I have heard it said that men choose to become Sociologists because they loath society and that men choose to become Psychologists because they loath themselves. I cannot definitively confirm those statements, but have become confident that contemporary Philosophers secretly hate truth.
Truth is compelling. Truth takes no prisoners. To the post-modernist mind, Truth is the beautiful woman who--upon discovering that she is either unattainable or, in their impotence, impossible to satisfy--they choose to despise from their self-loathing. To them, Truth is sour grapes.
Be well,
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Of Sand and Stone
Day 3
Class is interesting once again. Though our class is described as Advanced Argumentation, Critical Reasoning, and Public Speaking; we tend to spend a great deal of time on Philosophy. Not that I mind terrible much—Philosophy is one of my favorite topics. It is my “home court,” if you will.
For this week we had quite a bit of reading: articles by Michael Foucault, J. L. Austin, and James Baldwin. It may seem impetuous to state so after only a brief reading, but Baldwin is a great writer. The quality of his prose veritably seeps from the pages. Note that agreement with an author is not synonymous with the greatness of an author—Baldwin steps into his own biases once or twice as we all do—but there is no denying the quality.
Foucault and Austin, by turn, are—to my mind—lesser part writers and more philosophical communicators, though no less influential and both men are widely read in academia. Specifically we hear from Foucault on his definitions and conditions of “parrhesia.” From Austin we discuss the instances of “performative utterances.” Both men attempt to define types of communication. What they have in common is that they use the words “true” and “truth” in unique ways to communicate philosophical points. In Foucault’s case, the proof of truth is evidenced by the saying of it. In Austin’s, the reality of truth is created by the act of saying.
I can see the validity in both positions, but only in the framework of their intellectual constructs. We must let authors define their terms within their own works to evidence their positions. But such definitions and constructs must remain in context lest they extend beyond the scope of their isolated arguments into areas for which they are unsuited. I detect that Foucault’s and Austin’s definitions—intended to remain contained within their litero-philosophical laboratories—has escaped into the wild. Thus, like wildfire, that which was designed as constructive wrecks havoc and damage to the psyche—cracking foundations best left whole.
It is therefore little wonder to me that those who are given first to reading the works of Foucault and Austin (et al) prior to or instead of Jefferson and Madison (et al) might feel the world more made of sand than stone, and noble ideas more malleable than authoritative.
Class is interesting once again. Though our class is described as Advanced Argumentation, Critical Reasoning, and Public Speaking; we tend to spend a great deal of time on Philosophy. Not that I mind terrible much—Philosophy is one of my favorite topics. It is my “home court,” if you will.
For this week we had quite a bit of reading: articles by Michael Foucault, J. L. Austin, and James Baldwin. It may seem impetuous to state so after only a brief reading, but Baldwin is a great writer. The quality of his prose veritably seeps from the pages. Note that agreement with an author is not synonymous with the greatness of an author—Baldwin steps into his own biases once or twice as we all do—but there is no denying the quality.
Foucault and Austin, by turn, are—to my mind—lesser part writers and more philosophical communicators, though no less influential and both men are widely read in academia. Specifically we hear from Foucault on his definitions and conditions of “parrhesia.” From Austin we discuss the instances of “performative utterances.” Both men attempt to define types of communication. What they have in common is that they use the words “true” and “truth” in unique ways to communicate philosophical points. In Foucault’s case, the proof of truth is evidenced by the saying of it. In Austin’s, the reality of truth is created by the act of saying.
I can see the validity in both positions, but only in the framework of their intellectual constructs. We must let authors define their terms within their own works to evidence their positions. But such definitions and constructs must remain in context lest they extend beyond the scope of their isolated arguments into areas for which they are unsuited. I detect that Foucault’s and Austin’s definitions—intended to remain contained within their litero-philosophical laboratories—has escaped into the wild. Thus, like wildfire, that which was designed as constructive wrecks havoc and damage to the psyche—cracking foundations best left whole.
It is therefore little wonder to me that those who are given first to reading the works of Foucault and Austin (et al) prior to or instead of Jefferson and Madison (et al) might feel the world more made of sand than stone, and noble ideas more malleable than authoritative.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Later in the Evening, Day One
9:30 PM
Well…in the first session of my first class I have been instructed that Truth is relative and that America has failed at democracy. If there is such a thing a liberal bias test, so far we have failed it. As evidence I offer a paraphrase of a brief conversation I had with the professor at the break:
Me, “Professor, should we assume then that you lean toward subjectivism?”
Prof., “Well you should never assume, that is what gets you in trouble. And it depends on what you mean by ‘lean’ and ‘subjective,’ doesn’t it.”
Me, “Subjective infers that you do not believe in absolute truth—that truth if relative to place, time, and circumstance.”
Prof., “Well then…yes.”
The professor is amiable enough and obviously bright, if significantly eccentric and prone to ad hominem digression. I find those qualities tolerable. But it remains to be seen if I and my obviously contrary viewpoint will get the fair shake I felt denied two decades ago.
Well…in the first session of my first class I have been instructed that Truth is relative and that America has failed at democracy. If there is such a thing a liberal bias test, so far we have failed it. As evidence I offer a paraphrase of a brief conversation I had with the professor at the break:
Me, “Professor, should we assume then that you lean toward subjectivism?”
Prof., “Well you should never assume, that is what gets you in trouble. And it depends on what you mean by ‘lean’ and ‘subjective,’ doesn’t it.”
Me, “Subjective infers that you do not believe in absolute truth—that truth if relative to place, time, and circumstance.”
Prof., “Well then…yes.”
The professor is amiable enough and obviously bright, if significantly eccentric and prone to ad hominem digression. I find those qualities tolerable. But it remains to be seen if I and my obviously contrary viewpoint will get the fair shake I felt denied two decades ago.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
