Philosophy Now Forum

Raymond Tallis dives in head first.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/72/I_Ki ... r_Shallows

Excellent analysis of Sarah Palin's modus operandi that goes beyond the usual sneering and dismissal of her as 'nuts'. I like the way it seems to be starting out on that familiar road, but then turns off down a more bumpy track to a far more interesting destination.

The paragraph that starts by citing Heidegger's Being and Time struck a very loud chord with me. Not a book I've yet read, Being and Time but I'll certainly put it further towards the top of the 'to read' pile now. The paragraph struck a chord because it's a large part of an explanation of why I don't fit in anywhere. I'm too authentic. Too slippery for that 'psycho-social glue' to stick to. All too aware of my own extensive ignorance, not part of an 'epistemic community', I can never bring myself to be a 'ditto head'. Yet, like Raymond Tallis in this article I don't want to just sneer at those who are. I like to analyse everything. I'm interested in people. I find their banalities too boring to join in with, but the reasons for the existence of such banalities fascinating. An interested, disinterested amateur sociolinguist.

I think I'll also read that book Sarah Palin wrote. I want to gain greater insight into her knowingness.

"For Palin’s confident howler is a perfect illustration of the connexion between knowingness and lack of knowledge: the less you know, the less you will be aware of your ignorance. The familiar metaphor is that the wider the circle of our knowledge, the greater its contact with the unknown, and the more oppressive our feeling of cognitive inadequacy. By contrast, a small mind finds a small world to match it, and the smaller the mind the more it feels it has the world sussed."
--------------------------------------------------------------

But what about:

Heidegger was a brilliant and great philosopher. But he also subscribed to the Nazi ideology. My question is why? Is a plausible answer to be found in philosophy or psychology?

Guzman was a professor of philosopher. But he was also a violent Maoist. My question is why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abimael_Guzm%C3%A1n

How can such presumably critical thinkers subscribe to hateful political ideologies that directly result in the deaths of innocent people?

Hi Tom,

I think it's because being intelligent, or a philosopher, or having beauty, or anything else for that matter, doesn't necessarily mean you are a kind and caring person.

An interesting related question is that of why Hannah Arendt, once a student - and apparently lover - of Heidegger, continued to defend him after the war, charitably portraying his Nazism as romantic naivety. This was despite Arendt being Jewish, only narrowly escaping the gas chambers and going on to write an account of Eichmann's trial in which she memorably coined the phrase "the banality of evil".

Blinded by love or wedded to Heidegger's philosophical teachings? Or are the two inseparable?

tbieter wrote:"For Palin’s confident howler is a perfect illustration of the connexion between knowingness and lack of knowledge: the less you know, the less you will be aware of your ignorance. The familiar metaphor is that the wider the circle of our knowledge, the greater its contact with the unknown, and the more oppressive our feeling of cognitive inadequacy. By contrast, a small mind finds a small world to match it, and the smaller the mind the more it feels it has the world sussed."
--------------------------------------------------------------

But what about:

Heidegger was a brilliant and great philosopher. But he also subscribed to the Nazi ideology. My question is why? Is a plausible answer to be found in philosophy or psychology?

Guzman was a professor of philosopher. But he was also a violent Maoist. My question is why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abimael_Guzm%C3%A1n

How can such presumably critical thinkers subscribe to hateful political ideologies that directly result in the deaths of innocent people?

One of my favorite British writers on Professor of Philosophy Guzman http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0502td.html
http://www.peruencontacto.com/wp-conten ... Guzman.jpg

Dunce wrote:Excellent analysis of Sarah Palin's modus operandi that goes beyond the usual sneering and dismissal of her as 'nuts'. I like the way it seems to be starting out on that familiar road, but then turns off down a more bumpy track to a far more interesting destination.

The paragraph that starts by citing Heidegger's Being and Time struck a very loud chord with me. Not a book I've yet read, Being and Time but I'll certainly put it further towards the top of the 'to read' pile now. The paragraph struck a chord because it's a large part of an explanation of why I don't fit in anywhere. I'm too authentic. Too slippery for that 'psycho-social glue' to stick to. All too aware of my own extensive ignorance, not part of an 'epistemic community', I can never bring myself to be a 'ditto head'. Yet, like Raymond Tallis in this article I don't want to just sneer at those who are. I like to analyse everything. I'm interested in people. I find their banalities too boring to join in with, but the reasons for the existence of such banalities fascinating. An interested, disinterested amateur sociolinguist.

I think I'll also read that book Sarah Palin wrote. I want to gain greater insight into her knowingness.

13 uses of "I", 1 each of "me", "my", "myself".
16 first-person words in 15 sentences. We know a bit about you now. Whoever you are. Well done.

Hi tbeiter,

you said-
But what about:

Heidegger was a brilliant and great philosopher. But he also subscribed to the Nazi ideology. My question is why? Is a plausible answer to be found in philosophy or psychology?

Guzman was a professor of philosopher. But he was also a violent Maoist. My question is why?

How can such presumably critical thinkers subscribe to hateful political ideologies that directly result in the deaths of innocent people?

I am quoting myself from a different thread. perhaps, it will answer your query.

It happened once again.

Mere some moments of arrogance and ego posted a convincing win over hard earned wisdom.

I do not think it was about money, but, for pride.

This incident once again shows there are two types of philosophers.

The first category is that who tried to be philosophers. They put very hard effort in it and succeed.

The second category is that who did not try to be philosophers. Philosophy happened to them, by default and thus, they succeed.

One side there is Buddha, Socrates, and Mahavira etc.

The numbers in the other side is far bigger than the first side.

There is clear cut difference between studying the philosophy and happening the philosophy.

Typist says that he is an aphilosopher. And, the more important fact to be noticed is that he claims that he is studying it since 40 years. But, my friend, I want to ask you that where that aphilosopher has gone?

I do not know whether I will get the answer ever or not.

But, I feel that what you learned is not embedded with you; but, left there in the books only.

Still, my heart goes for him and I will miss him for sure, but, my vote goes to Mod. He is done exactly what should be done.

I feel that we can learn from this incident that there is huge gap between discussing ‘be here now’ and ‘be here now’ in real terms.

I feel that, perhaps, even typist will understand that what I meant by saying-
COMPLETE THE WHOLE CIRCLE FIRST, THEN ‘BE HERE NOW’.

If he let himself ‘be here now’ for some time, then these thoughts and moments of ego and arrogance would have been passed through him and he will be ‘be here now’.

But, my friend, my sincere wishes are with you and your wisdom.

May you feel calm and peaceful ‘be there now’.

With love ,
sanjay