Philosophy Now Forum

Ellen Grabiner ponders the bearable lightness of being a Pinhead.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/84/The_ ... he_Pinhead

Sorry guys, I used to admire people who wrote like this, seeming to see deeper into stuff than I could. Now I've come to believe the apparent depth is merely artifice.

Like Heidegger, Zippy has made it his mission nothing less daunting than to undo the Cartesian project of fully rationalizing knowledge.
What a tedious cliché!

I've come to believe the apparent depth is merely artifice

Perhaps it's that you don't understand it. It is quite a cliche to reject something on the basis that it doesn't make sense to us without us having to put in some effort. I've always found Heidegger to be very intelligible. In fact, he's probably the only thinker that's ever demonstrated a sense of the rigour necessary for philosophical activity.

Good for you, and I am delighted to have given you an opportunity to brag. But what made you think I was criticising Heidegger?

ala1993 wrote:... I've always found Heidegger to be very intelligible. ...

Bloody Hell ala! Do you read him in German? As in English he's a nightmare to read.

In fact, he's probably the only thinker that's ever demonstrated a sense of the rigour necessary for philosophical activity.

This just seems nonsense.

Remember Wittgenstein, "What can be said at all can be said clearly;" Preface - TLP.

Arising UK wrote:

Remember Wittgenstein, "What can be said at all can be said clearly;" Preface - TLP.

Actually, I'd probably agree with you about this. However, I don't agree with Wittgenstein (or, for that matter, the positivist tradition) about what constitutes 'clarity'. I don't think that complexity and opacity are necessarily identical. I also think that Heidegger's attempt to reinterpret naming as a kind of doing (i.e. the way in which a noun operates as a verb, as it 'does' something through naming) illuminates the shortcomings of atomistic thought.

I also enjoy Wittgenstein's critique of positivism and his rigour. To answer your question about the language in which I read Heidegger, I'm more familiar with the English translations but have some acquaintance with the original German. It makes sense to me.

That would make sense as in English he's positively turgid at times, especially in "Being and Time". Its why I preferred his "What is called Thinking" as apparently it was based upon lecture notes and to my eyes its a much clearer style of thought.

I think one of the problems with B&T is that the published work is an unfinished draft (Heidegger abandoned it midway through when he started to conceive of Being as being something altogether more fundamental than beings). I still maintain that I found it to be quite clear and thoroughly enjoyed studying it (and still enjoy going back to it).

Mickthinks wrote:

I am delighted to have given you an opportunity to brag

I am similarly delighted that you have equated an understanding of a topic and the subsequent admittance of said understanding with an act of posturing. Earlier in this thread, you wrote:

I used to admire people who wrote like this, seeming to see deeper into stuff than I could. Now I've come to believe the apparent depth is merely artifice

Your use of the words 'seeming' and 'apparent' suggests a dismissive attitude towards thought that you do not understand; alongside this, it implies that such thought isn't really thought at all, but is rather something more akin to rhetoric, deliberately designed to confuse. I would argue that the above passage is an act of 'bragging', on your part, insofar as it is a claim to know what constitutes proper thought.

LOL You're bragging, ala. I guess you can't help it, but why not be honest and admit it?

LOL You're bragging, ala. I guess you can't help it, but why not be honest and admit it?

You're making assumptions and dismissing that which you haven't comprehended. Admit that first.

While we're here, if you're really finding Heidegger difficult why not try Dreyfus' guide to Being and Time (here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-World-Div ... 49&sr=8-17). Read that first, then we'll talk.

mickthinks wrote:But what made you think I was criticising Heidegger?

You skipped over this question, ala, and I think it may be important.

You do realise I was not criticising Heidegger, don't you?

Hi Mick. Sorry I didn't address your question. You wrote:

I used to admire people who wrote like this, seeming to see deeper into stuff than I could. Now I've come to believe the apparent depth is merely artifice

Given that the article linked to at the beginning of the thread was about Heidegger and the challenge of understanding his language (alongside the tendency to reject him as meaningless), it seemed reasonable to conclude that you were dismissing Heidegger's possible 'depth' as being merely 'apparent' (i.e. superficial). I suppose, however, that you're right insofar as you're not 'criticising' but merely 'dismissing' him. At least, that's what I took from what you wrote. Am I mistaken?

LOL What a silly tosser you are, ala!

Given that the article linked to at the beginning of the thread was about Heidegger ...

No, dude, it's about seeing Heidegger's ideas in the comics of Zippy the Pinhead.

I suppose, however, that you're right insofar as you're not 'criticising' but merely 'dismissing' him.

LOL Wrong again, dude! Maybe you'd better just stick to bragging...

Hi Mick

it's about seeing Heidegger's ideas in the comics of Zippy the Pinhead.

I'll concede to you that you weren't talking about Heidegger directly (although I still maintain that it was reasonable for me to think that you were, as your quote appeared in the form of a tagline and not a quote and you were quoting an article that was based on an equation of Heidegger's language with that of the character in the comic). However, my point is more fundamental insofar as it relates to the dismissal of that which we do not understand as being 'nonsense' (or, in this case, "mere artifice"). Whether or not we're talking about Heidegger or Ellen Grabiner (or even Zippy the Pinhead, for that matter), it's important not to dismiss but rather to engage and address. Whatever your opinion of Heidegger may be you have dismissed the content of the article due to the style in which it is written.

I'm also interested to know why you have a problem with the critique of the Cartesian project of rationality. You dismiss it as being 'cliched'. How so?

Lastly, I still find myself returning to this passage (from your first response to the original post).

I've come to believe the apparent depth is merely artifice

Given your insistance that you're not writing about Heidegger, am I correct in concluding that you're simply claiming that we are mistaken to try and relate cultural artifacts to philosophical writings? Or, if we're not 'mistaken', that we're just painting a pretty picture without any real content?