Readers approaching Mellamphy's book from this [Anglo-American] tradition will find her style frustrating. What frustrated this reader the most, however, is that she doesn't appear to be interested in what Nietzsche was saying.I like it! I've long wondered why certain philosophers who are in themselves pretty good tend to attract so much bad scholarship. Nietzsche is a good example; in my view, he's not half as bad as many of his more enthusiastic defenders make him out to be. The same goes, I'd say, for the later Wittgenstein. What gives? Is there something in the work of these philosophers that draws so many hacks to them?
Friday, October 21, 2011
What Nietzsche was Saying
The closing line of a recent NDPR review:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
A sufficent level of obscurity attracts some number of the "Oh, wow" set?
I'll bite. I think it's the combination, in the target philosopher's work, of:
1) A number of interesting and valuable points made or theories expressed, and
2) Other, more obscure points open to many interpretations, and
3) An apparent theme linking 1 and 2, and
4) The absence of any "program" actually in the work.
1 makes the philosopher interesting, 3 provides the motivation for a search for an underlying program. 4 ensures one will never be found, and 2 provides flexibility of interpretation, so that the process of guessing what the program might have been can go on forever.
I once raised a point from Wittgenstein while in an argument with Isaac Levi. He immediately responded in his gravely, grumpy, dismissive way: "Philosophical kitsch. Wittgenstein and Nietzsche: nothing but philosophical kitsch..."
I think 10:58 pretty much hit the nail on the head. 4) should be slightly stronger: it's not just the absence of a program, but the explicitly (if sporadically) anti-programmatic nature of the work. Then when somebody comes up with a coherent argument precedd by "[Nietzsche or Wittgenstein] can be read as arguing..." they can be "criticized" with the author's own anti-systematic slogans.
Simpler analysis:
Bad philosophers have to go somewhere, so they gather around each other and around ideas/figures where it's hard to distinguish good philosophy from bad.
Wittgenstein predicted much of this himself, when he wrote (something like that) he feared that he'd mostly lead people to adopt a bunch of mannerisms or slogans and would fail to teach them anything serious. That's why, I think, the best work influenced by Wittgenstein (or Nietzsche) isn't done in his style at all, or use his terms, even. It just takes the lessons and uses them in different ways. On the other hand, when I hear people talking about language games or forms of life, I keep my hand on my wallet.
I always thought W & N were philosophical chic magnets, so I guess I'm a "bad philosopher".
wv: anterst; a priori interest
"Bad philosophers have to go somewhere."
Nonsense. Bad philosophers don't need anywhere special to go. That's what blogs are for, mon semblable, mon frere.
Well, Spiros. Come now. Both N & W were philosophical hacks. Birds of a feather flock together. Hacks attract hacks, etc...
You'll have to forgive me for thinking that you need to produce clear, cogent arguments in order to count as a good philosopher.
On a more serious note: well, I have to speak up here. I am far from being a Wittgensteinian, but...
He did leave us with the private language arg and the puzzle about rule following. Enduring problems, I think, in phil of lang. So not a complete hack.
Not having read Nietzsche, I believe he probably is a hack, since I like to criticize everything I haven't read as a rationalization :)
Nice to see a philosophy blog with a sense of humour. I feel that I have fallen into a pit of neo-cons over at the smoker, or something...
YFNA
ps: another word for W's quietism -- "shutupenzieism." Just a suggestion.
YFNA
I find both Nietzsche and the later Wittgenstein to be very stimulating thinkers even if they generally aren't really trying to prove anything. I think they attract bad thinkers because they write in an attractively aphoristic and literary style; because they are interesting as historical personalities (who also photographed well); and because their early followers (at least) treated them as sages or prophets or charismatic (thought) leaders. Most of our best philosophers of the last 100 years don't share many of these traits, and as such aren't attractive to people looking to show off. But let's not blame the writers for the poor taste of their fans.
I agree that Wittgenstein is good, but I think Nietzsche is the worst philosopher of the major philosophers. Though my analytic colleagues disagree about Wittgenstein, and frequently laugh about him (as they do about Nietzsche too). But N. has very poor arguments, when he bothers to argue. Mostly full of sophomoric remarks. Reading him is like reading first year philosophy papers written by smart alec types. So does that mean that those who spend a lot of time on him are bad thinkers or ranters as well?
Post a Comment