering a question in his own means.
Apart from Shakespeare, several other people have made plays that do that very thing. There have been philosophical movements that have arosed from nothing more than playwrights breaking away from conventional styles, and thinking... "hmmm, what is the meaning of man, of existence... well, i think it's this."
Dadaism, now that's philosophy. Ha ha.

If you need an entire work of philosophical doctrines, and to be taught in remedial philosophy class 101 during summer break, then you're leaving a lot of people out who have contributed so much to thought and rational doctrine. Poets who have thought "why," painters that have captured in image what no words could ever show. You could write forever and ever about time and perception, but sure as hell, show someone a good painting on the subject, and they just get it... immediately.
And, you may go on to crush Britney Spears again and again, but there are artists, singers out there who have opened their mind, and contributed to modern thought as well... or at the very least put their two cents into the bin. And, that's what it's all about isn't it? Putting your two cents in. Showing people, this is what I think, and this is how I think it goes. Don Mclean did an entire song that could sum up half of the Existentialists doctine in just a few versus.
In fact, the only real difference between what we think of philosophers and what you think of philosophers is that your view of a philosopher needs to be academically backed up by hundreds of old guys researching in sweater vests agreeing and disagreeing, until the whole thing becomes moot in and of itself. We think a philosopher is anyone that has an opinion on the world, and humanity, and shows us that opinion in his own way.

 

[Miss Oatlash]

Re: Re: To me...

That's some Dogma, Mutt.
*Tee hee*
If I worship you, will you take me to heaven?

I can assure you, FK, Mutt certainly knows how to take a girl to heaven...and back!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Philosophy is nothing more than entertainment for the mind.

If that's the general consensus, then I suppose I'll bow out of this conversation. There rather isn't much a point to continue.

 

[GingerV]

Could you say there were big P Philosophers: those who approach subjects from a position of pure reason and deduction, and little p philosophers: those who come to their conclusions in other ways?

I'm not sure it's fair to say that either group has nothing worth listening to. But they do have different priorities, and should approach the other with a williness to listen.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by GingerV
Could you say there were big P Philosophers: those who approach subjects from a position of pure reason and deduction, and little p philosophers: those who come to their conclusions in other ways?

I'm not sure it's fair to say that either group has nothing worth listening to. But they do have different priorities, and should approach the other with a williness to listen.

I would agree that there are Philosophers and people who philosophize (in much the same way that there are Scientists and people who practice scientific principles; or Psychologists and people who consider psychological effects on people around them). To give them the title is a bit too much like calling people who experiment "scientists" instead of "Scientists".

Philosophizing is a natural thing. Not having the title of "philosopher" doesn't discredit anyone's intellect or insight, its a distinction that ought best be reserved to those who would constitute our capitalized category.

 

[Pure]

I think I'm mostly with poohlive, on this one. I see nothing wrong with saying Shakespeare raised and dealt with a number of philsophical issues.

I find Joe's wish to limit the question to "Is Shakespeare a Philosopher" or '...'a true philosopher' a bit narrow.

Literature is often a fine springboard into philosophy proper: For instance the stories of Sartre, like "The Wall" and "Childhood of a Leader" raise his views in an excellent way, and I've seen them used in philosophy courses.

 

[poohlive]

"...but I don't think anyone would disagree that Shakespeare was one of the world's formost minds, with philosophical insights in all of his work. He wrote hard termed opinions about fate, love, god, time, and even old age. And unlike other philosophers, he gave it to his audience in easy to understand plays that showed them much more than any philosophical term paper ever could."

This is what I wrote on Shakespeare, Joe, my exact words. I did not call Shakespeare a philosopher in the same sense that Hume, or Sarte, or Descartes were. He is however, a wonderful example of someone who, if you'd like to read about humanity and the condition of life, you should read up on.
Even if they are culture viniettes of life.

You want to argue who the big ball player philosophers are, and who the people are that realized philosophy can be seen in almost anything, and used their art to perform such wonderful questions, and even moreso answers, than that's your call. I believe I've shown a few people to be on my side here.

Thank you Pure, it's always nice to be appreciated. I have read Sarte's stories though, and I thought they were great, very compact, and left you coming away with a sense of real alienation.

I also loved Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground. Wonderful stuff.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
And unlike other philosophers, he gave it to his audience in easy to understand plays that showed them much more than any philosophical term paper ever could."

Those, yes, were your exact words. I take issue with calling him a philosopher for several reasons. "Unlike other philosophers..." is to say "He is a philosopher who differs in that..."

You want to argue who the big ball player philosophers are, and who the people are that realized philosophy can be seen in almost anything, and used their art to perform such wonderful questions, and even moreso answers, than that's your call. I believe I've shown a few people to be on my side here. p

It hasn't been my intention to play favorites, had it been I wouldn't have the opinion I do--I'd likely have something more popular. I don't know that Shakespeare "realized philosophy can be seen in almost anything and used his art to perform such wonderful questions". I cannot speak intelligently about the intentions of William Shakespeare beyond what, academically, has been said about him by people more learned than me on the subject of him.

If you want to talk up the intentions of Shakespeare concerning the words he wrote on paper, that's your bag... I don't have the foggiest notion of what he intended. It could have been entertainment, it could have been just for the money, it could have been boredom, genius, or habit.

I do know only a handful of things:

Shakespeare is not recognized in the Philosophical community as a Philosopher--that isn't to say writers can't be, Ayn Rand /is/ a philosopher and a writer, only that Shakespeare is not. Why that is? I can only refer to the passage I quoted, seems most accurate an explanation. Should he be? No idea. Can't speak intelligently about that, either. I've read most all of Shakespeare's works, I don't find them to be philosophically demanding--no moreso than Winnie the Pooh or the latest issue of Vogue. Questions are raised, but in no great method or concern.

Shakespeare never wrote a philosophical treatise (to my knowledge), taking a great deal of weight away from the idea that he's a philosopher. Arguments of "His treatises were his beautiful words in his beautiful plays" or "He was smart enough to hide his philosophy in plays so people could appreciate it" are possible, but they are quite equally true and not true. It could be that he was philosophizing brilliantly, it could be that he was doing the same formula that plays had done for years and years concerning the making apparent of common philosophical problems within characters (I can't take credit for that one, I had a theater appreciation course, once, that mapped out the un-originality of some of the greatest playwrights... more to show how the /way/ you write is as important as /what/ you write about).

In the end? Is Shakespeare a philosopher? If we ignore what philosophers think philosophers are? Possibly. But how Shakespeare is lessened by denying him status as a philosopher is beyond me.

I mean, hey, you're more than entitled to believe Shakespeare is a philosopher. I just don't agree, unless we expand the notion of "philosopher" so broadly as to include "anyone who made even a passing effort into a philosophical subject, even if they failed to conclude or adhere to philosophy's three main principles of conceptual clarity, rational cohesion, and experiential confirmation". But then, who /isn't/ a philosopher?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
I think I'm mostly with poohlive, on this one. I see nothing wrong with saying Shakespeare raised and dealt with a number of philsophical issues.

Literature is often a fine springboard into philosophy proper: For instance the stories of Sartre, like "The Wall" and "Childhood of a Leader" raise his views in an excellent way, and I've seen them used in philosophy courses.

I never said he didn't raise or deal with philosophical issues. I said he wasn't a philosopher. Namely, he wasn't one by occupation--I'm sure we can agree on that; he wasn't one by education; he wasn't one by publication; he wasn't one by theory or systemization... he wrote stories, in those stories were philosophical issues--sometimes.

...but that's any number of other writers I can think of.

Its not to dis writers. Ayn Rand is a philosopher and a writer. But it /is/ to say that just because someone puts pen to paper and writes a morality play, doesn't make them a philosopher.

 

[GingerV]

OK, I take Joe's point. Put another way, Asimov is to Science as Shakespeare is to Philosophy. I kind of like the idea of philosophic fiction (as opposed to science fiction).

What I still don't get is why there seems to be this assumption that it be important that everyone discuss whatever topic is going in the manner of professional Philosophers. (I know, I know....Joe's not saying he has nothing to say, just wants it acknowledged that Shakespeare isn't a member of the union.) I know people who didn't "get" a scientific principle until they'd read about it in Sagan (or similar), and just because they want to talk about what special relativity means, it doesn't mean they have to have me teaching them the math to do it.

So yeah, I'll give ground I usually don't and say that authors CAN provide an approximation of science sufficient to generate discussion among non-professionals. Joe's right, it doesn't make them Scientists. But what they're writing about is, to one degree or another, science. And it's worth talking about without jargoning it up.


G

 

[The Mutt]

You don't get to be a capital P philosopher unless you go to school and learn what a bunch of other capital P's said before you. It's how academics justify their existence. And sell textbooks.
Otherwise, philosophy is just sitting around thinking about things. Things that don't really matter that much anyway. You are born, you live, you die. Philosopher or fish, the same is true for both.
What is the meaning of life? Why does it have to have one? Even if you think you've figured it out, it doesn't buy you another minute above the ground.
It is fun to think about and debate. So is "could Satchel Page strike out Barry Bonds?" and "if Superman and God got in a fight, who would win?"
Interesting to chew on, but ultimately pointless, which is, after all, the title of this thread.
And anyway, I would kick Superman's ass.
Sincerely,
God

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by GingerV
OK, I take Joe's point. Put another way, Asimov is to Science as Shakespeare is to Philosophy. I kind of like the idea of philosophic fiction (as opposed to science fiction).

What I still don't get is why there seems to be this assumption that it be important that everyone discuss whatever topic is going in the manner of professional Philosophers. (I know, I know....Joe's not saying he has nothing to say, just wants it acknowledged that Shakespeare isn't a member of the union.) I know people who didn't "get" a scientific principle until they'd read about it in Sagan (or similar), and just because they want to talk about what special relativity means, it doesn't mean they have to have me teaching them the math to do it.

So yeah, I'll give ground I usually don't and say that authors CAN provide an approximation of science sufficient to generate discussion among non-professionals. Joe's right, it doesn't make them Scientists. But what they're writing about is, to one degree or another, science. And it's worth talking about without jargoning it up.G

I think that's a groovy summation.

...and as a democractic response to The Mutt's point; philosophy is more than just thinking about things--and its done more than lay-people may realize.

 

[The Mutt]

I think that's a groovy summation.

...and as a democractic response to The Mutt's point; philosophy is more than just thinking about things--and its done more than lay-people may realize.

Henh henh... he said "lay-people."

 

[poohlive]

That's true, philosophy is a lot more than just thinking about things... it's also thinking about whether or not those things are thinking about you. Or whether or not those things are really things at all. Perhaps those things are thoughts, and not things, how can a thing be a thought, and then a thing at the same time, its morally indescribable, until one understands the function of meaning within a thought or a thing.
But, what's the meaning? How can one decide without taking apart Descartes originally theory on thoughts, or Hume's purpose for Nature. I mean, what are we really doing here anyway?
I got lost somewhere between Shakespeare and Pascal's Wager.

Ha ha.
Don't worry Joe, we're all with you.... even if it's just in a roundabout way.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The interesting thing about philosophies is that those who call themselves philosophers aren't the people who usually introduce people to philosophies. Usually philosophies are designed by personal exploration with aid by writers, musicians, etc... who refine or support what this personal exploration is on.

I mean, look at nihilism. How many nihilistic people in their teens, 20s, and 30s will point out Nietzche and Camus as the people who influenced their nihilism. Chances are they will single out novels with unhappy endings, metal and punk musicians whose rock defined their feelings of alienation and pointless impotence, or movies like Matrix and Fight Club or better yet foreign films and shows (anime, at least those not for kids, seems to enjoy playing with sad endings where valliant heroism is proved to be futile).

Are these sources less worthwhile to the collective personal philosohies that encompass the broad philosophy of nihilism, because someone famous in the community gave nihilism its name? Are popular sources and personal philosophies considered worthless on the broad stage? How about on the smaller stage of debates such as these ones on an internet forum? Is someone's personal philosophies and influences less worthy than another's because the latter can cite which philosophers presented points that show his viewpoints?

Personally, I believe no or at least should be considered no. Academics may be the field I am entering but I don't feel it should be used as a strong-arm tool in the world of uncouth debate. Sure in science, peer review and all that jazz is quality control, but in a field where reproducable results are impossible such as philosophy, it is only a method by which names are given to trends in large groups of personal philosophies.





That taken care of, let's all read some Shakespeare while listening to Sex Pistols.

 

[GingerV]

The image of Shakespeare as a Sex Pistols fan, had he been born today, has me giggling happily. May not have happened, but damn I like the image.

G

 

[Pure]

Joe, you sometimes make papal pronouncements that are pure bosh:

To wit:

I never said he[Sartre] didn't raise or deal with philosophical issues. I said he wasn't a philosopher.

That's a mistake.

Namely, he wasn't one by occupation--I'm sure we can agree on that;

No, we can't. To write and sell books on philosophy is to be a philosopher by occupation, esp. as as those books are considered by other philosophers. I suppose you're unacquainted with "Being and Nothingness."

He taught philosophy in at least two high schools, and lectured on it, in several universities. He gave guest lecture at Yale, Harvard and Princeton in the mid 40s, generally on literary topics, but including the famous "Existentialism is a Humanism." Generally his philosophizing was integral with his novel writing, as widely recognized.

he wasn't one by education;

wrong again. he took courses, and was in several study groups
e.g. at the Franzosiche Academikerhaus. he made extensive studies of Husserl and Heidegger.

he attended Ecole Normale Superiere for four years, and in 1928 received certificates in Psychology and in the History of Philosophy. The following year, General philosophy, Logic, Ethics, and Sociology. (from Cohen Solal's _Sartre_ p. 67). His agregation was June 1929 [age 24], in Philosophy, placing first in exams. Two small 'dissertations' were accepted: "Freedom and Contingence" and "The role of Induction in the Deductive Sciences" (p. 74). _Contingency_ is a key concept later developed in his philosophy.

he wasn't one by publication;

wrong again; he had many publications, e.g, "The Transcendence of the Ego," in 1936; "Sketch of a Theory of Emotions," "Existentialism is a Humanism" (1946), and see below.


he wasn't one by theory or systemization...

wrong again. "Being and Nothingness"(1943) among others, demonstrates theory and system. Also "Search for a Method" and "Critique of Dialectical Reason " (1960).

he wrote stories, in those stories were philosophical issues--sometimes.

I suspect you haven't read much by or about Sartre. Hence pontificating can only get you into trouble.

 

[poohlive]

Ummm, Pure. I think you may want to look at that again. I know I, for one, am all for giving Joe something hard to chew on, but I believe Joe in that paragraph was talking about William Shakespeare who wasn't a philosopher by trade, education, or whatnot... not Sarte.
I don't think anyone would disagree that Sartre's a philosopher in any respects, even if they don't agree with his thoughts or doctrines.



And, when I said "Unlike most philosophers," I was talking about the way philosophers handled their own work. It's straight forward, and right on the money for their beliefs and proponents, yes, but it's also extremely hard to read, and even moreso to understand. Take Hume, I love his skepticism and work, but honestly.... his shit is not an easy afternoon breeze if you know what I mean. You need to bury yourself in there for a few hours, take a pen and paper, and really mull over the things he's saying...
And that's true of most philosophers, some have made stories and whatnot, to make it easier to swallow, but not much. More often than not, a read in philosophy is like taking medicine, it tastes like shit, but it's good for you in the end.
I only meant when Shakespeare broached the subject of philosophy, he made it entertaining, and easy to swallow by the masses, so they weren't hit over the head with thought. Moreso, it's there not for the audience to interpret and understand it (like philosophy) but just there to add more conflict and drama. They murdered Julius Caesar for the power he Might have, and what he Might do with it... Ring any bells in today's world (weapons of mass destruction? strike them before they strike you? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?)

This isn't to say Shakespeare's a philosopher (and it REALLY isn't to say Britney Spears is a philosopher) just that he offered up some opinions of his own, and toyed with a few ideas... as any good writer should do.


Maybe we should make up a new word for this kind of part time philosopher... like a par-philosopher, or philosophee... ha ha, a philosopher in training... we could even have little name tags and stickers. And balloons, and carnival rides!! Oooh, oooh, a parade. A philosophy parade!!!
The existentialists couldn't make it, they weren't sure today was going to be here...
The nihilists couldn't make it, they didn't believe there would actually be a parade.
The Descartes fans made it... they thought they'd be here... so here they are.
Pascal's friends showed up, but they're only here on a dare, so...
Oh, and look, there's some Friend's of Dostoevsky's. They were destined to be here 400 billion years ago, always early planners those Dostoevsky's....