As I sit at my desk thinking about Tuesdays class, I go for my notebook and realize it is not in my bag and I can not remember the question for the assignment. What makes me even more frustrated is that this morning I took my notebook in my hand, stood in the middle of my kitchen and wondered if i needed it today. What the hell?!!
Well, since I am here I might as well discuss something...
When discussing the different kinds of philosophy, (I have the actual names written in my notes but they do not seem to be popping into my head at the moment) those about self, and society always interested me. I can recall reading Nietzsche and being annoyed and in disagreement with some of his views on religion and society. I know I should come up with some examples but once again my memory fails me. All I can remember are the emotions an feelings I had when reading "Paradise Lost," I think was the name of the book. Any way, why was he considered a great thinker? Why are any of the classic philosophers considered great thinkers? I know this is an intro class but is there going to be any discussion or debate on this topic. I am just curious to know what makes a good thinker, what separates thinkers like Plato and Nietzsche, and what sets them apart from others.
1 comment:
It may seem to be a bit late to respond to your questions here, but they are good questions. What makes "good thought" good as thought is either 1) that it is clear and correct -- determined by certain standard rules of thinking called corporately "logic", or 2) that it is such a challenge to accepted ideas as to be worthy of commemoration. But in this latter case we would seem to be looking more at "art" than philosophy. Although Nietzsche is often classed as a philosopher, he was professionally a philologist (one who studies words and the use of words, particularly in literature, and specifically in Nietzsche's case in ancient literature), and much of his writing is perhaps more art criticism than philosophy in the usual sense. ("Paradise Lost", by the way, is a long poem by John Milton).
If a philosopher's work happens to be both novel (new, challenging, different) AND clearly thought out, why, then, the work is very likely to be celebrated -- even though it will also be taken as a pillar to be toppled. Thus, historians of philosophy talk about the great figures in philosophy as "revolutionary" -- Zeno revolutionized logic, Socrates revolutionized ethical thinking, Plato revolutionized epistemology, Aristotle revolutionized metaphysics, and so on. What was revolutionary what that they approached problems the answers to which for others had been simply accepted without question, and questioned the accepted positions, found them to be lacking in some way, and perhaps even went so far as to offer new solutions to the problems.
Post a Comment