you start to recognize the futility of different dispositions fighting
d63 wrote:I want to meander and fumble around on my last point a little more. But I would start with another quote from Rorty’s essay “Philosophy as Metaphor, Science, Politics” in Essays on Heidegger and Others:
“The latter are better metaphors for metaphor, because they suggest that cognition is not always
recognition, that the acquisition of truth is not always a matter of fitting data into a preestablished scheme. A metaphor is, so to speak, a voice from
outside logical space, rather than an empirical filling-
up of a portion of that space, or a logical-philosophical clarification of the structure of that space. It is a call to change one’s language and one’s
life, rather than a proposal about how to systemize
What we are getting at here is not just the important
role that metaphor plays in post-Neitzscheian
philosophy (once again:
“Sartre’s being-for-itself and being-in-itself?
Simulacrum? D&G’s rhizomatic network? Rorty’s mirror of reality? What are they if not metaphors:
a new way of talking about things that forces us to change our repertoire of sentences?”
(but the very real pragmatic function it can serve.
Anyone who has come to know Deleuze to any
degree can appreciate the role that osmosis (via free indirect discourse (can play in that process: that vague sense of having been altered. And like free
indirect discourse, metaphor works in an oblique
manner. The pragmatic/practical potential of it goes back to a point I made about conflict or what Layotard referred to as differends: the way opposing
views can break down to assumptions that, from the
nihilistic perspective, ultimately, float on thin air. Once again:
“I would first point out what may be one the consequences of recent discoveries of neuroscience
and the data that increasingly leans towards a more materialistic description of the relationship between the meat of the brain and what we experience as
mind. Now don’t get me wrong: I still hold out for the
possibility of participation in defining mind as an interface between the body (and its brain (and its environment via a non-linear feedback loop between
the two. But as neuroscience shows more and more
that we are who we are because of the physiological structure of the brain (and in the sense that Chomsky asserted (you start to recognize the futility of
different dispositions fighting (that between left and
right or that between continental and analytic approaches to philosophy (and the silliness of it given that, as neuroscience learns how hard-wired these
dispositions are in us, it makes no sense to alienate
those who don’t share our disposition especially when some of those people may be people we love. I mean we are always more than the ideologies we adopt.”
The point here is that given how hardwired ideologies
may be in the minds of people who risk our
destruction through man-made climate change or our enslavement through global capitalism, direct confrontation through reason may not only be futile,
but actually counter-productive in that it will only
alienate them and push them deeper into their system of beliefs. And outside of Rorty’s other two means of adding beliefs, perception and inference
(both of which are means the other must go through
on their own, metaphor or indirect poetic methods are the only means by which we can hope to resonate with, seduce, and participate in adding to
those systems of beliefs.
Brian Massumi , in his User’s Guide to Capitalism and
Schizophrenia, approaches this when he points out
the import of camouflage in his Deleuze and Guattarri based manifesto. And who better to undermine a king (a tyrant (than a joker saying pretty and entertaining
Orb wrote:Thanks. I alongside will need to do digging to get the full import.
d63 wrote:So in the hopes of sounding like I’m writing a real philosophical exposition, my intention here is to zero in and expand on a previous quote from Rorty’s essay “Philosophy as Science, Metaphor, Politics” in Essays on Heidegger and Others and hopefully push further into the nuances of metaphor in philosophy. Anyway:
“Both perception and inference leave our language, our way of dividing up the realm of possibility, unchanged. They alter the truth-values of sentences, but not our repertoire of sentences. To assume that perception and inference are the only ways in which beliefs ought to be changed is to adopt what Heidegger identified as the “mathematical” attitude. It is to assume that the language we presently speak is, as it were, all the language there is, all the language we shall ever need.”
Now the thing to note here is that Heidegger is noted as taking the “poetic” lean in philosophy –that is as compared to the scientific or political. However, as Rorty points out in a later essay (and that is if I understand him right (Heidegger fell short of his promise by turning his emphasis on the poetic approach into a mandate towards the obscure and esoteric language of the priest or shaman. In other words, Heidegger, by giving the poetic privilege over the political (that which is about social justice (showed the very elitist colors that may have been flying when he so blatantly subscribed to Nazism. This, as Rorty points out elsewhere, was the result of Heidegger’s reactionary disposition in the face of technology. And we should note here Heidegger’s rather eccentric choice of appearing before his classes garbed in the traditional German outfit you often see on polka bands.
The Artful Pauper wrote:I don't want to derail your thread, but I will just add one thing since it is relevant to what has gone before. You (and others interested) might consider checking out the works of Heidegger generally collected under the title Basic Works. In them you will find a Heidegger much more generous in his presentation than in his other works. Also, a little bird told me that if you find out their names and search for them you should be able to find them.
I will add though, to understand Heidegger's focus on poïesis you have to understand his stance on modern technology and the problem he felt arises from a hegemony of instrumental reasoning. Poetry, you might admit, does bring humanity closer to its connection with nature, the world, existence, or what have you, than for example creating machines. — I might say that creating machines is something essentially human, but it doesn't really improve out spiritual connection with Being. Heidegger's position was that thinking of Being brought us closest but poetry has the ability to absorb us and make us feel closer to existence even as an audience if not as performers or creators.
Has our modern world of ubiquitous technology brought us closer to eudaimonia (roughly, 'the good life') or have we perhaps even lost something that older civilizations had by living closer to nature? Is it desirable for humanity to change its trajectory? Is it possible any longer or have we entered an era where we are determined by our technology to pursue conquest at all costs?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]