SUNDAY, APRIL 21, 2024
Philosophy tooth and nail: Every so often, the big newspapers can't help themselves. They decide to publish an essay like the one found at the end of this link.
It appeared on Wednesday, in the New York Times, under this dual headline:
Why the World Still Needs Immanuel Kant
Unlike in Europe, few in the United States will be celebrating the philosopher’s 300th birthday. But Kant’s writing shows that a free, just and moral life is possible—and that’s relevant everywhere.
Who knew that Kant was 300? Meanwhile, did Kant’s writing really show that a free, just and moral life is possible? And are you that you actually know what that claim might mean?
Eagerly, we fell on the piece, looking ahead to Saturday as the occasion on which we'd let ourselves finally have a nice thing. We had no idea that the conduct on cable news this week would spill over in the way it did—with rows of howlers waiting to be addressed where the breakers crash and drag.
We're a bit of a skeptic when it comes to claims about the great philosophic canon. We're inclined to hold with Professor Horwich's view of the later Wittgenstein's view, in which the classic philosophical ruminations are directed at "mere pseudo-problems, the misbegotten products of linguistic illusion and muddled thinking."
We're strongly inclined to hold to that view. Still, we're always eager to examine the latest attempt to examine one of the great questions.
In this instance, the question—more accurately, the alleged or purported question—goes exactly like this:
Kant was driven by a question that still plagues us: Are ideas like freedom and justice utopian daydreams, or are they more substantial? Their reality can’t be proven like that of material objects, for those ideas make entirely different claims on us—and some people are completely impervious to their claims. Could philosophy show that acting morally, if not particularly common, is at least possible?
Our view? If you think you understand what that means, we suspect you're already lost. Still, let's plow ahead.
In the essay under review, we come next to "a stunning thought experiment" allegedly conducted by Kant. In all honesty, we can't say that we're stunned by what you see here:
...Could philosophy show that acting morally, if not particularly common, is at least possible?
A stunning thought experiment answers that question in...the “Critique of Practical Reason.” Kant asks us to imagine a man who says temptation overwhelms him whenever he passes “a certain house.” (The 18th century was discreet.) But if a gallows were constructed to ensure the fellow would be hanged upon exiting the brothel, he’d discover he can resist temptation very well. All mortal temptations fade in the face of threats to life itself.
Yet the same man would hesitate if asked to condemn an innocent man to death, even if a tyrant threatened to execute him instead. Kant always emphasized the limits of our knowledge, and none of us know if we would crumble when faced with death or torture. Most of us probably would. But all of us know what we should do in such a case, and we know that we could.
This experiment shows we are radically free. Not pleasure but justice can move human beings to deeds that overcome the deepest of animal desires, the love of life. We want to determine the world, not only to be determined by it. We are born and we die as part of nature, but we feel most alive when we go beyond it: To be human is to refuse to accept the world we are given.
When modern humans read such work, we're generally disinclined to suspect that it might be basic twaddle.
The essay appears in the New York Times. According to the author's identity line, the essay was written by a European "philosopher" who's writing a major academic authority figure.
We tend to assume that it has to make sense. For the record, this:
A similar reaction tends to occur when we Americans watch the emanations from our biggest stars on the corporate form of war by another means now known as "cable news."
In the matter under review, did Kant somehow manage to prove "that we are radically free?" Are you sure you even know what that claim even means?
Also, within the realm of normal observation, wasn't history already clogged with well-known examples of the desire for justice "moving human beings to deeds that overcome the deepest of animal desires?" Do we have to prove the possibility of a type of behavior we've all seen with our own eyes?
When we ourselves were juniors in college, we failed Kant—or did Kant fail us? We've never quite settled that question.
We also note this unfortunate report from yesterday's New York Times:
Daniel C. Dennett, Widely Read and Fiercely Debated Philosopher, 82, Dies
Espousing his ideas in best sellers, he insisted that religion was an illusion, free will was a fantasy and evolution could only be explained by natural selection.
As it turned out, we had one degree of separation, and that at a very young age.
Back in grades 3-5, Professor Dennett's younger sister was, along with her buddy Alice, one of our grade school pals at Winchester's now-defunct Mystic (Public) School.
At some point, the ladies began making obscene gestures during the course of the long, boring day. At the time, we didn't know what their insinuative hand signals meant, but we sensed that they were drifting into forbidden arenas.
Incomparably, we rose above, focusing on our times tables and on other tools of the trade. Across the street lived [NAME WITHHELD], who went on to be the only two-time president of the Harvard Advocate.
Even Learned Hand only achieved that distinction once—and his name was Learned Hand! The future president was our older sister's age. We were two of five (5) Mystic kids who lived and played right there on that one short block.
Right up the hill behind our back yard, there sat Frankie Fontaine, whose place in the world we didn't understand at the time. After we moved to California, he hit it very big as Crazy Guggenheim on the Jackie Gleason show, with several albums as a singer thrown in.
He must have known our father from vaudeville and burlesque. His New York Times obituary, at age 58, included such background as this:
Although he grew upon in show business—his Fontaine grandfather was a Ringling Brothers circus strong man and his mother a trapeze artist, while his father Ray Fontaine and his mother Anna McCarthy had a vaudeville act—he himself was first and foremost a family man. He toured for two years with the Vaughn Monroe band and moved easily into radio comedy and a series of Hollywood films in the early 1950's.
Just before he turned 17, he married his childhood sweetheart Alma Clair Waltham and went right to work as an all‐purpose singer‐dancer‐comedian in Boston area supper clubs. After Pearl Harbor he spent three years in the Army, appearing in service shows and turning an occasional ‘penny in off‐post clubs to support the growing family.
He toured for two years with the Vaughn Monroe band and moved easily into radio comedy and a series of Hollywood films in the early 1950's...
It seems that our father would have known him, but we never heard about that.
Our father was 65 when we were born. As a young man, he apparently brought the Nightingales to the Old Howard.
One of the Nightingales later said, in the well-written memoir Harpo Speaks, that he got his first (unintentional) laugh right there on that "famous" stage.
It was the sacred and the profane in and around the Mystic School of that otherwise admittedly boring era! Professor Dennett was a good person who wrote a whole storeroom of books. His sister was our grade school pal until we moved across town right before sixth grade.
Cable news crowded philosophy out at the start of this glorious weekend. Maybe Paula was right all along. We simply can't have nice things!
That said, was Kant a ball of linguistic illusion? Assiduously, we've reported, and now you'll have to decide.
"We're a bit of a skeptic when it comes to claims about the great philosophic canon. We're inclined to hold with Professor Horwich's view of the later Wittgenstein's view, in which the classic philosophical ruminations are directed at "mere pseudo-problems, the misbegotten products of linguistic illusion and muddled thinking."
ReplyDeleteSomerby appears to have read nothing in philosophy other than Horwich's views on Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was not concerned with the same problems are Kant. Further, Somerby thinks Wittgenstein gave him permission to dismiss all other philosophical thought because of certain language problems that have since been dealt with. That is a hugely lazy and nihilistic way of addressing philosophical thought. It isn't clever and it refuses to grapple with philosophy at all. This appears to be a hostile joke that Somerby keeps playing on his hated philosophy professors, not a serious discussion.
For those who may not know (Somerby doesn't explain), Kant said:
ReplyDelete"It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people. Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative. Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law."
Another way of saying this is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept appears in most cultures and is counted as one of the anthropological universals. Of course this idea can produce moral and civil behavior. Somerby's suggestion that it might not is pure sophistry. This is far from the sum total of Kant's thinking.
Is it fair to raise someone like Kant (or Dennett) and then never explain what his contribution was? Of course not.
Today, Somerby's prime purpose seems to be to stroll down memory lane and wonder if any of the famous people in his neighborhood ever knew his father. Children in 2-5 grades don't think about philosophy and his story about the little girls experimenting with hand gestures is crude not cute. But doddering old fools like Somerby have little inclination to control their wandering thoughts, any more than Trump does these days. At least Somerby is not running for president.
You read Somerby’s essay for free, just so you can call him a “doddering old fool.” Seems unkind and ungrateful to me.
DeleteI have a shared interest in Wittgenstein and those who came after. I studied philosophy as an undergrad at UCLA and my doctoral work was about reference (how words relate to the things they denote in the world), as an aspect of memory in cognitive science. When Somerby first began talking about Wittgenstein, I was enthusiastic to hear what he had to say. I quickly discovered that his reading began and ended with Horwich and that he was using Wittgenstein as an excuse to ignore all of the rest of philosophy.
Deletehttps://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/
If you read Section 6, it talks about nihilism, which is where Somerby is stuck.
Maligning philosophers (using Wittgenstein as a stick to beat them with) is not discussion. It is game playing. By my count, Somerby has admitted to failing more than 3 courses in his major at Harvard, this time Kant. People usually change their major if that happens to them.
You call me unkind and ungrateful. I consider Somerby's attitude toward these deceased philosophers disrespectful and insulting (to them and to the rest of us who care about philosophy). Do you feel grateful when someone online abuses something you think is important and care about?
Maybe Pied Piper is a transactional person, like Trump, and thinks if it is free, it must have value to him? That is what he is arguing.
DeleteSomerby’s post today demonstrates some of the same behavior we see from Trump at his rallies, behavior that seems to be indicative of cognitive decline or dementia, issues with grammar and diction and incoherent rambling and narcissism.
DeleteNone of us can help Somerby directly, but I hope he is able to seek help.
It makes sense that someone who pursued a career as a standup comedian would have a certain degree of narcissism. The same for someone who has written a vanity blog for 24 years, largely without anything to say to the world.
DeleteSometimes the only help for cognitive decline or dementia is to accept growing old and find ways to minimize the impact on one's daily life, perhaps by rearranging the home or getting someone to come in and help. Somerby may already have such help. To his credit, he isn't trying to become president. There is really no harm in pretending to discuss Kant.
My God! Now you read Somerby’s free content so you can call him a demented narcissist. Is the psychological payoff for you that it makes you feel superior?
DeleteI didn’t say it first, but it is what it is. Why is “free” so imortant to you?
DeleteI empathize with Bob, because I’m a demented narcissist, too.
DeleteYou have to be a narcissist to think anyone cares whether you knew Daniel Dennett’s sister in 3rd grade. Without ever explaining what Dennett did.
DeleteMy eaten by cannibals uncle was an arrogant know-nothing narcissist. But I loved him all the same. Even more, come to think of it.
DeleteThat this content is free tells you that Somerby is spreading disinformation. No one would pay to read this blog because there is no benefit to the reader. The benefit is to Somerby’s “sponsor” because he gains by putting misinformation in front of libs.
Delete“Why is ‘free’ so important to you?”
DeleteBecause Somerby is giving you a gift. If you don’t like what he writes, just don’t read it. It seems impolite to repay his kindness with nasty insults.
If someone leaves a turd on your front porch, is that a gift? He isn’t being kind when he says racist and sexist things, as he often does.
DeleteAnd there’s nothing nastier than saying that Somerby is a traitor, a paid Russian asset.
Delete5:38 - The “turd,” as you put it, is not on your front porch. It’s in Somerby’s garden. He invites you in, and you call his offerings “turds.” That seems crass to me, but you be you.
DeleteAnd casual drive-by smears, such as calling him “racist” and “sexist,” are despicable.
There are so many examples and we all know them here.
DeleteWhat if he is luring people in so that he can warp unsuspecting minds?
DeleteHe is grooming readers in right wing propaganda.
DeleteSo, in your warped mythology, Somerby is a “groomer” who is attempting to “lure” poor unsuspecting liberals into a life of sin, shame, and iniquity. And that’s why you’re justified in calling him every name you can think of.
DeleteIn studying cults, there is something called a 'thought terminating cliche' which is loaded language used to stop debate and eliminate further questioning. Throwing around 'paid Russian asset' is the DNC and its trolls employing the same tactic. It is used to discourage the critical thinking presented by Somerby and all critical thinking. It's an appeal to emotions to avoid thorough discussion of complex policy issues.
Delete"Russian asset" is to the DNC as "nigger-lover" is to the RNC.
DeleteWhat are you going to do?
Isn't "nigger-lover" also a term of the Democrat party?
DeleteIt's a term they are called by the Right.
Delete
ReplyDelete"Can you believe the things you get told, even by those in your clan?"
You don't need to believe things, Bob. You shouldn't, really. You read, you listen (though not the state-run media, hopefully), and you become familiar with various perspectives.
And that's all there is to it.
Somerby's model appears to be that people are passive recipients of information, not actively constructing their own opinions and world view.
DeleteWe have no state-run media in the US.
NPR, NPR!
DeleteOh wait, that’s funded primarily by corporate sponsorship, and the rest by listeners.
Russia is a hoax! Russia is a hoax!
Oh wait, even the milquetoast Mueller Report detailed numerous connections between Russia and Trump that are factual examples of corruption and collusion, the Republican star witness in their attempt to impeach Biden is a Russian stooge, members of Congress have been revealed as stooges for Russia, and Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet - not enforcing sanctions, trying to bring down NATO, not defending Ukraine, etc.
While we are at it, let’s offer our own versions of the words “lie” and “believe”, that render those words essentially meaningless. After all, if you don’t believe, then how could you lie?
I think the NPR talk stems from a complaint from within. And the complaint didn't have anything to do with how it's funded.
DeleteThe Russia thing started with accusations of collusion made against Trump, not cries of hoax by Trump. Those accusations were never proven.
The Russian Federation is a hoax.
DeleteIe. 2:58: Your 'oh wait's' are straw men b.s.
DeleteRussia, if you're listening, remind the Right that you influenced the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, because you are blackmailing Donald J. Trump, and he has been a Russian asset for at least a decade.
Delete"It was the sacred and the profane in and around the Mystic School of that otherwise admittedly boring era!"
ReplyDeleteSomerby tosses off this reference to a famous book about religion called The Sacred and the Profane, by Mircea Eliade, who describes how religious people experience the sacred. Daniel Dennett was an atheist and something of a neurological determinist. Somerby, of course, makes no direct statements about anything -- all is concealed by fatuous nonsense with occasional hints that can mean anything (and thus nothing). If this were a ball game, it would be keep-away. If you never say anything that can be pinned down, then who can ever say you're wrong -- and for some reason, Somerby is very afraid of being called wrong. Were he to be wrong, he might have to revise his opinion of himself as an unsung genius, too good to really think about Kant or Dennett. That Somerby has finally drifted into a party full of arrogant know-nothings seems fitting, but what took him so long?
You complain that Somerby never says anything that can be pinned down, yet one thing he has certainly pinned down, over and again, is that he is on the Blue team. Nevertheless, you say he is a Republican. I conclude that you cannot read reel gud.
DeleteWhen there is a contradiction between someone's words and their behavior, the smart money is on the behavior as the accurate representation of what that person is about. Hence the saying "actions speak louder than words."
DeleteWhen Somerby says he is on the blue team (whatever that means), but his actions support the red team over and over, then it is fair to conclude that he is lying (a form of obscure communication) and he is not a blue team member.
I have never said he is a Republican. I have no idea how he is registered. I have said that he repeats conservative talking points and pushes Trump's agenda, that he undermines Biden every chance he gets. And this goes back to Hillary too, who he knocked and never supported while pushing Trump.
You are still attacking people here instead of discussing issues. Why not think about it and tell me why I should think that Somerby supports Biden, given Somerby's behavior here. Note that Somerby spent the last few days supporting Trump's claim that he cannot get a fair jury.
“Somerby has finally drifted into a party full of arrogant know-nothings”
Delete“I have never said he is a Republican.”
So - are you pretending that what you call “the party full of arrogant know-nothings” is some party other than the Republicans?
That doesn't mean he is a registered Republican, something I have no way to verify. It does mean he talks and thinks like the right wing (based on what he writes here).
DeleteYes, Republicans tend to be arrogant know-nothings, especially when talking about climate science, vaccines/covid, education, economics, and so on. And yes, Somerby has been promoting those same memes and talking points. But he may or may not be an actual Republican. He is certainly a doddering old fool, but that depends on the evidence of his writing here, not some scrap of paper in a registrar of voters. He has never said he is a Republican so I am unwilling to call him one -- but he is definitely Republican adjacent in his opinions here.
There are other arrogant know-nothings in the world besides Republicans.
“There are other arrogant know-nothings in the world besides Republicans.”
DeleteYou’re so close to self-awareness!
More namecalling.
DeleteAre you trying to tell me that you weren’t name-calling when you used the term “arrogant know-nothings”? Or “doddering old fool”?
DeleteOf course I was, but unlike you, I talk about other things too.
DeleteThat’s why I think you’re a whiner. You dish it out but cry if someone pushes back.
DeleteOk, I will stop pointing out what a useless waste of space your comments are. People can see for themselves.
DeleteI’m an arrogant know-nothing.
DeletePied Piper knows Roe v Wade is decided law, because Justices Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch told him so, while under oath.
DeleteNothing to worry about, half the United States.
I would have liked to announce that Daniel Clement Dennett III had died, but I didn’t know.
ReplyDeleteI never thought Crazy Guggenheim was funny.
ReplyDeleteJackie Gleason was a big favorite among Republicans.
DeleteI don’t know about that, but I do remember Gleason endorsing Nixon.
DeleteGleason was big, true, but let’s not fat shame.
DeleteI liked Art Carney.
DeleteThat “certain house” performed a necessary function.
ReplyDeleteIt was a Kant house.
Delete"When we ourselves were juniors in college, we failed Kant—or did Kant fail us? We've never quite settled that question."
ReplyDeleteThat depends on whether Somerby read the books and attended class or not. To pass a class, one need not agree with the philosopher's views, but you do need to be able to summarize them and think about them. Given that Somerby rarely quotes from a book beyond the prologue or first chapter, I doubt he did the assigned reading. Then he perhaps tried to talk his way past his ignorance with B.S. on the exams or papers. Just as he has done here with Wittgenstein (was that one of the other courses he failed). Being glib and lazy is a dangerous combination at Harvard, where the profs can see through the sophistry. And then Somerby comes here and tries the same tricks, pretending he really did want to read Kant (the nice thing) but just had to watch cable instead. As if.
I like Daniel Dennett because he was vocally atheist at a time period when that was less common. He helped create an intellectual climate where others could think about religion differently. I think that contributed to the decrease in religious belief in our nation (along with the more recent famous atheists of course).
ReplyDeleteI kant understand Bob's essay
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI spam Somerby's blog, and I sniff my fingers. My uncle was eaten by cannibals. Somerby is an asshole.
I am Corby.
"Law professor Alan Dershowitz predicted that Donald Trump would be murdered in prison if he is stripped of his Secret Service protections.
ReplyDeleteDershowitz made the remarks to Newsmax after Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) introduced a bill to revoke Secret Service benefits if the former president is convicted of a crime.
"So he would not have Secret Service if he's behind bars," a Newsmax host told Dershowitz."
Why would there be any need to kill Trump if he were in prison?
Wishful thinking on Dershowitz's part.
DeleteSorry, Dersh, but a standard-issue Reagan Republican, like Trump, still owns the party.
From Political Wire: “People close to him [Trump] are anxious about how he will handle having so little to do as he sits there for weeks on end, with only a handful of days of testimony expected to be significant.”
ReplyDeleteToo bad Trump can't read or he could bring a book.
anonymouse 3:23pm, so that’s how Political Wire is reporting on the “feelings” of the people close to Trump, huh? How will Trump handle the tedium?
DeleteThose mealy-mouthed disingenuous and oily little frauds.
Trump is now unable to campaign. That’s how he feels about it.
That’s not a feeling. It is a circumstance.
Delete
Delete"so that’s how Political Wire is reporting on the “feelings” of the people close to Trump, huh?"
Have empathy: Political Wire's uncle was eaten by cannibals.
Anonymouse 4:26pm, their uncle was likely all fillers and artificial ingredients. That runs in the family.
DeleteTreating a WWII flyer whose plane went down as some sort of joke is disrespectful. Yes Biden invited it by mentioning cannibals but he was merely saying they don’t know how he died. There were cannibals among interior tribes in Papua New Guinea in that time period. That doesn’t make it OK for Republicans to behave like children who don’t recognize the sacrifices families made in the war.
DeleteMy uncle wasn't a "flyer". He was eaten by Republicans.
DeleteI am Corby.
Anonymouse 4:45pm, yes, Biden did invite humorous remarks that happened, in this instance, to be directed toward Political Wire.
DeleteYou say worse things, directly pointed at your contrarians (politician or regular Joe), every day.
Stuff it.
Yamamoto Isoroku’s plane went down in New Guinea, but he was not eaten by cannibals.
DeleteThey preferred Chinese.
DeleteNot funny.
DeleteYamamoto Akira’s plane went down near Tokyo, but he wasn’t eaten by cannibals, either.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:40 pm, Godzilla.
DeleteGodzilla was post-war.
Delete“Why would there be any need to kill Trump if he were in prison?”
ReplyDeleteWow.
Don’t worry, the corrections officers will protect him.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:30, he’s not in jail?
DeleteThat isn’t an answer Cecelia. In prison he will have no opportunity to do anything that would make him a threat.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:34pm, you’re truly creepy.
DeleteIt is grandiose to think anyone will care that much about Trump once he is in jail.
DeleteAnonymouse 5;55pm,no, no, it’s comforting to know his opponents won’t klll him if he’s in jail. That’s very reassuring coming from people who think like that.
DeleteDershowitz said it.
DeleteI can see Dershowitz suggesting that Trump’s enemies thinking that it might be necessary to kill him rather than allowing him to serve as president.
DeleteI can’t fathom any defense attorney suggesting that Trump’s odds of being shanked are decreased in jail.
Cecelia, Trump killed thousands of Americans for his vanity because he promoted no masks and Covid being fake, like everything he dislikes after Biden lowered inflation with clear explanations.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:11pm, Trump did not say that Covid was fake.
DeleteYou’re not even good at deflections.
Instead, Trump tried to gas-light COVID, like it was some common NY Times political reporter, and not a deadly, viral pandemic.
DeleteWhat a moron.
If Trump wasn't a bigot, the Right might have a problem with him being a rapist. Alas, ...
DeleteOn the 300th anniversary of Kant’s birth, Somerby is shitting on philosophy.
ReplyDeletePhilosophers may be OK, but I don’t understand their work.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the paycheck of $4103 , I be certain that my friend as like actually taking home money in their spare time at their laptop. . there friend had bean doing this 4 weeks less than and bought a great Bugatti Veyron .
ReplyDeleteOpen this web………. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.SmartApp1.𝐜𝐨𝐦