tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post5838967138217199152..comments2024-01-05T01:21:21.702-08:00Comments on <center>SPECULUM CRITICUM TRADITIONIS</center>: Living Questionsskholiasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-9988710441817100912010-01-08T13:38:46.163-08:002010-01-08T13:38:46.163-08:00di0genes,
The question arises-- which is more nih...di0genes,<br /><br />The question arises-- which is more nihilistic: the valuation of a 'cure for nihilism' over one for cancer, or vice-versa? I am not at all sure that the answer is obvious. It may even be that it's more nihilisitc to *pose* the question at all. While I doubt the value of any game of 'more-' (or 'less-') '-nihilisitc-than-thou' that goes on for very long, I confess I am troubled by the suggestion that nihilism would be a *merely* "personal" question. I really do believe it matters what collective narratives we have available to us--even if *where* this matters most is at the individual level. Whether or not I can find the 'cure' inside my own head depends in large part upon my access to the deeper language that has stood as a bulwark against meaninglessness. Trouble is, of course, that language itself eventually generates its own meaninglessness & must be renewed. (you see me cycling through speculation, critique, and tradition, over & over).<br /><br />I think you are quite right to point to the Roman example. I know you were mentioning it primarily as an example about art, but it reminds me that for all their differences from them, the Romans were closer to the Greeks than we are, and our notion of the old philosophers is indeed mediated to us by the rippled glass of the Romantics. (Not that I think the Romantics were merely wrong, or have nothing to say to us-- after all, *we* are far closer to *them* than to either Romans or Greeks!)<br /><br />In any case, I second your point that we still say "PhD" for the high-point of educational accomplishment, no matter what the field, not out of mere habit but because "wisdom is often mundane and common." I don't believe the ancient mode of philosophy *was* divorced from the mundane. I don't see philosophy as some skeleton key to 'the right answers' for any given question-- I think it is rather the *conscious* and reflective mode of asking any question whatsoever. In an earlier comment you said, "I... am sure that whether it's being a husband or a parent or a clinician or a snow shoveler, I do it all better because of philosophy." I think this is *exactly* right. Philosophy that doesn't do this is a parody of what it was. But of course it doesn't always look this way to the City; Socrates was not the only teacher who was accused of corrupting the youth, though he claimed to be concerned only to make people (himself most of all) better. Badiou warns somewhere that it isn't easy to tell the philosopher from the sophist. Well, I suppose he's just citing Nietzsche, isn't he.skholiasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05410057905377189336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1651908162607091292.post-39640145234638142622010-01-07T13:50:57.440-08:002010-01-07T13:50:57.440-08:00Let me briefly note that I am following the argume...Let me briefly note that I am following the argument as you have been framing it and find it all very interesting. However, I would like to interject that I have another, much less grand view of philosophy as something entirely practical. I guess I would like to demystify the philosopher much as I would remind that before we had the artistic genius of the Romantic Era we had the much more Roman concept of the artisan. By showing us how to reify ideas and concepts Plato may have indeed made the reification of God inevitable and stirred up an unending metaphysical debate, but he also gave us some very useful and powerful tools. I don't know if I believe that a triangle is ever a "real" thing but assuming it is can be pretty useful when you're building a bridge. The pinnacle of our educational system is still a doctorate in philosophy whether it be in music or math or engineering. That isn't just vestigial language, it reflects the reality that wisdom is often mundane and common. Loving execution of mundane wisdom is not only true philosophy it can also be a thrilling spiritual event. I follow that the would be architects of society may be trying to engineer a peace between warring elites and see themselves in a central role but really only they themselves and their followers would ever conceive or believe such a narrative. Nietzsche may have dismissed the importance of the bench scientist but in my opinion he is no more qualified to place value on that philosophy than I am to divine the inner spiritual life of Mozart. Common science will never find a cure for nihilism (nor I might add ever be a cause of nihilism) but it will eventually find a cure for cancer and frankly that means more to me. Ultimately the question of nihilism is a personal one that is being projected onto the world, the cause and cure remain locked in our own heads.dy0geneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12265699357881251867noreply@blogger.com