Er... just went to post a comment in reply to this post over at Glueboot about the respective logic/reasonings of Kant and Hegel ("Kant = joyous, Hegel = somber"), only to find that the comment box is not working. So, rather than let those five minutes of typing go to waste, I'll post my comment here 'out of context', for the sake of... um... posterity. This is what I wrote:
I also find this stuff quite interesting. Particularly the dilemma about 'which way to go', 'to whom to pin allegiances'... I too have found myself resolving the question of which philosophical method I prefer by having recourse to the approach to life that each approach would engender... Which sounds a rather Nietzschean criteria, doesn't it? Judging philosophy in the perspective of life?
Concluding comment here.
I also find this stuff quite interesting. Particularly the dilemma about 'which way to go', 'to whom to pin allegiances'... I too have found myself resolving the question of which philosophical method I prefer by having recourse to the approach to life that each approach would engender... Which sounds a rather Nietzschean criteria, doesn't it? Judging philosophy in the perspective of life?
Concluding comment here.
3 Comments:
Comments box not working...oops... not sure why that is.
Anyway, looking at it as a Nietzschean problem gives it a whole other perspective (perhaps one that it is more interesting) and one that I would love to add to my current project. However I think the various lecturers involved would have something to say on the matter as I'm trying to limit myself to Hegel and Kant; limit obviously in an incredibly broad sense.
But I must agree that I do the same thing. My philosophical allegiances tend to lie on the Deleuzean/ Nietzschean end of the spectrum... perhaps one of the reasons why mark k-p has decided to call me gleebot. In contrast, the Heideggereans I meet tend to always be caught up in questions of being and authenticity in a manner that I don't care much about. Glorifying the peasants isn't really my style... I prefer self-affirmation.
When it comes to Kant and Hegel I'm not really sure which one I would 'prefer to live by.' I find the compulsion that drives Kant's mode of reason to be er.. compelling but the lurking Bataillean in me is frequently intrigued by Hegel's negativity. Anyway, I change philosophical allegiance so frequently that any exclamations of joy over one philosopher is always pretty spurious.
Hrmm... that was a longer comment that expected. I think my comments boxes should be working now.
Glueboot,
As regards changing allegiance, I find myself in a very similar boat. My current relationship to philosophers is like that of a child unwrapping presents - whichever one I've just read seems the most exciting, as he (invariably 'he') is the newest. And the old ones lose their tarnish rather quickly. K-punk and Spinoza, for example, have put me right off Bataille and the whole 'transgression' thing.
Although I'm possibly caricaturing myself for the sake of modesty. I have, after all, always been at least a little hesitant about taking on Bataille as a philosophy for life, given the apparent requirement that one must experience madness in order to emulate his philosophy properly.
Don't give up on Bataille!!! Especially since Mark's reading of him isn't as wide as someone like Johneffay at Sweet Effay. I told Mark months ago to read 'Inner Experience' and he hasn't read it yet.... Inner Experience really must be read. And anyway, Bataille is wonderful in his misreading of Hegel as is his coming to terms with the 'Death of God,' and his own conversion from the Catholic Church (Bataille knife in God's back perhaps). Michel Surya points out in his biography of Bataille that only someone who has really loved the church can really hate it and properly criticise it. So there's another reason why he's interesting!
Transgression in itself isn't hugely interesting but I'm always intrigued by his discourse on the sacred. Maybe that's because I find everything so absurd and devoid of meaning that I agree that the sacred, or at least some creation of meaning, is needed. In a sense Cold Rationalism could be seen as 'The Church of Cold Rationalism,' as it only attributes sense to the senseless (like all things really).
Post a Comment
<< Home