First of all: always nice having you guys (Obe and Stuart) joining in the party. I always appreciate your comments –even if I don’t always understand Obe’s. But even when I don’t, it always feels like they’re worthy of trying to understand. Anyway:
I think I get what you’re getting at here, Obe, concerning aphorisms. But before I get to that, I pick up a lot from your pointing to the “alignment of the literal and figurative”. This seems to me to underlie the continental approach in that it focuses as much on style of expression as what it is expressing. This was actually brought up in a Philosophy Now article I read today, Yahia Lababidi’s “The Twin Souls of Oscar Wilde and Fredrich Nietzsche”. Lababida put a lot of emphasis on how Nietzsche put a lot of emphasis on making his writing poetical –sometimes at the expense of his philosophical system.
Furthermore, I would humbly offer up a point I have made many times before: that the biggest weakness in the continental approach lays in its detractors, rather than its practitioners, in that they tend to base their arguments against it on taking it too literally. They simply cannot get taking a more figurative approach to what a philosopher might say. And this may be, Obe (as you suggest), they cannot grasp the benefit of doing so.
Now as far aphorisms, I would say it is the medium I see myself mainly working in. And as far why, I would offer up a piece I previously wrote:
I get exactly what you mean, Stuart. There are a lot of times I’m not sure of what Obe is saying. And there may well be times he is not sure of what I am saying. But he always shows up –much like you- and that alone gives me reason to believe he is worthy of jamming with until we find a common rhythm and meaning.
That is not to mention that, (like you, once again) even when Obe is critical of me, they’re not an asshole about it.
But I get what you’re saying about talking past each other. I and Obe even had a discourse about that. That led to Obe’s suggestion of a mutual Hebrophrenic discourse (am I spelling that wrong?).
However, I would argue that one the more important functions of The Board (The Jam) is to allow us to talk past one another until enough of the other catches in our personal filter to give us a common understanding.
Another thing I would point out, Stuart, is that my recent studies have been based on philosophical journals such as Philosophy Now and The Harvard Review of Philosophy. And because of that (the articles based on the nature of it), my leading posts have kind of jumped all over the place. Wherever I have been, lately, it hasn’t been about one initial question. And because of Obe’s willingness to follow me through this, I can only give up love and respect.
I only hope you, Stuart, will take the time out to go with me as well. Philosophy is a lot like rock music and art in that, if you are going to do it, you have to get some sense of what its most recent practitioners are doing with it.
‘Doesn’t matter if you’re reading the same thing I am. Just jam with it, brother. Find out what you have to say about it based on what I say about it.
Hope to see you here again.
*
Anyway, my next study will be based on Raymond Tallis’ In Defense of Wonder , that is granted the book actually makes it to my house this time.
Should you have the resources to get it as well, please join me.