Philosophers Talking About Themselves

by Brian on April 8, 2004

As “Sappho’s Breathing”:http://www.sapphosbreathing.com/archives/000381.html notes, Carlin Romano wrote an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about “two recent collections of autobiographical memoirs by philosophers”:http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i31/31b01301.htm. There’s some interesting, and important points, to be made, so naturally I’d like to start with a cheap joke. Here’s a sample of what we’re likely to see if more philosophers turn their hand to autobiography.

bq. The facility of my pen (I write everything by hand!) has enabled me to produce a system of philosophical thought that is more many-sided, complex, and far-reaching than has been the case with any other living American philosopher. (Nicholas Rescher)

I’d be jealous of Rescher’s philosophical achievement if I wasn’t wittier, more charming, better looking and generally just a more excellent human being than any other living philosopher. “No, really.”:http://mattweiner.net/blog/archives/000063.html

One theme of Romano’s piece is that it might be better if more philosophers worked more autobiography into their philosophy. My first thought was that this was a ridiculous idea. My second thought was that blogging, at least the way some of us do it, seems to deliver just what Romano wants. See, for instance, “this post”:http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/tar/Archives/002671.html where I work a drinking story into an argument about imaginative resistance. My third thought was that there’s no contradiction between the first two thoughts.

Interestingly, I’ve never been tempted to write a post with such a personal angle on Crooked Timber. This hasn’t been because I’ve had instructions from on high that CT is not to be used for personal posts. It’s just that it has never seemed appropriate to use up the real estate here to tell long stories about the time that I was stuck in an elevator with a circus elephant, or whatever other boring thing might have happened to me that day. It would feel self-indulgent. Since anything I do on a personal blog is self-indulgent, I don’t feel as constrained there.

The more important point raised by Romano’s piece is the very different experience of men and women in academic philosophy. As the commentators at “Sappho’s Breathing”:http://www.sapphosbreathing.com/archives/000381.html note, Romano is possibly not the best choice to have writing about this, but the point still comes through fairly clearly. Here’s a long quote from Martha Nussbaum’s entry in _Singing in the Fire: Stories of Women in Philosophy_ (edited by Linda Martin Alcoff).

bq. Men’s ways of being infantile vary. Some are flirtatious and silly in a relatively harmless way. Some fear old age dreadfully, and believe that continual exercises in seduction will produce something like erotic immortality. Some long to tell you in no uncertain terms that you are a whore, because it makes them feel power. Some hate themselves and have contempt for any woman who is nice to them. Some — and these are the worst, I think — are satanic, by which I mean that they have an emptiness at their core that they fill with exercises in domination, which they market with a frequently dazzling charm.

bq. …

bq. The main problem of feminism in philosophy is the infantile level of human development of many of the men who are in it.

Naturally, I’d like to think that my generation is better than this, though I guess I suspect that if they (we) weren’t (aren’t) I wouldn’t be able to tell.

I do think ‘satantic’ is a wee bit over the top though. I thought demonic possession went out of fashion with witch-burnings.

To my eye the common thread behind Nussbaum’s tropes isn’t misogyny as much as pretty severe depression. That might be disheartening, or it may suggest that there’s a way around the worst of the problems. At least to the extent that we regard depression as effectively treatable. Of course if depression is that big a thread running through philosophy, that’s a story, and one we should be doing something about.

Thanks to Tamar Szab{o’} Gendler for first pointing out the Romano piece to me.

{ 11 comments }

1

Patrick 04.08.04 at 9:36 am

Another autobiography which is quite good is Colin McGinn’s The Making of a Philosopher.

2

bryan 04.08.04 at 9:59 am

Actually I find the ‘Satanic’ one sort of interesting don’t you? I mean that it is represented as being the worst, and obviously has the worst label placed on it with a term such as Satanic, yet the description is somewhat vague and less damning than the others, it seems to me:
“which I mean that they have an emptiness at their core that they fill with exercises in domination, which they market with a frequently dazzling charm.

Is being empty at their core, whatever that means, really worse than hating oneself and others (given that we can understand what is meant by hating while being empty at the core must require some imagination to apprehend), is it worse to be dazzlingly charming than to call a woman a whore? And what is an exercise in domination, and how does it differ than the dominating aspects of these other problems?

Looking again I suppose the ones with a fear of old age are probably better than the male Satanists, although it is rather hard to tell since that failing is exactly described, and the other is a figurative one on which any behavior could be hung when needed.

3

jdsm 04.08.04 at 10:43 am

Alas McGinn also falls into the trap of insane and unjustified arrogance. He made some point about not discussing philosophy with other members of his department because they’re too stupid. His department being NYU, which is one of the world’s best.

4

bob mcmanus 04.08.04 at 11:52 am

“which I mean that they have an emptiness at their core that they fill with exercises in domination”

Hating is relating. To exercise the will entirely for its own sake, to refuse to serve out of pride alone, is to place self-reference as an end in itself. The pleasure here in domination is not in hurting the other, for the other serves only as a mirror.

Milton is good on the meaning of “Satanic”

5

bryan 04.08.04 at 12:40 pm

I’m not sure though which form of domination, that of hatred or that of satanic self-love, will lead to the worse pain for the sufferer under said domination.

6

vivian 04.08.04 at 2:36 pm

I think the key feature of ‘satanic’ is that cruelty and domination is practiced often, at random. The victim isn’t singling herself (himself too perhaps) out in any way, can do nothing to avoid the special destructiveness. Think of that movie (ten or so years ago?) about the two men who pick a woman at random, flirt with her, gain her confidence and then do horrible things, simply to have something to do.

So this might not be as painful in any instance as the worst example of hatred, but hatred at least makes sense to the victim. The other sort, where you’re not even an object of hatred, but simply an opportunity, can be harder to get over. Different, not worse.

7

bob mcmanus 04.08.04 at 2:45 pm

“Think of that movie (ten or so years ago?) about the two men who pick a woman”

Neil Labute’s “In the Company of Men”

8

Karl Marx 04.08.04 at 4:07 pm

The main problem of feminism in philosophy is the infantile level of human development of many of the men who are in it.

Are the men in philosophy more infantile than men in general?

One of the problems with Martha Nussbaum is that she thinks of herself as _so_ much more grown-up than those around her.

9

isabel 04.08.04 at 5:02 pm

“Alas McGinn also falls into the trap of insane and unjustified arrogance. He made some point about not discussing philosophy with other members of his department because they’re too stupid. His department being NYU, which is one of the world’s best.”

He’s at Rutgers now…was he ever at NYU?

10

Lawrence L. White 04.08.04 at 5:45 pm

Are the men in philosophy more infantile than men in general?

People in academics in general are more socially retarded than people in general. When all the other kids were in the street playing together they were inside reading books.

“They” includes me.

11

Ophelia Benson 04.08.04 at 10:05 pm

And that’s a good thing. Socially retarded people with pasty complexions and pencil necks who’ve read some books at least have something to talk about, in their pencil-necked way. Socially adept people – talk about other socially adept people and how badly they behave.

Comments on this entry are closed.