Comments on: Nozick on Intellectual Humility

By: エドハーディー

エドハーディー — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:33:02 +0000

ectual opponent, Edmund Husserl, George L. Kline concluded:

“Shestov’s generosity and largeness of spirit seem to me unique among existentialist thinkers, most of whom – including the brilliant, often perverse, and some

By: プロペシア通販

プロペシア通販 — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:32:23 +0000

thanksan interesting blog

By: Michael McIntyre

Michael McIntyre — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:31:26 +0000

I agree with this post. Many philosophers seem uncomfortable with allowing their readers to see how the “final product” gets created. They want us to focus on the end result – to appreciate its elegance or its truthfulness or what-have-you – and not the process that lies behind or underneath the end result. It’s almost like think they want their readers to believe that they “discovered” their philosophy in much the same way that Newton “discovered” gravity – like it fell into their laps, wholly-formed. It’s totally untrue, of course.

And great philosophers are also frequently ungenerous towards other philosophers, often even towards the ones from whom they have derived the most benefit, by refusing to acknowledge influences.

One philosopher who bucked this trend was the Russian existentialist philosopher, Lev Shestov (1866-1938). Here are two revealing quotes from his works (cited by George L. Kline in Religious and Anti-Religious Thought in Russia):

“People are offended when I enunciate two contradictory propositions simultaneously. . . . But the difference between them and me is that I speak frankly of my contradictions while they prefer to conceal theirs, even to themselves. . . . They seem to think of contradictions as pudenda of the human spirit.”

“I must admit that Berdyaev has caught me. But why should he want to catch me? . . . Words and thoughts are only imperfect means of communication. It is impossible to photograph the soul . . . so we are obliged to use words. . . . But now Berdyaev tries to catch me. Instead of . . . realizing how impossible it is to find adequate expressions, coming to my aid, and guessing [my meaning], he thrusts a stick between the spokes of my wheels.”

After noting the generous praise that Shestov showed towards his chief intellectual opponent, Edmund Husserl, George L. Kline concluded:

“Shestov’s generosity and largeness of spirit seem to me unique among existentialist thinkers, most of whom – including the brilliant, often perverse, and sometimes profound Kierkegaard – have been jealous of their subjectivity, proud of their suffering, and ungenerous toward the thinkers from whom they have learned most.”

By: links for 2010-04-05 « Lasting Impression

links for 2010-04-05 « Lasting Impression — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:03:22 +0000

[...] Nozick on Intellectual Humility [T]he usual manner of presenting philosophical work puzzles me. Works of philosophy are written as though their authors believe them to be the absolutely final word on their subject. But it’s not, surely, that each philosopher thinks that he finally, thank God, ahs found the truth and built an impregnable fortress around it. We are all actually much more modest than that. For good reason. Having thought long and hard about the view he proposes, a philosopher has a reasonably good idea about its weak points; the places where great intellectual weight is placed upon something perhaps too fragile to bear it, the places where the unravelling of the view might begin, the unprobed assumptions he feels uneasy about. (tags: nozick intellectual humility thought argument logic philosophy quotes writing) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)links for 2010-03-29Republican Troubles and the Big Tent of the Democrats [...]

By: Sophomore

Sophomore — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:21:38 +0000

I’d suggest that the problem Nozick’s describing is a far more general one, by no means limited to philosophy. I’ve experienced it writing about history and law, sometimes very acutely. I do think this was an excellent description.

What I wonder now is whether Nozick said anything interesting about how he intended to resolve the problem? Was it, as he hinted, that he would make his own work more transparent? Or did he decide that it was necessary to be opaque? Or something else? And, to the extent you’re interested in one reader’s vote, I’d be interested in hearing about other writers or writings that you think are especially insightful.

By: JamieMc

JamieMc — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 18:30:28 +0000

This doesn’t describe the contemporary philosophical work that I know. I’m in rhetoric though, so I suppose we cherry pick stuff that is more open ended and inviting. In my mind, the whole point of philosophy is to unveil the “distortions, malings,” etc. so that we can do more self aware practical work. But I’m in rhetoric. We think everything is always contingent and always emerging.

By: John Merryman

John Merryman — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 01:58:01 +0000

The framing is the packaging. Otherwise there is no box to be inside or outside. Definition is limitation and limitation is definition.
Or more cynically, when you’ve boiled away all that’s meaningless, what’s left must be the meaning.
The source is the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell.

By: sam

sam — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:35:45 +0000

I dunno. Parmenides gives the Theory of Ideas of pretty good going over, and surely Wittgenstein’s (published) journey from the Tractatus to the Investigations is a recording on his part of the “distortions, pushings, shovings, maulings, gougings, stretchings, and chippings” that he indulged in along the way from the earlier to the later.

By: finzent

finzent — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:36:38 +0000

I have to say, though, that, in Anarchy, State and Utopia at least, Nozick himself was pretty reticent about possible weaknesses he perceived in his own work, if there even were any.

By: DivisionByZero

DivisionByZero — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:54 +0000

That’s interesting. That’s not how I write at all. I create a shape and see if it fits. If it doesn’t fit I try a different shape and another and another. If necessary I’ll walk away and try from a different angle. When everything lines up it snaps into place with a resounding click that I feel in my gut. Obviously I don’t write much.