Philosophy Now Forum

Education is the cultivation of wisdon and virtue.

"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few are to be chewed and digested..." Sir Francis Bacon

I'm preparing my first book review on a book by Mary Midgley. She prompted me to do some thinking on education, especially classical education. In the meantime, here is a brief essay by Russell Kirk that merits attention. http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/Russell-Kirk.html

Sheesh, Tom.
I can't believe I read the whole thing!!
You are a pusher who has me addicted to Russell Kirk.

"Nietzsche liked to speak scornfully of Darwin. Darwin possessed, he says, "the intellect of a respectable but mediocre Englishman." A more damaging comment, from a German, is scarcely imaginable."
THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN, , John Passmore, p. 394

Comments anyone!

Hello Tom

I take it that the reference is to Beyond Good and Evil, 253, where he makes the same comment on Mill and Spencer. In section 252, he says that the English are not philosophical, and cites Bacon, Hobbes, Hume (he does not distinguish between English and Scottish) and Locke.

Friedrich had a colourful way of putting his points, which makes his works a pleasure to read, but behind that there is a serious discussion to be had about the ramifications of Darwinism and of its widespread acceptance, which we can have while accepting the science. There is an interesting article here:

http://www.shpltd.co.uk/call.pdf

I do not know if it is a comfort to anyone here, but Nietzsche would sling mud at anyone, including God.
You are welcome to sling mud back at him. If you do it in a great style he may be even proud of you (if he can see you from the Beyond).

He believed himself to be the god Dyonisos, among other things. Due to syphilis changing his brain.

For those young men who admire Nietzsche very much and would rather not to I recommend the chapter "On chastity" in "Thus spoke Zarathustra".
He "preferred to get into the hands of a murderer than into the dreams of a female in heat" (eines brünstiges Weibes) and more.

Nietzsche rests his bottom on my television set. I have a Nietzsche doll and can claim that I watch Nietzsche on t.v.

Do you poke it with pins?

I somehow suspect that Nietzsche would turn in his grave to be associated with television...

He would be the greatest writer of TV commercials ever.
He would be rich and famous.
He would not live in poverty, waiting for some care packeges from his sister, whom he honestly hated.

I do not watch television shows -- I use the machine only for movies.
I think Nietzsche might have gotten a kick out of sitting on t.v.
FYI: Wittgenstein enjoyed his Westerns, according to Ray Monk's biography.

In my reading of THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN by John Passmore, I arrived this morning at this claim by Erich Fromm [ in Man for Himself (London, 1949) p. 189] on p. 437:

"Man can be happy, Fromm somewhat portentously observes, only when he "has found the answer to the problem of human existence: the productive realization of his potentialities." On this view, there can be no clash between freedom and happiness: Freedom is a necessary condition for happiness. As for literature and science, they are special forms of happiness."

When I read this, I immediately thought of Richard's book PROJECTS & VALUES - An Ethic For Today ( www.projectsandvalues.com ). I could not remember if he explicitly said anything about happiness. Well, he did, on p. 2:

"... The foundation for our values is an ethic which says that it is good to pursue our projects. The ethic recognizes all that is finest about human life, because the pursuit of our projects requires the exercise of our talents. The ethic is a natural one, because it is in tune with our needs and is likely to promote our happiness..." (My Emphasis)

I suspect that the late William F. Buckley, Jr. lived a happy life. He certainly lived a life of pursuing projects.

Can you think of other significant project-pursuers?

I'm in heaven! See HTTP://bietersblog.blogspot.com/

Hi Tom,
I recommend Jean-Paul Pecqueur's book, Against Happiness.
Yes, I am being contrary again.

P.S. My husband has been following your blog, too. He says you are the only man he would let me run off with!!!!! hee hee hee

I finally finished reading all 512 pages. An excellent one-paragraph description of the book is at http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1711 .

Passmore defines absolute perfection at pages 14-15:

"So far, we have distinguished three different modes of human perfection: technical perfection, which consists in performing, with maximum efficiency, a specialized task; obedienciary perfection, which consists in obeying the commands of a superior authority, God or a member of the elite; teleological perfection, which consists in attaining to that end in which it is one's nature to find final satisfaction. Abstractly separable, they may, in the writings of a particular perfectibilist - or anti-perfectibilist - be variously conjoined and variously disjoined. All three rely, in some degree, on the concept of function, an alloted task, an end to be pursued, whether set by other men, by society, by God, or by Nature."

Regarding the author's "countless supporting reflections" mentioned in the description, here are two examples relating to anarchism, which has the goal and end of abolishing government:

"Anarchism is an attempt to turn political action into a "happening" and in anarchism there is a pecular mixture of rational criticism and mystical aspiration." p. 505

"There is not the slightest ground for believing, with the anarchist, that if only the State could be destroyed and men could start afresh, all would be well." p. 512

I bought Passmore's book to provide some historical context for my continuing study of Richard Baron's book, PROJECTS & VALUES - An Ethic for Today.

In one sense, Richard is not a perfectibilist. The focus of his thought is on the journey, rather than the destination. Thus, my mentor states at page 201:

"One other point of contrast with some religions can be noted. They tend to emphasize a desirable state at the end of the road, such as union with God in Paradise. The state need not be desirable in a crudely hedonistic sense. It may well be desired because it seen as right, rather than because it is seen as pleasant. But the emphasis is on the destination. The ethic of projects, on the other hand, places the emphasis on the journey, on the pursuit of our projects. The emphasis is on the journey even though it is on their pursuit with a reasonable prospect of fulfillment."

Finally, as a Catholic, I was once traumatized by a post from Richard in the old forum. He dared to criticize the virtue of humility! "Does the lad, this heathen, advocate the vice of pride?," I wondered! But, then I bought his book. His thought is nuanced. Consider this at page 121:

"Ethics that emphasize virtues do not however have to fit well with seeing our own projects as meritorious, nor need they promote associated values. A religion that identified humility or submission as a virtue would be likely to be hostile to the pursuit of of projects that we had devised. It would instead be likely to identify a project that was already laid down for us, to live in a given way and ultimatelyto achieve some specified goal such as union with God. If we accept that humility and submission were virtues (and I do not), then we would be likely simply to accept the prescribed project and not to give serious consideration to alternatives. We might be encouraged to choose the prescribed project freely, but we would not be invited to to make other choices. Autonomy is negated when it is reduced to the opportunity to make a free choice from a list that contains only one item."

Rather than "union with God," I humbly suggest to my heathen friend that the goal of a particular monk (whose book I read) is consistent with an ethic of projects: "to be in the presence of God".

I recommend both books.

Tom

tbieter wrote:Rather than "union with God," I humbly suggest to my heathen friend that the goal of a particular monk (whose book I read) is consistent with an ethic of projects: "to be in the presence of God".

Hi Tom

I wuold have no quibble with either goal, although I would choose neither for myself. My only concern would be that the goal should be chosen by the person pursuing it, from a range of alternatives, and not prescribed by someone else - although it might well have been recommended by someone else.

This morning I began reading IN PRAISE OF PREJUDICE - The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas by Theodore Dalrymple.

http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Prejudice- ... 462&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594032 ... eader-link

Here, complete, is Chapter 2 "The Uses of Metaphysical Skepticism":

"We may inquire why it is that there are now so many Descartes in the world, when in the seventeenth century there was only one. Descartes, be it remembered, who so urgently desired an indubitable first philosophical principle, was a genius: a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who wrote in prose of such clarity, that it is still the standard by which the writing of French intellectuals is, or ought to be, judged. Have we then, bred up a race of philosophical giants, whose passion is to examine the metaphysics of human existence? I hope I will not be accused of being an Enemy of the People when I beg leave to doubt it.

The popularity of the Cartesian method is not the consequence of a desire to remove metaphysical doubt, and find certainty, but precisely the opposite: to cast doubt on everything, and thereby increase the scope of personal license, by destroying in advance any philosophical basis for the limitation on our own appetites. (My Emphasis) The radical skeptic, nowadays at least, is in search not so much in truth, as of liberty - that is to say, of liberty conceived of the largest field imaginable for the satisfaction of his whims. He is in the realm of moral conceptions what the man who refuses to marry is in the realm of relationships: he is reluctant to foreclose on any possibilities by imposing limits on himself., even ones that are taken to be purely symbolic. I once had a patient who attempted suicide because her long-time lover refused to propose to her. I asked him the reason for his refusal, and he replied that it (marriage) was only a piece of paper and meant nothing. "If it is only a piece of paper and means nothing," I asked him, "why do you not sign it? According to him, it would change nothing, but it would give her a lot of pleasure." Suddenly, becoming a man of deepest principle, he said that he did not want to live a charade. I could almost hear the argument that persuaded the man that he was right: that true love and real commitment are affaires of the heart, and need no sanction of the church or state to seal them.

The skepticism of radical skeptics who demand a Cartesian point from which to examine any question, at least any question that has some bearing on the way they ought to conduct themselves, varies according to the subject matter. Very few are so skeptical that they doubt the sun will rise tomorrow, even thought they might have difficulty offering evidence for the heliocentric (or any other) theory of the solar system. These skeptics believe that when they turn the light switch, the light will come on, even though their grasp of the theory of electricity might not be strong. A ferocious and insatiable spirit of inquiry overtakes them, however, the moment they perceive that their interests are at stake - their interests here being their freedom, or license, to act upon their whims. Then all the resources of philosophy are available to them in a flash, and are used to undermine the moral authority of custom, law, and the wisdom of the ages." pages 6-7 (Emphasis mine)

QUESTION: Generally, do you agree or disagree with the contention of the author?

My Position:

I agree.

I have been a spectator of the effects that the Sexual Revolution and the Feminist Movement have had on the institution of marriage. Rejecting marriage as a condition precedent, young women began to cohabit. But, in my experience practicing law, at about year seven, the woman would raise the issue of marriage and children. The guy would then break up with her, causing her a great amount of pain. To deal with the disputes over property incident to these breakups, the Minnesota Legislature passed a "cohabitation" law that stated that the court had no jurisdiction over the dispute if the parties had not signed a written contract.

In my opinion, males, not females, were the real beneficiaries of the doctrines of sexual freedom taught to the females in their Womens' Studies courses.

Tom

P. S. One of my philosophy professors was a young radical Ph.d out of the U. of Michigan. He railed against cars and MacDonalds. He was a vegetarian and road a bicycle. In class, I thought that he advocated "open marriage". He expressly taught that authenticity required one to actually live one's beliefs. He left UMD for a tenured position at Luther College in Iowa. A philosophy major student of his also transfered to Luther. A year or so later, he called me for legal advice. He and his wife were in a custody battle. Since their days at UMD, she had been secretly seeing the student, who now had graduated and had accepted a teaching position on the East Coast. She wanted to marry the student and take the kids with her. The end result was that he lost his wife and kids as a consequence of his belief in and practice of "open marriage".

For other case studies see http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Mar ... dpp_ttl_in