Philosophy is, literally, the love of wisdom. The search for wisdom is the connection among philosophers across the ages. Does it connect to us slugs? What is the relationship between the academic world of philosophy and the real and working world? The philosophies of the great religions have great claims and access to the average guy; what about the academic seekers? How should we see the towers of academic philosophies?
Mordor comes to mind.
A little book on philosophies, The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain DeBotton, attempts to bring observances of the great thinkers into the daily problems of the every day man. The title of the book is a reference to Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, in which philosophy appears as an allegorical figure to Boethius to console him in the year he was imprisoned, leading up to his impending execution. A TV series was developed around it.
A popular book on philosophy? A TV series? Writing the Bible in the common tongue? Edward Skidelsky of the New Statesman wrote: "Comforting, but meaningless. In seeking to popularise philosophy, Alain de Botton has merely trivialised it....the conception of philosophy that it promotes is a decadent one, and can only mislead readers as to the true nature of the discipline." Mary Margaret McCabe in the Times Literary Supplement is a lot madder: "In the culture of the market economy, we miss the fact that philosophy is valuable in and by itself.... It is deeply dispiriting, then, that the latest attempt to popularize philosophy - that is to say, to make philosophy into televisual fodder - does so precisely on the basis that philosophers can provide us with useful tips.... This is not the dumbing down of philosophy, it is a dumbing out. Nothing in this travesty deserves its title; Boethius must be turning in his grave."
Philosophy is a closed union. Seats are limited. Colored need not apply. Don't you worry your pretty little head about this difficult stuff.
Public Relations for academics could be the new growth industry.
Here is DeBotton's quote from Nietzsche on the difficulties of life:
"What if pleasure and displeasure were so tied together that whoever wanted to have as much as possible of one must also have as much as possible of the other ... you have the choice: either as little displeasure as possible, painlessness in brief... or as much displeasure as possible as the price for the growth of an abundance of subtle pleasures and joys that have rarely been relished yet? If you decide for the former and desire to diminish and lower the level of human pain, you also have to diminish and lower the level of their capacity for joy."
Here is DeBotton's comment:
"Why? Because no one is able to produce a great work of art without experience, nor achieve a worldly position immediately, nor be a great lover at the first attempt; and in the interval between initial failure and subsequent success, in the gap between who we wish one day to be and who we are at present, must come pain, anxiety, envy and humiliation. We suffer because we cannot spontaneously master the ingredients of fulfillment."
Mary Margaret, I do not doubt that Nietzsche thinks a lot more and a lot deeper than this. But is this really a lot different from an intro course to the history of philosophy at The University of Central Florida? Can't academia teach us simple citizens anything? Art has become individual and personal; literature has become answer-free. Do you guys have to be completely separate from our lives except for Washington assistants, tax dollars and lobbyist groups?
C'mon, Mary Margaret, loosen up.
Mordor comes to mind.
A little book on philosophies, The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain DeBotton, attempts to bring observances of the great thinkers into the daily problems of the every day man. The title of the book is a reference to Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, in which philosophy appears as an allegorical figure to Boethius to console him in the year he was imprisoned, leading up to his impending execution. A TV series was developed around it.
A popular book on philosophy? A TV series? Writing the Bible in the common tongue? Edward Skidelsky of the New Statesman wrote: "Comforting, but meaningless. In seeking to popularise philosophy, Alain de Botton has merely trivialised it....the conception of philosophy that it promotes is a decadent one, and can only mislead readers as to the true nature of the discipline." Mary Margaret McCabe in the Times Literary Supplement is a lot madder: "In the culture of the market economy, we miss the fact that philosophy is valuable in and by itself.... It is deeply dispiriting, then, that the latest attempt to popularize philosophy - that is to say, to make philosophy into televisual fodder - does so precisely on the basis that philosophers can provide us with useful tips.... This is not the dumbing down of philosophy, it is a dumbing out. Nothing in this travesty deserves its title; Boethius must be turning in his grave."
Philosophy is a closed union. Seats are limited. Colored need not apply. Don't you worry your pretty little head about this difficult stuff.
Public Relations for academics could be the new growth industry.
Here is DeBotton's quote from Nietzsche on the difficulties of life:
"What if pleasure and displeasure were so tied together that whoever wanted to have as much as possible of one must also have as much as possible of the other ... you have the choice: either as little displeasure as possible, painlessness in brief... or as much displeasure as possible as the price for the growth of an abundance of subtle pleasures and joys that have rarely been relished yet? If you decide for the former and desire to diminish and lower the level of human pain, you also have to diminish and lower the level of their capacity for joy."
Here is DeBotton's comment:
"Why? Because no one is able to produce a great work of art without experience, nor achieve a worldly position immediately, nor be a great lover at the first attempt; and in the interval between initial failure and subsequent success, in the gap between who we wish one day to be and who we are at present, must come pain, anxiety, envy and humiliation. We suffer because we cannot spontaneously master the ingredients of fulfillment."
Mary Margaret, I do not doubt that Nietzsche thinks a lot more and a lot deeper than this. But is this really a lot different from an intro course to the history of philosophy at The University of Central Florida? Can't academia teach us simple citizens anything? Art has become individual and personal; literature has become answer-free. Do you guys have to be completely separate from our lives except for Washington assistants, tax dollars and lobbyist groups?
C'mon, Mary Margaret, loosen up.
No comments:
Post a Comment