Diogenes by Jules Bastien-Lepage
It would, of course, be vulgar to mention the fact that the book Jeremy Stangroom and I recently wrote, The Story of Philosophy: A History of Western Thought, has just landed on the shelves. So I’ll keep that to myself, and also refrain from mentioning that there’s a review by a fundamentally decent human being here.
But what I do want to consider is a question that arose quite often while writing it: how much bearing should the lives of philosophers have on our interpretations of them? In recounting the history of philosophy, you bump into a number of stories about philosophers. It’s said that Thales fell into a ditch while stargazing. Diogenes did some fairly revolting stuff in public. Aquinas paced back and forth between scribes, dictating the lines of separate philosophical treatises to them at the same time. Kant held carefully organized house parties, with time allocated to political discussion and the telling of amusing anecdotes. Schopenhauer pushed a woman down a flight of stairs. Suicide runs in Wittgenstein’s family.
Take a second to get a feel for what you think about the value of biography when it comes to understanding philosophy. I’ve got a view to push on you, but it won’t be interesting unless you’ve got a ideas of your own.
I used to think that whether or not biography matters depends on whether the philosopher in question waded into value theory. Frege was an anti-Semite, but what bearing could that have on his work on logic? Aristotle owned people, and maybe that matters when it comes to thinking through his ethics.
Ray Monk changed my mind on this, or at least made me think the question of the value of biography is more subtle than I thought. In tpm 56, he considers a distinction, owed to James Conant, between two kinds of views on philosophical biography. Reductivism is the view that if we learn enough about a philosopher’s life, we’ll know exactly why she wrote what she wrote, and finally achieve a real understanding of her work. Compartmentalism is the view that biography is irrelevant to understanding philosophy. I’d guess that most philosophers are compartmentalists – perhaps holding that the truth or falsity of a claim is independent of the person who makes it. Monk argues that both views are wrong, in a way, and so is the question that gives rise to them. We shouldn’t wonder about the value of knowing a life in general. Instead we should value biography that describes a life and work in an integrated, interleaving narrative. ‘Catching the tone’, as he puts it, getting to know a philosopher better, can help us along in particular instances. Not always, not never, but now and then, and in a certain, nuanced way.
His example is Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mathematics. Monk says that Dummett and Wright attribute to Wittgenstein full-blown theories of mathematics, but in doing this,
‘they were trying to force his work into a tradition that he himself loathed and thereby flying in the face of the spirit of Wittgenstein’s work. I thought, that, if one understood what sort of person Wittgenstein was – what motivated him, what repelled him, what kinds of thing he treasured, to what he aspired, etc. – then one would stand a better chance of reading his work in the right way, just as when we know someone well we are more likely to interpret correctly the tone in which they speak, more likely to tell, for example, when they are being sarcastic.’
Monk goes on to consider the famous last sentence of the Tractatus: ‘Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent’. If you’re of a certain frame of mind, you might take that as a solid bash at transcendental nonsense – and logical positivists did take it that way. But you might also take it as being silent about something, reverential silence, affirming the existence of something transcendental. Monk asks, ‘But how is one to tell the difference between a person who is being silent about something and another who is simply being silent?’ You’ve got to take the time to get to get know Wittgenstein. So too, maybe I now think, with the other greats.
So which is it? Are you a compartmentalist? A reductivist? Or is Monk right, and a grip on biography really is needed to help us, sometimes, catch a philosopher’s tone?
I have the horrible feeling that my reading list just got longer. Maybe we’ve got some biography to read alongside philosophy, if we really want to get a handle on what philosophers think.
ha, yes…. to a certain degree…. But can any biography be completely comprehensive, ? If any misinformation was present and used to magnify the philosophical work’s then it could actually distort rather than clarify them…… I guess at some point you have to accept that language is all we have at the moment do the best we can with it…. well, that’s how i’m justifying the absence of biographies on my shelf at least!
your book looks interesting, hope it does well
I don’t see why sorting out what a philosopher actually meant has any use to philosophy; surely it’s just a matter for the history buff’s concern.
If, for example, some claim has three possible interpretations, then all interpretive work is complete once those three possibilities are enumerated. Having them in hand, you have everything of value to be found in that claim.
Which of them the author intended seems irrelevant to the work of philosophy.
Nietzsche
Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir.
Beyond Good and Evil 1.6
Philosophers, like most people, say more about themselves when they imagine that they are not talking about themselves.
It is all wrong!
Philosophers are not perfect like we all not.
Why we plot about their lives?
It should be History of Philosophy not history of philosophers.
where is your critical thinking?
where is your decency?
where is your objectivism?
Western thought was created by great minds,not like yours.
Western Though
This magazine should change name
The Pseudophilosophers Magazine
Right. Weird. Why am I getting ad hominems for talking about biography?
Anyway, thanks for that Brian. I don’t think biography has to be comprehensive to help, it just has to be good, has to give us a sense of the philosopher — enough to help us understand what he or she was up to now and then.
Asur,I take your point, but I think sometimes trying to work out what, say, Wittgenstein thought, opens up new interpretations. Monk saw something Dummett and Wright didn’t, because he took the time to get to know Wittgenstein.
Thanks for that line, Amos. I’ll steal it.
It is somewhat ironical (?), that commentators on Wittgenstein leave it open that such prescriptive phrases as the call to silence upon what one cannot speak, are capable of interpretation, such that – there may well be a “what” upon which one is silent. I remain silent on relativity when someone knows more than me about the subject in conversation (not difficult). I tend not to remain silent on matters philosophical, partly because I have read “reasonably” widely in the subject, and partly because it engages argument more than it engages fact. So it is an argument that the silence about “that” can be interpreted differently, but there is I recall a body of fact that indicates Wittgenstein was reaching for a certain degree of self sufficiency in his proposals/propositions and rewrote sentences many times to get that clarity. But not simply clarity, but clarity that ended further philosophical speculation. A clarity that was some form of therapy out of reinterpretation. If philosophy was or is the bewitchment of intelligence by language then the language to expunge philosophy must be (given it is written in language) itself be necessarily bewitching.
All the striving for an end point, a walking away from Philosophy, as an empty way of speaking lends itself to the Biography of the tormented soul trying to rid itself of its obsessions. Wittgenstein did walk away from Philosophy into gardening and teaching school children, but returned to his “task”. Wittgenstein is remembered for his Philosophy and his way of approach, an approach which seems endlessly applicable, but without simply a reiteration.
When I read the Literary output of anybody, philosophers in particular, my curiosity is always aroused as to what sort of person wrote this. Time permitting and where possible I turn to biographies and the like to find out. I am never disappointed. I tend to remember the man/woman far more easily than what they wrote, but I do not suppose that is unusual. Many years ago when I studied A Level Literature Compartmentalism was the rule. We were instructed that the work should stand for itself, that was all we needed. This seemed to me a short sighted viewpoint as I found when a perusal of the varied and rich life of the poet W B Yeats revealed the reasons for and origin of the great stuff he wrote. The same I found went for many other writers. My knowledge of Wittgenstein’s philosophy is I suppose sufficient to keep my head above water in discussion but I have probably read more about him than I have of what he wrote. Does this help me understand philosophical output better? Not necessarily, but the works become invigorated by what I know of the writer and the opinion I have formed of him/her as a person. In a way he /she comes to life as does their literary output.
At once a magnetic and repulsive personality, Wittgenstein could be a dangerous influence to those falling under his spell. I do wonder was he over rated, suppose he had never been sponsored by Russell? O.K. Bouwsma’s “Wittgenstein Conversations 1949-1951” cover a period when poor W. was entering the last throws of his terrible terminal illness. Bouwsma and the other philosophers involved, Malcolm was one, I can’t remember off hand the others were obviously all mesmerised by Wittgenstein, hung on his every word. So far as I can see the conversations were only about first year undergraduate level. I am not a W. scholar so I suppose I am not really qualified to talk here.
I remember the Theoretical physicist Paul Dirac who was a contemporary of Wittgenstein at Cambridge about 1939 to 1947 described W. as “an awful fellow. Never stopped talking”. I personally think the Nobel Prize winner Dirac’s legacy far outstrips Wittgenstein; his books and publications certainly do. The biography of Dirac (The Strangest Man) by Graham Farmelo is a fascinating read.
It has been said that Wittgenstein and Quine were at their best when they were rudely dismissive! Maybe so but that in itself for me immediately arouses my interest both in what they were, and what opinions they held, somehow for me the two go together. I suppose what I am after is an understanding of Human Nature and its output. Alternatively I may be just a Nosey-Parker.
Don:
In one of his unpublished works, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, Nietzsche comments that most philosophical systems are not strictly true, but that the point of studying them is to get to know those special human beings who are the great philosophers.
Jonathan – Monk makes a strong case for the view that W is being silent about something. Monk quotes a letter from W to an editor:
“The point of the book is ethical … I once wanted to give a few words in the foreword which now actually are not in it, which, however, I’ll write to you now because they might be a key for you: I wanted to write that my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one.”
Someone who knows more about W than I do (that’s everyone) will be able to explain this better, but if the limits of my language are the limits of my world, and I think something transcends this world, I have no choice but to be silent about it. But the point is I’m being silent about something. Not a point you’d spot if all you had was the Tractatus — and probably the logical positivists who read him line by line would not have embraced him had they known he thought something like that.
Hello Don – I know exactly what you mean why you say that the words become invigorated when you know something about the person who wrote them. Who said it, David Pears?, that Hume is good company. Having a sense that you know the philosopher (even when you don’t) does give the work some traction, somehow.
I try to consider myself a compartmentalist, in the sense of the word used within this article. How much should we examine the lives and dustbins of people, instead of judging them for what they want the world to see? If a person wants to stick their nose into garbage, then they should not complain about the smell. It should be more important about what was said, rather than who said it. Otherwise, it is reason by ad hominem.
On the other hand, biography is sometimes a part of philosophy. I remember reading a claim that Plato manufactured the fictitious character Socrates, to explain why Plato never appeared in his own writings. Another theory was that Plato and Socrates were the same person. This was doubtful because Socrates was considered far too dynamic and fallible a character to be a figment of anyone’s imagination. Greek poetic figures were usually more sterile and monochromatic. Could philosophers know this without reductivism?
Amos said, “In one of his unpublished works, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, Nietzsche comments that most philosophical systems are not strictly true, but that the point of studying them is to get to know those special human beings who are the great philosophers.”
That’s something along the lines of what I should have said in reply to Asur — it’s not just a thing for history buffs … getting to know the greats is probably of value in itself.
I love reading Spinoza. I’ve probably read the Ethics 5 or 6 times.
Why?
I could mention his naturalism, his insights into human psychology, his radical politics, but actually, I can learn more about naturalism googling Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is much more up-to-date and easier to read.
So it’s not only the contents which draw me to Spinoza. The style counts of course.
My sense of the man; his courage (it took incredible courage to live independently of all religious sects in the 17th century, even in more tolerant Holland and Spinoza was a skillful enough political analyst to be aware that Holland could easily become less tolerant), his radicalism; his refusal to submit to the Jewish authorities or to even look back with nostalgia all play a part.
However, the mental institutions are full of people with independent and radical points of view.
It’s hard to specify what it is about Spinoza (just as it is hard to specify what is valuable in any friend), but I am grateful for having gotten to know Baruch Spinoza, among other great thinkers.
David,
Only if we can wear blue pseudo shoes.
Swallerstein,
“All writing is autobiography.”
-Murray
Jonathan Smith wrote “ironical (?)” Ironic?
Good, thought-provoking article, as ever. Thanks.
@James
“Asur, I take your point, but I think sometimes trying to work out what, say, Wittgenstein thought, opens up new interpretations.
I agree that this is true. It would be worthwhile if both 1) it resulted in a new interpretation that was valuable beyond simply being a new interpretation, and 2) the philosophical insight produced by this new interpretation was novel.
I don’t think (1) and (2) obtain very often, so I see effort in understanding the biography of an author as–most likely–’time lost’ as far as doing philosophy goes.
For me, the key revelation of Monk’s biography of dear Ludwig was not his sexual orientation per se, but Wittgenstein’s admiration for Otto Weininger’s absurd book, “Sex and Character”. That such an intelligent, often-incisive thinker would consider Weininger’s psycho-babble to be valuable and insightful says a great deal about the sexual-identity demons driving Wittgenstein, and occluding his thinking. This revelation of W’s personality in turn says a great deal about W’s philosophical thought, particularly his desire for an emphatic certainty (of which the form of Tractatus is an instance) and his later views on language games.
I like the orthogonal way out of the false dichotomy between reductionalism and compartmentalism – the “get to know you” angle. Said more carefully — the deeper you come to understand the person, the more tools you may be able to bring to the interpretative task. In other words, love (gasp) aids understanding.
But here is another angle – Ricoeur’s hermeneutic of suspicion. Read the philosopher’s biography to understand his or her blindspots. When he or she makes claims about “the human condition”, what did he or she actually experience or learn about the breadth of the human experience. Did he or she have any grasp, or desire to grasp, and therefore include in his or reflections, the experience of, say, a woman alive in central Africa in 1850? A peasant in Japan in 1400? To the extent the answers are yes or no, how does that context change the text when you read it? This is not a reductionist angle– I am not saying that anyone’s biography determines them. I am raising a question of how much a given philosopher takes his or her limited experience into account in the course of their reflections.
Talk is cheap…
Thought without practice likewise. Practice what you preach, or is it too much to ask? Too religious, perhaps?
If philosophy is nothing but an artform, then OK. One can revel in Wagner’s music while deeply disliking its author, or ignoring him and his life altogether.
But if philosophy is more than mere intellectual speculation, if philosophy is the practical science the purpose of which is to define and map out how to live a “good life”, then of course, the life of the thinker should validate (or invalidate) his thought and method. Who wants a sophisticated hypocrite as a life-teacher?
Steve:
Since I’ve never agreed with anything you’ve said so far in various threads on this blog, I want to note that I agree with almost everything that you say in your above comment.
Re swallerstein May 29th.
I am not sure I agree with what Steve1 has said. I believe there are exceptions.
For instance ‘practice what you preach’ Surely this is not always possible or advisable. One can still know the right and proper way to live life, not practice it oneself, but notwithstanding, be able to advise against a way of life of which one has, first hand knowledge, and continues so to have. Personally I would value the advice of such a person in connection with say, Stealing, rather than the innocent of all sin Holy man who can only point to his Bible where it says “Thou shall not steal”
“Practice what you preach” is so often used as a put-down-line by those who do not want to take the advice offered. I hasten to add here that it can of course be used meaningfully in some circumstances. Again say a life time smoker advised me to stop smoking now, for my health’s sake, it would be churlish to tell him/her to practice what they preach.
“Sophisticated hypocrite” is an emotive phrase intended to rouse antagonistic passions. No doubt there are certain unpleasant people who pose a part merely for their own gain but surely one can still skilfully cover up an unsavoury life and yet give continuing good advice. The hypocrite’s most powerful reply when unmasked is to say “do not do as I do, do as I tell you.” Whether or not you continue to act on his/her advice can only come of one’s own judgement and the knowledge that those who have “been there” or “are still there” quite possibly know more about “there” than those who have not.
I am trying to think of some characters from History who may be examples of what I am saying here. No-one comes to mind at the moment.
Hello Don:
It is true that regarding factual knowledge, for example, that smoking is harmful, it does not matter who makes that claim. To insist otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.
However, Steve mentions philosophical life teachers, not those who make normal factual claims.
Philosophical life teachers generally tell us that our ordinary normal muddling-through way of life is not the best one or the most virtuous one possible or the happiest one (in the sense of happiness as inner peace or flourishing). That is, they claim that our ordinary normal way of life is one of ignorance, of blindness, of not examining our values or lifestyle, of being in a cave.
Philosophers who are life teachers in the above sense are Socrates, the Stoics, Epicurus, Spinoza, Nietzsche, existentialists and even someone like Peter Singer, among others.
Now, first of all, new values for people to live by must be realistic. If I suggest that a virtuous way of life entails giving all your wealth to the poor and then donating all your organs (although you are healthy) to the sick, you will justly respond that that way of life is not realistic, that it goes against human nature, even against the most generous side of our human nature.
So any new way of life must be realistic.
Second, values are not abstract. As the virtuous ethicists point out, if you want to understand what justice is, look for a just man. Obviously, in this case, there is a complex feedback process between our vague sense of what justice is and our search for a just man to observe justice in action in the real world.
So let’s say that I learn that Socrates, instead of accepting his sentence by the law of Athens as he advocates in the Crito, defected to Sparta after bribing the guards and then spent the rest of his life selling Athenian military secrets to the Spartans.
Let’s say that Peter Singer, instead of giving most of his income to the poor, invests his every penny in the international arms trade, selling weapons to Somali pirates, getting very rich.
I would then cease to see either Socrates or Singer as examples of virtue and I might well begin to doubt whether the teachings of Socrates and Singer are viable, that is, realistic.
After all, my everyday bourgeois common sense tells me that if I have an opportunity to escape the death sentence, there is nothing wrong with fleeing and that while it is good to give money to charity from time to time, basically my money is for me and those around me.
Rudiger Safranski is a spectacular biographer (wrote on Heidegger, Schopenhaur, Nietzsche & others) who shares Monk’s vision of a philosophical biography as a text that ties the events of a thinker’s life and historical situation into an explication of their work for the purpose of enriching our understanding of the spirit and originality of the work itself.
Especially for non-academics, philosophical biographies can be an excellent tool for placing a thinker within a historical/intellectual context.
Well, I hadn’t seen the follow-ups.
“Practice what you preach, or at least, try”.
IMHO, that’s precisely what makes all the difference between armchair philosophy and genuine philosophy. Philosophy should be like medicine: a practical, experimental science. The “medicine of the soul” (whatever definition you give the soul).
If philosophy is mere intellectual speculation, then it should be given another name: how about “thinkosophy”?
Thinkosophy can be very interesting and valuable, of course. But it’s not philosophy. Nor should “thinkosophers” be called “philosophers”.
As to whether a school of thought should be studied and understood by also studying the context in which it was developed, that seems obvious enough. This is valid for both religious thoughts and non-religious philosophies.
Two more points:
- Practicing what one preaches is, of course, no validation of the truth and universal value and of what one preaches.
- Giving advice to friends and family, for instance, exercise and diet, while one is a couch potato, is unrelated to the discussion above. Unless the couch potato starts to think of and advertise him or herself as a philosopher.
Re Steve1 June 12:-
I suggest that Philosophical thinking is an innate propensity we all do it. Some are better at it than others and they call themselves first and foremost Philosophers. Everybody has opinions and beliefs and will respond to questions about god, the hereafter, is stealing good or bad, and so on. Philosophy is in fact embraced by what one would call call living. Professional philosophers may be due to their training, more adept at so called critical thinking, and communication, but they are far from fool-proof. I suggest that nobody of normal mental ability could really be described as Non-philosophically appraised, any more than they could be described as unable to run; we can all do it but vary in our ability that is all.
I would agree. We are all, more or less, thinkosophers and our own personal philosophers (leaving the free-will can of worms aside).
I would not call trained “thinkers” philosophers. This Kant expert or that Sartre specialist is no more a philosopher than anyone else. But a historian, an exegete, an archeologist of someone else’s thought.
Stoics or (more likely) cynics of old would laugh at today’s thinkosophers.
Philosophy has to translate into practice. If it doesn’t, it’s mere thinkosophy.