see MY
WRITING
for explanation of this document
Philosophy Notes
EE
63
The harm supposed to have been done by philosophy, Some of the
accusations
levelled against Aristotle,
Descartes, the dissociation for which they
are held
responsible, actually provide a new motive for admiring these thinkers.
Perhaps
errors of such magnitude are even more valuable than truths? Creativity
of Maya.
115&
Capra’s book The Tao of Physics.
Illuminating on physics, weak on oriental mysticism. No study of
western philosophers,
no mention of Kant. Mysticism has been linked up with science before,
and far
more effectively, as by Sidney Klein in Science
and the Infinite.
Looking
to sub atomic physics for the ultimate truth of things. is fatal.
Everything throws
itself back into the same confusion and the word is confusion.
Blake’s image of
Hippy
oriental mysticism is a rabble philosophy. A rabble philosophy ought to
transmute into a hierarchical one, which is paganism. Then it would not
grasp
for such things as are beyond its comprehension but pay them due
respect.
Philosophical
problem of the nature of explanation. Wittgenstein,
Nietzsche and
Hegel, all
think in terms of overcoming tensions. Hegel
by new synthesis,
Wittgenstein by dissolving
problems, Nietzsche by overcoming poisons. Perhaps the diet of the
enlightened
man should consist largely of poisons, like Paul’s epistles. But no
problems
are solved simply pointing to some mystical authority, Leary style,
suggesting
the solution lies in faith and obedience. That is a very crude mode of
thought,
a form of rabble philosophy. Hippy oriental mysticism, a new
Our
concepts used for handling our everyday experience, time, matter, space
etc,
contain an intrinsic connected logic/grammar of their own. The pain of
philosophical
confusion springs from not knowing our way around our own concepts.
Scientists
apply new and special meanings to our everyday concepts and find
mathematical connections
between these new forms,
Too
many people are happy to live with paradox, and look for simplistic
magical style
solutions. Science fiction perpetuates these half understood
confusions. Thus the
notion will persist of unfathomable mysteries and paradoxes, opaque to
all but
a few top physicists...
FF
51
Solipsism
116
Philosophy and self deception. The basic root of self deception
the obsession
with being. To find people hateful is seen as false and as a lack of
correct
perspective. From certain perspectives people are hateful. Self
deception here
consists in viewing this as the permanently valid attitude. But the
normal
person here is as much self deceived as the one he considers jaundiced.
Thus
the Wittgensteinian notion of
philosophy as a return and also a
deepening. The
idea (Gellner and Marcuse) that linguistic philosophy gives all its
support to
the established values is nonsense.
188&
The philosopher it is said must communicate his wisdom, write it
down. Why?
That he may clearly be seen to be a philosopher? Otherwise no one will
believe
that he is, and his persistent unreasonableness will be seen as self
delusion,
or will even be such.
194&
Kant
and Einstein.
Deism
of
GG
53
Feyerabend quote on modern science and its abandonment of philosophy
for
business considerations.
Defence
of Popperian analysis.
90&
Dishonesty of Feyerabend introducing left wing presuppositions
unacknowledged.
97
Post Galileo, neutrality of reality. I am suspicious of any
supposed advance in
pure philosophy which dismisses all this as merely mistake.
193
Thought can so to speak underpin experience. When thought is free it
really can
do this, which is what Plato really means, it can create experience
itself.
Matter in the Gnostic sense becomes the faeces of necessity, as when
the possibility
of thought appears bound and restricted by practical considerations to
a particular
social and cultural framework.. Platonic and hermetic traditions,
226
Idea of private meanings criticised.
232&
Nature of meaning. Philosophy should open us to all possibilities of
thought,
feeling and experience. Opening the door to all viewpoints, breaking
down
limits rather than setting us tasks. Antimetaphysical philosophy seeks
to
establish the right and solidity of ideas and purposes independently of
metaphysical justification, it thus supports freedom and the right to
deviate,
Russell’s
conception of philosophy was to make empiricism work logically. This to
him was
what generated interesting philosophy, he claimed not to understand
late Wittgenstein
because Wittgenstein bypassed this aim.
261
Modern ideas, plebeian ideas, idea which only scratch the surface of
things,
ideas to which the mass are attracted.
Philosophy
dominant and recessive. Recessive when allowing different
possibilities, even shallow
ones to work. As when we hold that the possibilities really are
incompatible
and that no attempt can be made to combine them…In its political form
it
becomes dominant In this place it is intolerant, ruthless in the
protection of
its recessive sister.
HH
129
I do not see it as my will to be merely a philosopher in the sense of
one who
has produced a set of intellectual concepts ingeniously strung
together, the
opium aim of Coleridge and others. (Note the feeling under opium that
opium is
a lie). I want to be able to guide people, by inspiration to a mode of
life a
game, if you will, which is perfect in itself, ie perfectly
satisfactory, that
feels satisfactory. Philosophers generally manage to achieve this,
insofar as
they do, not by associating some feeling or other with their thought,
in a
Pavlovian or Lockian sense, but through their ability to convey the
feeling
that truth has been found.
135&&
The ultimate oracle. Philosophy and the claim to ultimate truth
JJ
51
Art is something largely outside the conscious will of the artist, a
language
to express what has to be expressed. The philosopher is a being cold
and
abstracted, often he is inhuman. He is like the mathematician in that
he deals
with abstractions. The philosopher is not really to be thought of as
slave of
the truth in the way that nay authentic artist must be. He is the
juggler in
the Tarot pack, he makes the intangible manipulable.
When
he seems to impoverish the world, he is merely condensing it, and when
his
abstractions are unpacked we have a new range of intangibles.
67&
2 functions of philosophy, the determining one and the understanding
one. It is
important not to confuse them. With determining concepts everything
depends on the
words as with the devisers of logical symbolism. With the other kind
words are merely
means of expression, helpful or unhelpful. They can be judged for their
accuracy. Philosophy as determiner rather than as understanding. Trees
of will and
ideas.
LL
12&
Gilbert Ryle The Concept of Mind.
Compelling as his account is, one still feels drawn to the idea of
Collingwood
and Feyerabend that philosophical truth is somehow philosophically
relative.
What are we to count as philosophically satisfactory explanation?
Satisfaction
with ordinary language is certainly compelling, particularly because it
is so
pure, so simple but it does seem to presuppose a serenity and freedom
from frustration
peculiar to
17
Gilbert Ryle’s book falls off towards the end. He is unsatisfactory on
psychology. He is wrong to let in Freud as he does, permitting us to
speak of
the unconscious causes of your behaviour. Of course psychoanalysis is
not a
philosophical phenomenon, strictly speaking, but philosophy itself has
effects
in other spheres. It can resolve perplexity, but can it also
anaesthetise enquiry?
35/37&
A state of perplexity. A key somewhere in the past. Self reflect.
Confront. Does
an animal have philosophical contentment? Not a philosophy, just a
means of ensuring
contentment. Philosophy does not have to be at an impasse. It can
envisage itself
creatively. The philosopher entangles himself in a web of concepts. The
way he
views those concepts can vary a great deal. They are closely analogous
to his
desires and inclinations… with an urgent present desire it seems that
it must
be satisfied before any kind of contentment is possible. To have
philosophy can
come to seem an urgent necessity. Pouring contentment into ordinary
language. To
take away the contentment is not to create discontent and confusion, at
least
not necessarily. Contentment is not only the result of satisfactory
philosophical
theories. There are other ways to get it.
MM
151
The dreams of philosophers. In the beginning was the word, the aim of
exhibiting reality as following a logical pattern. Russell and
Wittgenstein as
arrogant as any metaphysician. Do we need presuppositions to think?
Does
everything we think depend on an underlying presupposition? Then one of
the
aims of philosophers is impossible. Suppose I come up with a general
metaphysical description of the universe that I claim is complete, it
will yet possess
an underlying incompleteness in that it will presuppose that such a
description
is possible. Suppose I come up with a description that I claim to be
only one
possible description. In that case it is incomplete, I must include the
premise
that makes it possible. What grounds do I have for assuming that
possibility?
If the one true, what grounds can I have for accepting that? Both of
these
contingencies generate new complete descriptions which face the same
problem.
Possible
answer to this. Take the possibility regress only one stage back, and
we take
as our fundamental proposition one which asserts possibilities. Take it
another
stage back, or any number of others, and nothing further of any
interest is
generated. Perhaps at most the first two states of an infinite regress
draw out
what is interesting the others are purely repetitions of the same
thing. So we
construct an argument which closes up the regress by saying we are
justified in
taking up a stand.
‘To
say that there are infinite possibilities presupposes that it is
possible to
say that’. No says the argument, it does not presuppose anything
outside itself.
Its possibility is, and can only be demonstrated, in the steps of the
argument
itself, if we wish to accept it. The argument is that given certain
facts and
observations which can be presented, then we are fully justified in
adopting
the philosophy.
II
70/80
…Self assertion itself is channelled, after the initial successful
rebellion,
into socially conformist channels. It is then that the great spirit
must choose
solitude, must distance himself from the mass, otherwise he is lost.
But though
the dry soul may be the best, as Heraclitus tells us, its defensiveness
is
liable to lead it into excessive rigidity. When it finds it is secure,
that its
standards are firm enough, to be safe against adulterisation, when it
can come
back into the world as a teacher, then it may relax.
The
defensiveness, the criticism. He finds that he has to distance himself
from
others. On his criticism depends his whole security. He feels he has to
have
theories, beliefs, to justify himself, confusing self assertion with
beliefs
and theories. Any bliss is assumed to be the reward of his thought.
Yet
even his thought is only another possibility, one could have an
alternative thought.
Why therefore is this thought true? It is his paranoid defensiveness
that leads
him to try and justify every single thing, every thing that he is. He
feels he
is in a condition that depends on his ideas about it, Without his ideas
he
feels, he is in danger of going under.
Thus
arise the confusions about eternity He feels that as the very
precondition of
his being he must have a theory. He closes himself off from simple
direct
experience because he is afraid of it, he needs defences against being
swamped,
drowned. Time comes when he finds he can swim, he is able to assert
himself
again because this time he is confident…. His ideas can be a means of
self
justification rather than a justification of his existence…. A
possibility of especial
cultural interest and importance. A possibility aspiring almost to the
status
of a fact, not just a belief to fill some gap. Something to be
incorporated
into our whole body of knowledge. A particularly good and desirable
possibility
important because undermining so radically the moral order of
experience.
DD
7
The tremendous originality of Greek philosophy lay not in the
finding of bad
reasons for what we believe by instinct but in capturing in a form
acceptable
to the rational intellect some of the important insights of religious
intuition. From Orpheus to the Pythagoreans to Plato. Thence to
Apollonius of
Tyana. It is a mistake that philosophy is a quest for ultimate truth
pursued by
purely deductive steps. As such it comes to seem a futile quest,
symbolised by Magritte's
painting of the philosopher’s pipe. Rational criticism is a means of
reconciling conflicting outlooks. An outlook that cannot defend itself
rationally must fall, reason is the ground of all dialogue, but one
that
presupposes insistent and intuition, makes their discoveries explicitly
intelligible.
A metaphysical discovery is not arrived at by deductive logic but
elucidated thereby
25
Civilisation at its best has a profound respect for philosophy, Plato,
Aristotle,
Confucius, Lao Tsu, the Upanishads, the Buddhist
canon,
where
fundamental questions are discussed profoundly. Currently there is
hardly any
reference to any philosophical authority less it be to the essentially
dogmatic
tradition of Marx, and we are simply confronted with a mass of
judgments and
attitudes an a assumptions which might as well be taken as resting on
thin air.
60
Philosophy as the supreme organising rational principle, which
undercuts
objections perhaps to some of the more particular methods of the
revolutionary
concepts.
What
is the programme? A culture which flows down from the supreme rational
principle,
or the field of the freedom to instinctual fulfilment through a form of
educated
experience, in which the educated elite maintain a constraint sense of
responsibility to the people, instructing them in the manifold forms of
freedom, but who above all maintain the position of their philosophy
within
society.
113
Rhodes Boyson says, and I agree, that simply presenting alternatives
and
telling a child that he has to choose is ridiculous. For the child, qua
child,
belongs to the under privileged and thus has a distorted view. Boyson
says the
child must be instructed in the fundamental principles of our society.
But what
are these? There is something much open to dispute.
148
Many contemporary leftists, I think of non Marxists, despite their
supposed
intellectual roots in the empirical tradition supported by Russell,
nevertheless are influenced by a strong Hegelian
element. The’ public
game’ the
emasculation of intellectual conflict. The idea that centuries of
conflict can
somehow be overcome, synthesised, in some public body of knowledge in
which all
may share. Philosophy’s concepts may be intellectually interesting, but
are not
to make any difference to the individual life, the basis for which is
agreed,
ie is stronger than any intellectual idea. Will and collective will.
Emasculation
of concepts.
Take
the Chandogya Upanishad as model of philosophising. Perhaps what the
philosopher
is looking for is a special kind of certainty. His argumentation leads
us away
progressively from the things of this world where it is not to be found
to the
mystical realms where it is.
AA
61
Note for the history of philosophy. Some philosophers, like
Pythagoreans, seem
to derive much of their inspiration from the flash of mystical
illumination. Where
this is the case the philosophy is often an attempt to explain the
illumination, and should not be interpreted as if it were merely built
up from
observations made on the mundane level, as if even the concept of
enlightenment
is something that was devised by analogy with mundane.
68
Reincarnation contradicts the verification principle, and the
falsification principle
of Popper. Meaningless as a scientific proposition. What as a religious
proposition?
By later Wittgenstein if we can find a
use for such a belief it may be
permissible.
Ideas which cannot be proved scientifically may yet be there ready for
believing
if needed. We do not have to believe them, but we may. But what
deformation of
the believing faculty is here asked? Belief of the status of certainty
is only
attainable in moment of beatific vision.
Further.
All science proceeds by unproved hypothesis. The aim of pure science is
theories that satisfy the imagination.
95
The main question to ask of a religion or purported whole philosophy of
life is
‘how adequate, how comprehensive, are its concepts’? No system of
concepts is
wholly good or wholly bad, but some seem to make only scant allowance
for
certain very important sides of experience. Each particular vision is
limited,
sometimes allowing no Heaven, sometimes no Hell.
180
Metaphysics, what ultimately is. Kant says things in themselves,
yet suggests
that in a sense we may create realities by the exercise of the moral
will.
Schopenhauer, reality is determined by
the demands of the human will.
Nietzsche,
ideological conflict, springs from conflict of instinct. I believe what
my
deepest instincts tell me to believe. Hegel reality is immanent but not
a
matter for the individual instinct more a mater of society and its
authority. …etc
etc
OO
159
Wittgenstein, Ryle. Philosophical
‘discoveries’ in what sense are they
‘discoveries’? The aetiology of philosophical errors and problems. In
what sense
an aetiology? An historical one perhaps? I admit its very great
attractiveness
and value. Is it true? Imagine that in principle it could be true.
However,
Ryle and others do tend to enshrine conventional beliefs What are we to
think
of life after death? Ryle brings us back to the ‘commonsense’ view that
persons
die and are no more when their bodies die. But is this even the most
natural
view? Surely it is a bit of a wrench to accept that there is no form of
survival and the doctrine is itself rooted in certain philosophical
assumptions.
Also,
given that language is a tool, even if we accept the aetiological
explanations,
we are under no obligation to feel that problems have been dissolved.
Making a positive
statement by examination of the mere counters of discourse. Counters
which may
be used to express the opposite of what you are saying. A positive
statement,
in that it is expected to have some effect akin to that of a truth
claim. But
it is impossible that it could be an effective truth claim. The
aetiological
explanation might be a sound matter of fact. But it must be quite wrong
to
expect this to expect this to make any difference to people’s attitudes
to
these problems and errors. Any such expectation must unfortunately be a
mere
prejudice. That is why nothing can be solved. But can it be
‘dissolved’? We
naturally tend to think it can, until we ask ourselves why it should
be, what justification
for making the step or whatever we want to call it. The thing can jump
either
way.
Philosophy
runs itself into a weird paradox. We assume everyone wants to jump the
same
way. But the person who jumps the other way is not being at all
irrational. In
a way he is necessary.
As
for life after death, the most natural belief is
probably the most primitive, first codified
by civilised man as the Egyptian theories about Kas and Bas etc.
C
11
Philosophies of energy v those of desiccation. Orc cycle
51
Class of enlightened men dedicated to a rational idea fully conscious
of all
methods of conditioning and persuasion, individual and mass. Fully
resistant to
demoralisation. Accepting that there is no idea that we could not
somehow come
to believe.
97
Winch said that it would be a reason for
worrying if philosophy ever
became a popular
subject. That is perfectly true. But there is also a danger of its
becoming an ineffectual
subject, of everything that is done being done by unthinking extraverts
who
follow public opinion.
186
Do I feel threatened if my ideas are rejected? But that would be
putting the
cart before the horse. I do sometimes say to people that if my ideas
are
worthless then I am worthless. Perhaps that is a perverse feeling, it
is one I
take a certain perverse pleasure in taking up. But it has its
disadvantages. If
I stand or fall by my ideas. Where could either of us begin? But that
is
nonsense.
BB
157
From Frances Yates. Descartes guilty of a
most superficial dismissal of
the
problems of mind because he wanted to establish mechanism as the
principle of
science. Often philosophers uninterested in some particular field make
a few
dogmatic remarks about it, giving rise to subsequent great confusion
among
their followers.
B
55/9
One thing my philosophy aims to make more easily possible is the
joy of letting
go, of yielding to the fascination of innumerable different ideas
without
getting ensnared by them
91
Compare Upanishads and Plato
134
A
26
Enlightened ones as revolution sires. Limitations of love and peace.
46&
Philosophy not a mere piece of metaphysical knowledge. Requiring
revolution to
find true fruition. Necessity for the individual to find institutional
backing
for his valuations
For
reason, the form of the rational that should rule without specifying
what it
is.
102
The history of ethical theory moved via Hume, Stevenson and Ayer to
positions
more satisfactory to those who want to make ethical judgements. Yet
Sidgwick,
Ross and the intuitionists are unsatisfactory from another point of
view. Intuitionism
is unjustifiably dogmatic, and does not allow for the infinity of
different
points of view.
Philosophy
in general. There are philosophers who simply offer us a set of
concepts which
they think fruitful. The
173
Ordinary people do not live under false philosophy, they live under no
philosophy.
It is not the job of philosophy to criticise experience nor yet to
restrict
experience in any possible way.
178
Subjects like philosophy as taught today are good, pure thought,
intellects,
unobstructed by arbitrary power structures.
AR
193
The impressionability of youth & what they look to philosophy for.
One thing
they look for is wisdom. One looks for guidance in how to live life.
Some might
say this is not the role of philosophy but of religion. Point to
understand why
Heidegger is so attractive.
Artists
offering such wisdom. See how traditional philosophy derives
conclusions about
the purpose of life from reflections about the nature of the world…
Oriental tradition
of sages. Existentialism poetic vision. A type of emotion.
341
Reading Scruton. How much philosophy continues, even after Wittgenstein
is
supposed to have dissolved it.
343
Scruton’s book on Modern Philosophy. Some illuminating points.
Antirealism.
Dummett, almost as obscure as deconstruction. Anti realism as a sort of
transcendental
idealism. The point that Kripke’s answer to
his scepticism about
meaning is a
form of antirealism. A parallel with Kant’s answer to Hume and what
that lead
to?
363b
Scruton on Kojeve’s famous paper, dismissing it as without intellectual
merit. Philosophy,
diversity of opinion. How content should we be that that remains?
Philosophy as
career structure. Frustration, resentment, discontent. The aesthetic
solution.
All kinds of motivating discontent. The aesthetic solution. What right
do we
have to dismiss someone to his private hell unless he has committed
some
serious crime, some offence against others? Diversity of opinion, that
which philosophers
of the past aspired to bring to an end. Searing discontent that is the
motive
for philosophy. Aesthetic consolation. Starting off with the premise of
a
massive disharmony. One commends analytical philosophy as intellectual
discipline, but is likely to be rejected by it… Philosophy as career
structure,
the professionalisation of the subject. The new scholasticism.
In
support of my argument I bring myth, motivation, a fundamental and
radical
discontent. The basic myth being Gnostic. Persecution by God, so
called. Aesthetic
pleasure as overcoming these massive obstacles.
AD
10
Descartes. Much of Descartes seems obvious
and natural. Is this just
because it
has penetrated so thoroughly into our culture and education that it
seems
natural? Note the scholastic elements in Descartes. Elimination of
final causes.
Descartes is even a scholastic type philosophy, concerned with science
and
possible knowledge.
49
Urge to say something earth shattering and profound. Sexual
excitement. Philosopher’s
will to persuade, the nature of his creative work. Unable to accept a
place and
position required of him Thus an issue about specifically the
philosopher’s
sexuality. His work different from that of other creative people.
225
Communicators of philosophy to the people. A job perhaps as necessary
as that
of the philosopher himself. Is it less communication of philosophy as
communication of the role of the philosopher? Transmitting a respect
for the
role of the philosopher to gain for him an appropriate sphere of power.
249
Medical totalitarianism. Science worship and the authoritarian
personality. Hospitals
prisons, armies. People who attack philosophy do so because they wish
to
enshrine some philosophically questionable assumption under the seal of
authority. The place of the authoritarian for ideas he does not agree
with is
pain and frustration
277
To some of my own generation I might be able to speak. But I
think my strictly philosophical
work should appear anonymously. Originality may appear free spirited.
Humbler
work, expository work, may seem a form of thraldom. There is
submissiveness, humility
& submission to certain values. This in the realm of philosophy
where there
are more choices perhaps than in some other disciplines.
In
whatever work you are expected to do, how much of your true feelings
are to be
expressed and how much repressed? People justify themselves by a claim
to virtue.
Is the will to communicate the same as the will to dominate?
The
suggestion that the more negative aspect is the product of inevitable
frustration of unrealistic hopes and ambitions. But is that possibly
unduly
pessimistic? Could I get people to see things my way, say if I can
present my
message simply and clearly enough?
If
someone could show me I were wrong, that would not be unbearable, to
me, nor
even especially painful, it might perhaps come as a kind of relief. But
if
someone tells me I shall come to see myself as wrong only after some
acutely
painful crisis involving repression and denial of what I most strongly
think
and feel the I resist that as much as I can. Society is like this. In
my resistance
do I appear a Hitlerian figure, aiming to overcome others with the
force of my
will? Every alternative seems to me deeply unsatisfactory. Yet my
formula, what
a strange and useless thing it is? Could it be the completest folly?
How could
I envisage it taking effect un the life of the individual or of
society? In a religious
sense it makes pathways for desire. It is meant to provide a means of
reconciliation
between opposing viewpoints.
280&
One resists what seems wrong. Yet in society it seems that there is
tremendous
pressure on the individual not to resist what seems wrong to him. A
belief that
its proponents find attractive will ask for the allegiance also of
those who do
not.
Try
and express that neatly. The proponents of a belief who find it
attractive. An
idea makes demands for the belief of those who find it attractive and
those who
do not. Why should I accept any idea which I find unattractive, or
expect
anyone else to accept ideas which I find attractive but which they may
not? In
many cases the reasons are clear cut. What we may call reality or the
material
world may obtrude. But in some cases there are a great many
alternatives on
offer. What we have to make clear is the extreme offensiveness of
inadequately
grounded authority.
308
James and his ‘stream of consciousness’ ie his attempt to
describe the nature
of the contents of consciousness. Rejecting Locke’s classification of
ideas
under the different headings as both breaking the continuity of
consciousness
and imposing a sameness on things that are unique and different. One
could
almost say that from this point of view the Lockian account lends
itself to Platonism.
But James assimilates the contents of consciousness far too closely to
things.
Does introspection reveal the things he says it reveals and if so what
is its
significance?
Even
a mental image cannot should not be thought of as a copy of a material
thing as
a print or a photograph is. If Pierce’s philosophy of signs were
intended as a
rebuttal of this, its point would be very clear. The linkage with brain
physiology is obviously very valuable but the mental contents are not
objects
in the sense presented. Simply to attempt to observe them is an unusual
act,
which will produce experiences of an unusual nature. . Nor is an
experience
anything like a material object. These things are evanescent. What is
the truth
about an experience? What was felt at the time or what it is to memory?
And we cannot
bypass memory to find what it was like at the time. And even if we
could, there
would always be the medium of the present interpreting mind. James
suggest we
can understand physical causation better than mental indeed that
physical
causation might be the only kind. But Hume dealt with this one. Mental
causation and physical causation are not radically different in kind,
the idea
of causation is the same in each case. James found the idea of
physiological
determinism distressing, but perhaps there was no real need to It might
explain
too little rather than too much. All his talk of brain activity
associationism
etc. Seemingly no place for a will to power, or even a pleasure
principle as rigidly
interpreted. The will to power intermediated as a development of the
concept of
the pleasure principle. Ie as taking into account the contexts of value
systems.
James
represents the best of the American world view, the tradition inherited
from
Locke..
83
Philosophers to be seen as guardians of the conditions on which
discussion is carried
on, not even so much as umpires as points of reference. One might wish
to see philosophy
maintained as the highest wisdom of age. It is an understanding of the
conditions
of wisdom so to speak of the conditions of many kinds of highest
aspiration. It
is uncommitted not because it does not know, it knows as much as
needed. If a philosophy
makes no difference to anything that has been said before, how can it
be an answer
to any intelligible question? It makes no difference to the truth
of anything that has been said before,
it occupies a new position. However certain practical consequences flow
from
its acceptance.
100
Distinctive pleasures of philosophy. Desire for a kind of
leadership, to
prescribe in advance what is to be said and done. Exploration , to be
at a
point to which one will return at their most civilised moments. To
emancipate oneself,
if desired, from certain depressing thoughts. To increase the freedom
and possibilities
of one’s own mind, as those of the minds of others.
132
Collingwood
151
Formulae a guide to understanding not a replacement for it. ..To
make philosophy
itself into a joy is to dogmatise, to psychologise where one should
only philosophise,
to jeopardise the purity simplicity and rationality of the philosophy
itself.
228
Very often a philosopher will not state explicitly what might seem to
us to a
core question. Our way of putting it might seem excessively crude. One
thinks
of Wittgenstein here. Temptations to
say certain things, often best
avoided. Certain
things that may appear to be sayable turn out not to be so.
250
What is the greatest joy in life? Genghis Khan had his own ideas on the
subject. Of life patterns, ideals, most on offer in society are simply
not sufficiently
satisfying One could say that it is pre-eminently the philosopher who
is able
to understand a life ideal in its satisfying potential.
275
The trouble with Feyerabend. The lack of a clear argument to be
criticised. The
dubious philosophical coherence, the evasiveness. He is very suggestive
and I
agree with a lot of what he says. But he consciously removes himself
from the
place of philosophical argumentation to that of rhetoric. Therefore he
is a
gadfly rather than a philosopher I would say that he should be a
philosopher
because he raises philosophical questions. His thought provokes
argument and
much of the argument he evades. Other features. Lack of sympathy for
imperialism, which is a form of life after all. Likewise with sadism.
There are
deep seated assumptions pervading his scepticism. Presumably, he would
put this
down to his tradition, but others might want to question them. In
speaking of
other cultures that manage quite well on their own, he might be accused
of
lacking sympathy for all the victims.
And
some of his tolerance seems to derive from other principles than his
philosophy.
Assumptions one might attribute to Christianity, or to tolerance, or an
American anti-imperialism.
Clearly
he is leftish, and would want to exclude racism, for example, from his
list of
current live options. Scepticism often to make itself workable often
needs to
conceal other assumptions.
AV
197
Value of philosophy in promoting spiritual states, scepticism and
mental
paralysis.
AS
22
These philosophical confusions. Philosophy as an attack on
religion. On one’s
own beliefs insofar as they seem to depend upon philosophical
arguments. Questionable
ones. Say anything can return as language game
54
Applying Nietzschean analysis & ad hominem arguments to the
ambitions of philosophers.
55&
Thinking of philosophers, how much mutual intelligibility is
there? How much do
different schools of thinker not even grasp what the other is talking
about? Self
referential paradoxes. This particular perspective. The ambitions of
philosophers
to overcome these. Various ways they do it. Seeking out the positive
doctrine
in terns of something that might be taught. Think of philosophical
thought and
how acceptable the ad hoc solution is,… A Philosophical solution may be
still
sound though doubts still plague it. But what does it mean for it to be
sound?
And philosophy could turn into religion.
59
Heidegger. This religious atheism. The
memento mori. Like when people
find they
have cancer and it wakes them to finding intense satisfaction. So one
function
of philosophy is to reawaken hidden possibilities. Philosophers repeats
older patterns
that cannot in their original forms be relived.
92
Bringing mythology into philosophy. Oedipus, the crucifixion, the Great
Boyg.
Thought of philosophy as engaged in an am impossible task. Like a
diabolic
task. Curiosity and its paralysis. Then the various solutions. As if
something
that can work for others but not for the philosopher
AU
32
Way & personality of the philosopher. Kant,
Wittgenstein. A
constant and
continual prey to doubts, which he repels by argument. In this sense
the philosopher
is not like the sage, he is not serene but plagued by doubts.
60
Corbin Alone with the Alone. The middle realm of angels
etc, the realm
of imagination and mysticism. But even Corbin uses expressions like
‘real self’
which seem to make metaphysical assumptions. Yet how can you do without
them? You
have to do your best with the best philosophy available to you. Doing
without
the orthodox or ecclesiastical hierarchy, of course we must accept that
he is
right there.
AW
145
Philosophy. Impossibility of knowing anything more than a small segment
of it. Therefore
inevitably much ignorance, even on matters one wants to talk about.
Bryan Magee.
He
does have a grand narrative which finds expression in Schopenhauer.
Anti
rationalism. Defending what does not deserve to be defended. What is
strong,
apart from rational attack? An authority that comes from other than
reason.
Whether or not you accept Wittgenstein’s argument would not be a mere
matter for
choice. Like the resistance on a basis of intuition, a reversion to a
lower
level of argument. Interesting that Wittgenstein said Ryle was the only
one who
properly understood him.
284
Philosophers great and not so great. What makes greatness. A great
thinker has
a power in him that greatly transcends his capacity to be understood.
A
great philosopher is influential for something other than what he
really means
to say. Thus the peculiar feature that someone can maintain that a
great philosopher
has been completely misunderstood and that he really meant the opposite
of what
everybody always took him to have been saying.
So
if he didn’t really say what everybody admired him for, shouldn’t that
mean he
is irrelevant, that the didn’t really speak for his time at all? But
no, he is
of more interest than ever.
344
The philosopher, the art student. The philosopher in search of
something. The
mystic also in search of something.
Searching
for mysteries, trying to uncover mysteries, going the wrong way about
it.
Simpler
people may get to mystery towards which you struggle earnestly and
fruitlessly.
Learning
philosophy, attaching yourself to some power structure. Learning the
defensive
arguments.
AQ
3
Descombes. For one thing, most of this philosophy seems to take
its initial
points of reference from Husserl. Husserl does not interest me, he
seems preoccupied
with exploded problems using badly outdated methods.
32
Dennett on mind and consciousness, Philosophical problems. He
does not solve
philosophical problems simply by taking an antireligious stance. The
relation
between mind and matter is massively puzzling. The puzzle is not just
the
product of those with some religious axe to grind.
61
What is so enraging about postmodernism. This granting of
authority. Some of
the Frenchmen may be admirable enough. But giving them authority is
restrictive
rather than liberating. Not just taking on authority that it is
philosophically
respectable. Like precisely what one wants to get away from, the power
of
mediocrity.
Literary
idea of philosophy. Idea that the function of philosophy is to provide
something interesting for literary studies.
300
Anti postmodernism. Lust for power of the thinker. See how
politicians talk of
themselves as servants:- ‘all I ask is the right to serve’
sanctimonious crap.
Say I present my idea as if with the best will in the world. As if all
I want
to do is to contribute to the good of mankind. Always an element of
disingenuousness.
Even if I am not pretending to some kind of ground. Think of where
truth has no
part to play. Where there is a free run. Possibilitism is like in that
position.
It can hardly cope with a strong motive against it. But why would there
be a
strong motive against it? No constraint, it is like a thesis in the
air. Truth
is more constraining than the very best of arbitrary hypotheses. Its
negativity
Accusing an opposing view of actual falsehood, falsity or whatever,.
AP
90
Nature of philosophy. Claims to metaphysical truth. This one can hardly
accept But
then philosophy is not to be entirely dismissed. It may rid of
depressing and demoralising
ideas like equal rights.
177
So much philosophy is ugly hateful ideas that have to be repelled.
187
Sudden panics, fear of a insanity, of a solipsistic universe, as
understanding
proceeds and insight becomes clearer. There are only a few philosophies
that
have real grandeur and greatness. Nietzsche’s does, Schopenhauer’s
does, Hegel’s
does to speak of the moderns. One can think of aesthetic grandeur.
Deviate from
these and one may wind up in some pygmy position that is pedantry and
little
more
240
Philosophy has been brought to an end over and over again by whoever
does not
rise up to it and rests happy with a dogma that is not subjected to
argument.
253
Overcoming nazi propaganda. Like why
266
Need for genuine philosophy to break the hold of spurious
metaphysical
arguments. Metaphysics ‘seriality’. The paranormal. How to justify it.
Attack
on all metaphysics. Compulsive nature of metaphysical arguments. In
retrospect
Dunne seems a curiosity, so historically limited. Popular philosophy
for 20
years or so. The impact of such bad arguments is philosophically
interesting.
And I would not rule out the paranormal on principle. If it does work
it does
on principles which cannot be regularised. I mean hard headed
materialism can
never be disproved.
276
Reid on freewill, perhaps better than on other subjects. Like an
approach to
the Winchean Wittgensteinian philosophy where
the most enticing
philosophical speculations
are to be refused in favour of ordinary usage. Use, will, purpose.
Amateurs in philosophy
perceived as the most utter wasters one could imagine. Upholders of
exploded
arguments.
Necesitarianism
and determinism. The former actually more attractive. Freewill showing
how
people can say what they want to say. Meaning of ‘say what you like’.
Reid
mostly appearing second rate.
290
Philosophy and its significance. Efforts to think beyond the
limitations of the
ordinary. Illegitimate logical and grammatical error, say Wittgenstein
and Winch.
But look at the value of philosophy for eighteenth century
295
Levy’s book comparing G E Moore to Prince Myshkin. Stressing
this side of his
personality, his lack of the perversity of mind that inspired Bradley
or
Mctaggart. Importance of this for philosophy and English culture
generally. I
can appreciate this while loathing the preciousness of
312
Dennett and his philosophy of mind. He is not fully convincing. To him
his
philosophical position is satisfactory, because he is not fully
philosophical. The
same problem with tolerance. One feels tempted to adopt an extreme
reactionary position
and believe in all the soul forms of the ancient Egyptians. Dennett.
Why does
he need to try and argue Wittgenstein’s points
all over again, and less
effectively?
It is like a waste of paper. Etc etc. Philosophy began with Thales
saying all
things are full of gods. Imagine philosophy moving to a new belief
system
whereby machines are considered animate. Etc etc
AO
18
What Nietzsche did, we can say,
was to write about these issues
in a much
clearer style. Therefore his concern with style and admiration for the
clarity
of French thought. In this great movement of 19th century
German
metaphysics minor figures like Stirner and
Hartmann are actually
extremely
important. Academic philosophers take the matter differently and treat
them as
negligible. Mainstream philosophy ignores such minor figures, quite
often
because it comes to embody vast assumptions, ie it presupposes the
rightness of
one side in the argument, To look at just the major figures as if they
represented
the whole philosophy of the time is to miss out crucial minor figures
who were
essential to the whole discussion that was being carried on.
81
Perceiving the self in terms of will to power. Once again overcoming a
negative
judgement. To understand the power, to understand the extent of what
has been accomplished,
the degree of power and overcoming. The self as object of reflection.
Just one
other possible object of reflection. …Say what one wants of power is
that it
should be something immediately repeatable. Repeatable pleasures of
reflection.
But any pleasure must involve an opposing resistance. You take pleasure
in
power involves a contrast with the sense of its lack….
183
Whereas the propositions of e.g. William James can be easily
understood and
contradicted. Freud and the others lend themselves to an extraordinary
number
of moves. Does not Wittgenstein? Is it just that I think I understand
him? The
various philosophies he generated in
344
What philosophy has become. Like ceasing to be philosophy,
presiding figures
like Heidegger and Foucault who are
interesting in themselves but who,
grafted
onto a whole academic culture, come to express something different.
IX
8
Careers in philosophy
137
Say we compare GE Moore with Thomas Reid, logical positivism and
phenomenalism
with David Hume. Then the later Wittgenstein
becomes another Kant and
the way
seems clear for another Hegel,
AN
41
Causes being fought in modern philosophy. Those who believe that
Descartes can
be unravelled and some of the deep problems of our culture can be
thereby be
solved.
102
Different ways of expressing my thought, my philosophy. Some
kind of database. But
everything depends upon the central point, which is why one should
think this
rather than that. All hinges upon a central argument. Which may or may
not be
made. Derrida’s ‘metaphysics of presence’. So regularly philosophers
try to
identify unjustified metaphysical assumptions. With the idea of making
things
very different.
149
A society that is distributative rather than creative. Each of
us is thankful
for what he has been distributed. Symons on Dowson:- ‘at
171
Eliot, Aquinas, Dante. Eliot’s dislike of
To
others, though an adequate philosophy will repress and contain this
dissident
impulse.
196
Rhetoric. Who is content to be simply persuaded? Where rhetoric ends
philosophy
begins. Philosophy can only arise from extreme combative aggression.
The philosopher
is more than the politician. Being accepted, finding admirers, finding
a niche
for yourself. Being able to get away with what you say. What is it that
provokes you to go the whole way? Some kind of trance. Consciousness of
opposition.
The philosopher must not be like the politician, content with a limited
following and prepared to disregard those who oppose him radically.
See
the temptation in the path of an original thinker.
Argument
should convince even those who do not want to be convinced.
239
Wittgenstein and his assault on
philosophical pride. Although
his philosophy
from one viewpoint is an assault on sceptical doubt, from another it is
quite the
opposite.
What
experiences depend on what discoveries. Denial of all that is not
‘ordinary language’.
Attack on all pretension, all aspirations all exceptional experience.
Extreme philosophical
scepticism directed against any comforting faith. That it all may rest
upon an illegitimate
assumption, and illegitimate extrapolation. Pursued to a logical
extreme this
is disturbing, even terrifying.
What
philosophy suggests. The ugly chaos instead of present beliefs. The
Sartrean
contingency. Like the very disturbing atheistic thought. Imagine
undermining
all the assumptions that make for the comfort of religion. Imagine that
even
your sexual pleasure is alleged to rest upon unjustified assumptions.
Any
healthy, straightforward delight.
Philosophy
undermines with doubt. Yet certainty is not a psychological
impossibility.
Paralysing doubt rests upon an assumption.
Dispute
that most people know anything.
Ways
of doing philosophy. Return to the appeal to authority. The simple
‘scholarly style’.
Philosophy
is a ruthless criticism of experience. ‘Ordinary’ experience it may
well leave
in place, it may see it as its purpose to leave it in place.
Extraordinary experience,
however, is another question. Philosophy may appear as some brutal
instrument,
Attack on religion, dialogue of the deaf.
So
try and look at the conclusions of philosophy and see what they offer.
Yield
ourselves up to philosophy as it if it were the greatest truth.
Gudmunsen.
What Wittgenstein or Nagarjuna would do to the philosophy of the
dharmas.
And
yet… Nothing need be lost.
The
whole Gnostic struggle. That a Question has to be answered, that an
opposing
idea has to be considered. This is itself a form of assumption. Idea
that every
act of will has to be justified by truth. Once on this track there is
no
escape,. ‘Let because be damned for a dog’.
That
there is another way of being is known from experience. One that
resists or
ignores the moralistic assaults. That shelves all such questions,
refrains from
approaching them.
The
assaults of philosophy upon experience. Yet these assaults are valuable
lessons.
In them there is great power.
Not
to lay oneself open to considering every opposing idea. One’s right not
to consider
every opposing idea. Derive that from an original aggression, not from
a search
for ‘truth’ outside the self.
Philosophy
makes you consider every opposing idea to those in which you take
comfort.
Every adjusted mode of being.
AM
36
Only intense aggression makes for discontent with dogma, refusal to
submit to
its jurisdiction. With this motive ones sees rule, one sees power. To
see this
is to see a reality that others deny. Could one say that p[philosophy
will come
to and end if there are no more geniuses? That established views will
no longer
be challenged.
Mediocrity
even of most philosophers. Lack of ambition
107
Giddens book New Rules of Sociological Method. Disagreeable
after taste.
Philosophy is plundered to create a methodological foundation for a
from of
knowledge. …Philosophy gives birth to sciences, but perhaps some
sciences
should be reabsorbed. Philosophy begets sciences but some perhaps are
misbegotten. Pseudo science firmly enough established, has a life of
its own,
116
Suggestion I find from Ryle that a logic can be found for any belief.
Basic
implication of Wittgenstein, one way of looking at it. From this the
need to
repel ideas that are self defeating and threatening.. Proposed ways of
doing
this. 1 arbitrary convention, 2 some kind of linkage to what has to be
agreed.
The trouble with positions like Kuhn’s is that they are insufficiently
philosophical.
Argument cannot cease. Reader and writer are closely involved, they
each have a
position. I must argue that my position should have a hold on you.
Absurdity of
rejecting a concept of truth. Even the humility of not venturing a
truth claim.
Philosophy is not science, it is not that it is less complex, rather
that it is
more fundamental. Persuasion is not a question of tricks, it must seem
inevitable. It must relate to the indisputable, not to some
questionable theory
that may or may not be accepted, its antithesis being no less plausible.
There
is no room for free choice. If there were then that there is free
choice would
be the determinate fact.
To
rest content with any gulf of disagreement is inherently
unphilosophical.
Philosophical
theories are not hypotheses to be picked according to taste. To leave
philosophical theory at the level of hypothesis is a failure of the
aggressive
impulse. Contentment with something just left in the air. Happiness to
take a position
when an opposite position holds an equal claim.
Anyone
who says there is nothing but persuasion and includes himself in that
confesses
himself to holding beliefs on inadequate grounds, and to be content to
do so. That
is unphilosophical and slavish, both retreating from the challenge.
AL
199
Reservations on George Steiner (Heidegger).
His hobbyhorse of music. Quite unnecessary to introduce it. It could be
that
the idea of the music culture is antithetical to what Heidegger
intends. The
‘they world’ as about the totalitarian state. I don’t think it is about
that at
all. …the national way of thinking is understandable. The Germans are
in an unfortunate
position. As a people they are the equals of English and the French. To
mention
it may seem to be dangerous.
To
get down to foundations, to get down to basic argument against
opponents. However
interesting it may be to disregard that. However seeming philosophical
however
much intellectual food may be provided to satisfy a basic hunger.
Making
belief available, making grand dreams available.
Hobbyhorse
of the holocaust. Idea that the Germans are capable of the heights of
the
spirit in philosophy and music) and perhaps therefore also of the
depths (the
holocaust). He admits he is not a philosopher, but it is largely
philosophy he
is talking about. If he lacks competence for some highly technical
issues that
is not much to the point.
But
he does seem willing to follow ideas as if they were music. Perhaps
that is an
error….. The whole idea of great philosophers can be misleading, a kind
of tendentious
disengagement.
Heidegger
Freud, Marx, Derrida, could sweep us along. I admire Russell, who was
rooted in
logic.
Pretentiousness
begins with Hegel, who tried to replace religion.
237
Plato’s tyrannical rationalism, almost Chinese in its appalling
cruelty. At the
very beginning of philosophy when speculation had no competitors there
was
freedom to tyrannise.
243
Take Wittgenstein’s philosophy as a whole as a way of removing
perplexity. Philosophy
as database. Like the kabbalah, sephiroth and paths. The only access
from one
to the other must be along a path. Possibilitism comes across as a way
of
preserving Wittgenstein’s insight, while avoiding the vicious regress
to which
he gives rise. From this we can get referred back to Russell’s way of
dealing
with paradox. His ad hoc rules.
Digressing
into Nietzsche, we find a better means of securing our position, namely
one
rooted in the facts, the reality of the world.
369
A great philosopher is like a fractal, a Mandelbrot programme.
Zoom in on some
small part of his system that seems clear enough, and it will be
revealed to be
far more complicated and fascinating.
AK
147
Philosophy, the professionalisation of the subject. In some ways a bad
thing.
How can intellectual ideas play among society and have effect? The
shifting
doctrines that dominate society, the constraints on thought and freedom
of
expression, have little to do with the best thought of the day. But
modern
thought ought to be able to accomplish something.
Claims
made for academic philosophy. The quasi religious claims. That all
ambition
should be satisfied therein. Even that there is a kind of official
wisdom. Reconciliation
to the status quo.
AB
21
Similarities between democracy and communism. Democracy,
egalitarianism, and
its antirational tendency. Anti-elitism, the attack on any claim to
superior
wisdom. ‘Equal rights’, the insistence that A has as much right to his
opinion
as B. I would not call this irrationalism, for it does have a logic
behind it.
But it is illiberal in that this logic is not meant to be in dispute.
The lo