For Kant in his essay “What is Enlightenment”, “nonage”
( childhood before the age of mature reason) was “the inability to use one own understanding without another’s guidance.” For him, nonage was self imposed and motivated by indecision or lack of personal courage.
Kant’s prescription for this adult deficiency was “Sempere Aude”—dare to know”. We now understand that our adult beliefs and personal truth systems are instilled by family,clan,church and our most local society.
If that childhood upbringing ignores Kant’s admonition to think for yourself and dare to understand, it is uncommon for the adult traped in the system of revealed truth to dare to reason for herself. The authors preach to the choir. The readers of The Stone, I believe, are already persuaded of Kant’s maxim. Whether those adults trapped in their childhood
“nonage “ that they learned from cultural myth, revealed truth, respect for tradition , and the wisom of elders can learn to reason for themselves and“dare to know” is at best arguable.
2
It's "sapere aude".
"Semper" means "always", in Latin, and "sapere" "knowing".
When it comes to adults learning how to think, Kant is much more optimistic than you are here.
First of all, he never writes that you HAVE to learn this in childhood.
Secondly, he claims that people start to think/philosophize spontaneously, once they get the political freedom to do so. It's only when that freedom is absent, and certain "authorities" force them to think this or that way, that they won't see how to start thinking for themselves, and that it will be very difficult/dangerous for any individual to try to do so.
So EVEN Kant clearly believes that you need certain political conditions before the majority of ordinary citizens starts to think for themselves - as Cavell does.
Everything depends, however, on what you understand by "political freedom to think". Kant writes that that's something very simple: it merely means using your own "rational thinking/reason" in public. But then he goes on to explain what he means by "in public" ... : that public is actually an audience of scholars, and thinking in public means WRITING down your ideas, without having a monarch telling you what to write and what not.
Once scholars have the freedom to debate among themselves through their writings, Kant claims, sooner or later ordinary citizens will automatically follow.
Imho, Trump's election shows that he was wrong. You HAVE to invest in teaching ordinary citizens HOW to think ...
3
As a long time fan of Cavell, I am sad at the ignorant comments of those who never read his elegant, rich encounters with texts and films. He lived in the ordinary with an exquisite sense of the uncanny beauty of human contradiction.
2
"when the public must on a daily basis confront bald lies and cries of “fake news” from Donald Trump and his dangerous ilk" what else are we to do but put those who cavell (as a man who appreciated our flaws "genocidal destruction and the embrace of slavery," etc.) might give a fair hearing as fellow citizens in "the contradiction that is the united states of america" into baskets, denying them "what it might mean to imagine that 'what is true in (their) private heart(s) is true for all men'" and that "paying attention to what matters to (them)" is, for them, as the rest of us "a prerequisite of thinking seriously at all."
rather a betrayal than a commemoration of cavell herein.
1
The problem with exhorting everybody to think is that not everybody has time or energy to think. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this, except when I have lacked the energy and focus because there are so many tasks to do in this live I live.
Our society has gotten ever busier, ever noisier, and more and more full of unavoidable commitments. It is true of the overscheduled child; it is true of the overly busy adults; and it is true of our ever-more-productive workplaces and governments.
When you keep people too busy or too entertained to think, they don't. I'd say more about this, but I must get back to work.
4
Ever since the '60s when the powers that be discovered that an educated, thinking population could be a threat to them, they have stirred up a war against "intellectual elites," culminating in this abomination of a president who "loves the undereducated."
8
An exhibit on race at the Chicago History Museum seems relevant to this discussion of philosophy, language, and the contradiction between America’s “sacred commitment to liberty and justice” and “the genocidal destruction of indigenous communities and the embrace of slavery.” (I’m sure the desire for wealth and power is also relevant. Many societies have practiced slavery and destroyed neighboring communities. But we’re discussing philosophy, language, and American history.)
The exhibit compares and contrasts explanations of phenomena that depend in part on the concept of race with explanations of the same phenomena that do not, and shows how different explanations justify different actions.
The exhibit’s argument starts with the observation that people tend to marry the boy or girl next door, then shows how very much one can explain simply by chronicling the interaction over time between natural selection and the environmental stresses people face in different environments. The exhibit looks at how interposing the concept of race often leads to different explanations and actions - even today, a physician treating a condition more prevalent in certain races may approach treatment differently if the physician sees the condition in part through the lens of race rather than simply as the interplay between the patient’s genetic inheritance and the details of the patient’s experiences.
What a beautiful and inspiring essay, many thanks. I am thinking about it, and about Cavell of whom I had never heard but whose works I will now seek out. Have also been reading the comments to this article and find another contradiction! -- the rapid often mindless process of issuing forth such commentary seems to be antipathetic to the kind of deep thinking Cavell and his students advocate for as essential to democracy.
6
Sorry this is murky in meaning and often poorly written. The thinkers discussed deserve better, regardless of the authors’ good intentions. Think like Socrates, write like Hemingway. Easy, right?
3
What would Cabell say about Trump kidnapping 2000 children including babies, snatching them from their parents arms and putting them in cages.Then moving them to far places in the dead of night so they will be hidden away and hard to trace?
What would he say about the fact that these child internment camps full of captive babies are just a news flash that is fading from sight?
Where are those children now?And never mind Trump, what does the silence say about us? Can you hear the children crying?
5
What would Cabell say about Obama kidnapping 25,000 children including babies, snatching them from their parents' arms and putting them in cages?
At least Trump has the children in safe places surrpounded by nurturing people seeing that they are educated, doctored, well-fed, and receive lessons in English.
Trump is the best thing to happen to the illegal immigrant AND actually has Democrat progressives calling for the U.S. government to SHRINK! No other preident can claim this advancement!
About all the Democrats can do now is train the unread ot hate their country.
@ L'osservatore
Any concrete evidence to back up your claim about Obama?
@ L'osservatore
I just found the original article, where your source is probably based on:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unacco...
As you can see:
- Obama did NOT "kidnap" these children, they crossed the border unaccompanied, and were caught by border patrol
- he NEVER "snatched them from their parents' arms", as they weren't accompanied by their parents in the first place
- at a certain point, there was a huge surge in unaccompanied children crossing the border. That's when Obama set up emergency measures, but those WERE "safe places surpounded by nurturing people seeing that they are educated, doctored, well-fed" etc.
As to accompanied children: Obama put them in jail with their parents, he never separated them, and jailed them only for a short period of time. He then installed the Family Case Management program, which allowed him to no longer jail families, all while making sure that they show up in court.
Conclucion: Obama NEVER did what Trump did here, and on the contrary developed a system that was but entirely humane and efficient. That's the very opposite of what Trump is doing ...
Finally ... Obama cut Bush's record $1.4 trillion deficit by two third, and Trump and the GOP already doubled it again in less than two years.
The day you start doing some fact-checking, you'll see that Republicans TALK about shrinking the government, but that it's only Democrats who DO so, concretely.
1
The authors do not mention "facts' as the basis on which discussion begins.
Also. the brain, which does language, doesn't always get the words right, or put them in coherent, understandable form.
What about the 2000 children that can't be found because Trump spirited them away to far places in the dead of night? Is this a philosophical question that has to be dealt with? Like Malenia's coat " I don't care Do you? " Well Do You? Do you hear children crying in the dead of night or have you put them out of sight, out of mind? Has the US become inured to cruelty? How does a country get that way? What are the consequences? Not for you, thoughtless one, for those crying children?
2
Doesn't the task of understanding "what it means to be a citizen in the contradiction that is the United States of America" in the context of “what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men” require us to ponder why we collectively undertook to experience Donald Trump? Haven't we now reached the point when we must acknowledge that simply condemning Trump has become shallow, useless and wearisome? What reality lying within our collective private heart are we systematically ignoring? Or denying?
The link between private and public truth runs both ways. We can't get rid of what we dislike if we refuse to understand it, including its roots in us. You can't blame someone else when your own experience upsets you.
3
If it is true that the unexamined life is not worth living, then it is also true that not only American history but also life itself is rife with contradictions and we use language to make sense of them. Cavell measured the adequacy of a government by its capacity to support human flourishing in which individuals express their own sense of what is important to them. I am certain Cavell was duly alarmed at end of his life by Trump's perverted use of language as propaganda as a means of control through speech that sows fear and division. Trump has no interest in human flourishing or independent thought or truth.
I read that if a country is flooded with counterfeit money, the currency is debased, and it follows that if a country is flooded with lies, distortions and propaganda, not only its language but also its culture is debased.
Trump uses language to indoctrinate the public into accepting what was once considered morally repugnant - caging of children- referring to immigrants as infestations. He uses language in his speeches and in his twitter feed to disseminate lies and to undermine the credibility of the free press.
Language is a powerful tool, and if it is weaponized to achieve corrupt and dishonorable ends, we must fight harder to employ language that promotes rather than degrades human flourishing. To do otherwise is to join the mob of Trump's sheep.
7
“In war the two chief virtues are force and fraud.” Thomas Hobbes.
The contradiction in MAGA is that American History is a path from genocide of indigenous peoples to more recent greatness. American greatness is embracing progress, not returning to the dark virtues of the past.
4
I have read all 57 comments and am enjoying the civil discussion taking place among some of us who have the time to try to discuss.
I want to pay homage to Cavell and thank the authors for emphasizing that words do matter and that discussing them in appropriate forum is well worth while. Comment land is not the best forum perhaps, but here is an example of a reply discussion between me and SteveRR where I want to suggest that SteveRR visit Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to see the 2017 entry on "Race", which begins with these words:
"The concept of race has historically signified the division of humanity into a small number of groups based upon five criteria:" (The criteria follow).
SteveRR seems to be using his uniquely individual definition of "race" or perhaps a particularly American definition but gives no reference.
So to Steve and anyone else (Gmail at my blog) would you consider completing this:
The USCB uses African American as a race. I, SteveRR, offer the following criteria as tools for placing Americans in that particular race, unequivocally and without ambiguity.
Steve, I close by noting that I am not alone in seeing the term African American as being better seen as a distinct American ethnicity.
Look forward to your reply.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
"The antidote to the toxin is to create the social conditions that will allow each citizen to promote and persevere in the Socratic task — so consistently highlighted in Cavell’s prose — of continuously getting to know ourselves, of acknowledging our own routes of feeling and senses of what matters and — crucially — testing these sensibilities publicly against the sensibilities of our fellow citizens."
Although I liked reading this op-ed (for once, The Stone publishes a piece that cannot be easily refuted ... ) and its urgent call to act, I profoundly regret to see how utterly vague it remains.
What are those social and political conditions, more precisely?
And what does testing our sensibilities against those of our fellow citizens mean, concretely? How to do so? What kind of tools do we have to create to get there?
For Plato, the answers to these questions were clear already. First of all, you need a philosopher at the helmet, and who governs as a dictator. Secondly, that dictator nevertheless has to constantly consult the best and wisest men (aristocrats, from "aristos" in Greek, "the best"), who not only received a specific training (like all other free citizens (= non slaves) - including philosophy and character and self-knowledge training - but who excelled at it.
He didn't see how to obtain these political conditions in a democracy.
So today, the challenge is: how to give EVERY citizen such a training? How to turn ALL citizens into philosophers/aristocrats?
1
In the last paragraph we read, "To be a participant in a good-enough democratic polis is a perpetual project that requires taking seriously one’s abiding and evolving tastes and interests and working without surcease to create an ever-expanding social and linguistic space for every individual who arrives on our shores, or at our borders, to pursue happiness." Setting aside the policies of the Trump administration for a moment, this sounds to me like a thinly veiled suggestion for an open borders policy. It's news to me that this is a requirement, perhaps a philosophical one no less, of being a participant in a good enough democratic polis. The last time I checked, the will of the majority still also counted as part of a democratic polis (along naturally with respect for fundamental rights), and I highly doubt there is anything remotely close to a majority in this country for an open borders policy. The left may learn this the hard way if it makes this a standard part of its ideological platform. I suppose the authors would conclude that the majority is just not good enough.
" (...) to create an ever-expanding social and linguistic space for every individual who arrives on our shores, or at our borders, to pursue happiness" doesn't imply "open borders" at all.
1. First of all, only conservatives (conservative demagogues?) use the notion "open border". It is literally a contradictio in terminis. An open border means NO border. So this is a notion designed by demagogues to attack their opponents' philosophical position by trying to depict it as being self-contradictory.
In real life, however, NO leftist intellectual (and no intellectual whatsoever) EVER supported the notion of destroying borders.
So this is a straw man argument, designed to end all debate rather than to create it. And a democracy without any real debate is no longer a democracy - whether people can still vote or not. Because it's only through debates that individuals can find out WHAT really matters to them, as Cavell has shown. End all serious debates, and we all get stuck in mere propaganda and fake news, so our vote cannot be but largely disconnected from reality.
2. Creating a social and linguistic space doesn't imply abandoning real, commercial and military borders at all. Nothing indicates here that the space where people arriving at our borders can pursue happiness is necessarily INSIDE of US borders. It's a LINGUISTIC space. That means creating the opportunity for the people arriving here to TELL us what matters to them, and to wonder WHAT to do to help them.
4
Open border does not refer to NO Border for any purpose. Clearly, a border can designate a political jurisdiction. Yet, that political jurisdiction might admit all comers--hence open border.
@ Gerry Professor
Except that there is no politician nor political party on earth that supports the idea nor implements the idea "that political jurisdiction might admit all comers".
And could you please explain the difference between such a jurisdiction, and a jurisdiction that would support the idea of abandoning all borders?
All of us in our early years, accept, usually without thinking, a cultural download from our parents, teachers and community. it is a rare person who learns to look at this download and examine each piece critically. Not with the idea of how does with work with my community, but first and foremost how does this work for me? Most people, even those who do look at their basic assumptions, are very hesitant to reject them as meaningless in their own life. That is the mark of a Practicing Master, one who questions their basic assumptions, keeping what is good, adapting what they can, and rejecting the rest, with the full knowledge that there will be consequences for their actions and doing them anyway, because they can do no other.
6
Care with words and with thoughts is not the particular province of philosophy. What the authors portray is a supple and inquisitive mind that explored many domains. (This, in my experience as a philosophy concentrator at Harvard College in the 1980s, set Cavell apart from the department's professoriat - who then and since have made scant contribution to our society's discourse - or to pure intellectual advancement.).
We all have within us the capacity to think broadly and deeply, and with clarity. It simply takes solitude and concentration - and can be aided by a pen and blank paper or a set of good books with which to initiate a silent dialogue.
13
"We all have within us the capacity to think broadly and deeply, and with clarity. "
I suspect you don't get out much these days. An unfortunately large number of Americans are not capable of thinking at all in the sense you describe. They are easily manipulated by appeals to emotion, and that is what we have to work with politically.
10
@ Frank Knarf
And yet, being a philosopher myself too, I cannot but confirm what William M. Palmer wrote: yes, it is my experience too that we all have at least the CAPACITY "to think broadly and deeply, and with clarity".
That many people were never taught how to do so, and as a consequence didn't have the opportunity to cultivate and develop this capacity, isn't there fault. You need VERY specific social and political conditions before each and every citizen has the chance to learn how to do this.
But it IS merely a skill.
And indeed, if it isn't developed, then you're extremely vulnerable to manipulation (through emotions and thoughts).
So to "work with that politically" means to find a way to finally cultivate the love of philosophizing in ANY ordinary citizen.
And as Plato said, a philosopher is someone who has a "terrible love" of the truth. What should give us hope is that we clearly see a "love of the truth" in Trump supporters too. They reject real news not because they WANT to be fooled, but because they're utterly convinced (through social and political conditions - read: Fox News and GOP leaders) that it is false and because they want the truth (= what they feel as being true for them).
Now to turn this into a "terrible" love of the truth, we'll have to engage in real, respectful debates with them, where we fact-check any news together - not against them.
We welcome immigrants based on our common humanity. We should do so with Trump supporters too.
@William M. Palmer, Esq.
What is a "philosophy concentrator"?
I googled this, could not find an actual 'definition'. I perused a number of Harvard course descriptions, as well as a general search for any definition from any source.
It is commendable that these three philosophers, as former students of Dr. Cavell, have collaborated on this tribute to their mentor. I'm not a philosopher and until now, had never heard of Dr. Cavell. I read the entire piece although i must confess, not without some fits and starts. But let take a stab at summarizing Dr. Cavell's advice about thinking undistractedly as a vital component to citizenship in a democracy and for each of us to think for ourselves in order for democracy to avoid "...being reduced to an unthinking mob." Here goes: we need a much greater commitment to improve public primary and secondary schools and the requisite academic freedom so we don't see something like a Trump Youth in our lifetimes. Is that close?
31
To honor the memory of someone whose ruminations are
so apt for the dangerous times upon us, it would be very
helpful for there to be organized in every nook and cranny
of the country, where readers of Cavell can be found, weekly
public forums of discussion around any number of his favorite
motifs. Solicit attendance widely, expect people to listen and
attend to the thoughts of others, and place on line videos of
the events. Try and get still more people to participate.
We clearly are desperately in need of an engaged broad based conversation
with his thoughts on how we need to behave to optimize the opportunity offered by being citizens of this civic society.
4
No wonder philosophy has a bad name. Bauer, Crary, and Laugier (and Cavell, if they represent him accurately) may be excellent philosophers but they are terrible historians.
They say the U.S. is a "disgraceful" contradiction "founded on a sacred commitment to liberty and justice as well as on the genocidal destruction of indigenous communities and the embrace of slavery..."
Baloney. From their wars of conquest to the enslavement of Africans, Europeans in the Americas behaved in a manner completely normal to all human societies, everywhere on earth, in all of history, including Africans and the American aborigines.
Actually, I am not aware of any European society that behaved like the Aztecs, who were in a state of permanent war with their neighbors in order to harvest the thousands of slaves and human sacrifices the needed, every year, many of whom they also cannibalized.
In fact, unique among all people, it was the Europeans who first thought there was something wrong, in principle, with slavery. Although it took a while, the Europeans got out of the business altogether and, most remarkably of all, worked to suppress slavery world-wide.
Only lately, with the waning of American and European influence in global affairs, slavery has been making comeback, especially in the Muslim lands of Africa. And, to the extent that intellectuals, like these authors, worked to undermine Western power and influence, the rise of 21st century slavery is on their heads.
14
I think slavery is alive and well today, though not in the way you think or the way it used to be. But I don't think this has anything with any particular nation or tribe and dividing humans (or even other living beings) into these tribes and labels is part of the problem. The statement about the US (and indeed all of humanity) being a contradiction is still true, even if you play the relativist game.
7
If “Western power and influence” depended on denying the ways American history parallels the many horrors and errors of human history more generally, then perhaps its decline should be welcomed. Luckily, though, the opposite is true – as Haim’s comment itself suggests, important threads of Western political and philosophical thought built a strong case against the justifications for slavery (not to mention other horrors). I can’t see anything in the essay by Bauer, Crary, and Laugier that supports the accusation that they – in this essay or in other ways – have “worked to undermine” the strength of those liberating ideas and ideals.
4
First of all, your excuse for the genocide against Native Americans and the massive enslavement of Africans just because they were black ... is that other nations did so too?
If yes: let's suppose that that would be true for a moment. In that case, you are CONFIRMING Laugier & co's quote, you see? You cannot first reject the idea that we did it, and then immediately go on saying "others did it too". Just the most basic form of logical thinking allows you already to see that you're contradicting yourself.
Secondly, no, other nations did not commit the same cruelties. As Tolstoi already wrote, each family is unhappy in its own unique way.
If you want to know in what specific way Europeans have been cruel to others, read Guibert of Nogent's "Chronicle of the First Crusade". Here you have a monk and abbot, detailing enthusiastically every single real and/or imagined cruel act committed by crusaders against Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem (yes, both fought together, as Christians were attacking their city). He celebrated it as proof that God exists and his justice omnipresent.
Or read Basil Davidson's books about what European colonization did to Africa and its great civilizations and kingdoms.
Or what Hitler and so many European governments did to 6 million Jews, only half a century ago.
Then start reading what the CIA did to Central America. Or Afghanistan.
If you do this, you'll see that the West isn't out of the woods yet, and that indeed, thinking is still needed...
2
If the authors define Cavell's work in those terms then "Trumpism" should be as socially acceptable if not equally moral to the Democratic precepts extolled by the liberal progressives. Cavell's work is asymmetrical if not utterly obtuse.
3
Why would it be as socially acceptable and equally moral, more precisely?
Another wonderful article about Stanley Cavell. Early in my philosophical education I read "Must We Mean what We Say" and "The Availability ... Wittgenstein" with pleasure. Perhaps not trusting my own loves and intuitions sufficiently, I remained somewhat caged for years in the straightjacket of analytic philosophy. 50 + years on, I have eventually worked myself to a position very similar to Cavell's, though without benefit of reading him. Cavell himself I could not read. Too rich for my taste. I tried to read several of his books starting with Senses of Walden, and other than The World Viewed didn't get too far before irritation overcame me.
Now that he has passed his former students and his admirers are writing helpful overviews of his corpus. I wish I had been more patient.
7
If we ever do get past the lies and utter disregard for not only facts but also analysis that characterizes our political discourse these days, I hope that this horrible experience might nudge a somewhat larger segment of the population into more and better critical thinking -- i.e. philosophy. Thinking for ourselves, demanding "how do you know that?" and putting in the investment to be able to analyze better the claims to which all of us are constantly subject.
Not everyone will agree. But I submit, we need a bit less passion and a bit more trained, intelligent, reflection.
Good luck with that, most of my friends would say...
15
The Pre-Columbian indigenous tribes considered warfare as natural as breathing. Land was confiscated and slaves indentured; provided you weren't cannibalized. But philosophy isn't need to model Carvell's idealized sinless America. That's found south in Central America and to a lessor degree Mexico.
Ironically, it's back to the future. Central Americans monopolize political will; maybe is subconscious repentance for European colonization. Our vulnerable, specifically African Americans, once again, are reprehensibly marginalized.
1
What a fascinating appreciation of the late Stanley Cavell!, and an inspiration to those of us who practice philosophy at a distance from university philosophy departments.
Among the great disappointments of the American experience, the cause of much contradiction, is the failure to make prevail a truly noble interpretation of the third of the "unalienable rights" of the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness. It seems to have turned out to mean for the most part the pursuit of wealth, and of the enjoyment of materialist pleasures. Cavell's much finer vision suggests we missed the opportunity to establish the lifelong cultivation of the liberal arts, including especially the humanities, as absolutely requisite to our sense of the pursuit of happiness.
15
The pursuit of happiness was derived from Epicurus, the 3rd century BCE philosopher. He was also misunderstood from the beginning and called a hedonist. But Epicurus's ideal of happiness, when asked about it, was friendship, not the pursuit of wealth or physical pleasure.
6
Although I recognize the intellectual trail back to Epicurean thought on the notion of "happiness," recall that Jefferson is basically just paraphrasing Locke's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." If I recall correctly, the Declaration's original draft included that phase unmodified before the broader term "happiness" was substituted for the word, "property."
The essay piqued my interest in Cavell. Can someone suggest a monograph or essay collection as an entry point into his writing on the themes the authors highlight?
3
His book on Shakespeare, Disowning Knowledge, is great (especially the essay on Lear). I liked the way he put together the essays in Themes Out of School too, as reflected in that title.
1
Dear Professors Bauer, Crary, and Laugier,
If we wish to "preserve philosophy in the face of all those forces that wish to negate philosophy," to paraphrase one of Professor Cavell's concerns, perhaps we should remember that nature in all her glory and all her horror always and forever not only seeks but succeeds in negating every last philosophy and every last one of us.
To the extent that the present American moment is a tad more turbulent than what came before, what of it?
Genuine catastrophes abound around the globe and throughout history for nearly the whole of all that have ever walked the earth. Yet throughout the tyrannies and the tragedies of history and the atrocities and the absurdities of modernity, millions have figured out that the way to transcend their moment, to transcend their time, to transcend their catastrophe - real or imagined, is to climb that philosophical mountain and lead a philosophical life. No matter who or what stands in their way. No matter what distracts or contracts them. No matter what confronts or contradicts them.
Professor Cavell showed one path. Mother Teresa showed another. And Dr. Viktor Frankl went through hell and back to show yet another.
Stop with the politics. Life is a struggle. Tiny for some. Monumental for others. But each of us must push through, pull through, get through.
America is indeed a contradiction. So is life. But a life led philosophically? Ah, there's a consolation for you.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
10
Could you please give an example of a great philosophy written during the 2,500 year long history of philosophy and that "nature has negated" ... ?
As to nature "seeking" to negate philosophy: any empirical evidence to back up such a claim?
In the meanwhile, the world is more populated than ever before, so yes, of course we need political philosophy in order to obtain clear ideas of HOW we want to live together, and how to create the social conditions allowing any individual to become truly happy.
And by the way, scientific studies have already shown that altruism and compassion are essential components of being happy, AND that happiness - sustained, lucid, calm and vibrant happiness - is perfectly possible.
So no, life doesn't HAVE to be a struggle. There is no "nature" out there actively wanting us to struggle. As human beings, we already know how to thrive, as individuals and as a society. Now we need intellectuals to come up with ways to make this possible for the entire world.
Cynicism never helped us to move forward, remember?
Well, the 'empirical evidence' for negation is a tautology. Nothing and no one gets out alive. This entire planet is a flash of light bracketed by oblivion as far as the vast creation is concerned, as is each and every one of us.
As far as solving problems for the entire world, a sage once said "When I was young, I wanted to improve the world; now that I am older, I will simply try to improve myself."
A modest and quite achievable goal. Which at least keeps me moving forward.
Cordially,
Sal
@ Sal
Thanks for your reply.
Imho you're confounding the basic fact that as human beings are part of nature, we're all going to die one day or another, and "nature" as something non human that could nevertheless "refute" a philosophy - or even WANT to do so.
Spinoza is dead for 3 centuries already, but more than ever, his books and philosophy live on. Both his books and philosophy are part of nature too, by the way.
And of course trying to improve ourselves is important, but as the current administration is showing, if you don't integrate scientific studies into your policy making, you're bound to only provoke disasters and the very opposite of what you wanted to do.
The same goes for philosophy: just like science, it's NEVER about "solving problems for the entire world", but solving THIS or THAT particular problem.
Can we develop a concept of justice, for instance, where we can call it fair to on the one hand outsource health insurance to for profit companies, and on the other hand deny people subsidies so that they can't afford to buy those insurances?
If yes, what would such a concept look like?
If no, why would we, as a society, vote for politicians who want to pass bills that for instance end those subsidies?
Philosophy is about specific, concrete problems that touch all of us. As Aristotle said, we are "social animals", we need each other. So we better use our intelligence to try to come up with the most intelligent solutions for collective problems too, no?
When a philosopher, or historian for that matter, uncovers a society or nation or empire without contradiction, without some original sin, conceived - as Jesus perhaps was - immaculately, be sure to let us know. Until then, complainers may choose the various theocracies, narco-states, or "s-hole" places that abound to settle into and test their theories of how barren this landscape is in comparison.
9
It's not about sin/blame/complaining.
It's about finding out what went wrong how and where and why, so that we can prevent the same thing from happening again in the future.
Why would you prefer to put your head in the sand rather than to learn from past mistakes, especially those our own forefathers made?
Any good reason ... ?
It's too bad that the authors limited themselves to vague, nice-sounding phrases, such as "It was that paying attention to what matters to you is a prerequisite of thinking seriously at all" and “think undistractedly about things that ordinary human beings cannot help thinking about” and "making the enterprise of thinking attractive to people".
To my ears, these have a banal, trite ring to them, quite disconnected from the age I live in, the degradation of politics, the popular arts, the seething discontent, the fear and the rage that I feel. They remain on the level of high-minded moral exhortations, without the sense of urgency that these times demand. The "flourishing democratic life" is being eaten away at, curtailed, repressed, bought and sold by power brokers, lying politicians, and billionaires.
The authors would have done much better to elucidate one single example of Cavell's brilliance and humanism, rather than recite how great he was. Don't TELL us; SHOW us.
16
I understand your urgency, and I feel it, too. But philosophy--and Cavell especially--doesn't have its true effects in brief statements or single examples. It helps us to ask our questions better, but doesn't usually answer specific urgent questions in ways we would hope. I believe that it makes a profound difference in the long run, but it asks a lot of us--a lot of questioning, and, as Cavell insists, a philosophical education in which we become different from what we were. The philosophical-democratic practice he describes, one I think most of us would hope for, actually requires that we become more capable of philosophy. That's not simple and not easy, but trying to step around that task is going to keep landing us back where we are.
To address the urgent problems we face requires serious strategizing and organizing and effort, and that means taking sides, but it also requires becoming capable of philosophical and democratic friendships with people we disagree with and even people we don't like or have much affection for. Philosophy is always and especially now untimely because it does in some sense seek to call to each and every one, and tries, against the current grain, to resist tribalism or identity politics.
It's easy to understand why it appears from outside to be naive and irrelevant, but the reality is, at least in my experience, exactly the opposite. But there's no easy way in.
5
All I wanted was a single example of this practice in action. My critique was directed at the authors of this article, not Stanley Cavell himself.
Sumwun - if you want a realistic reading of popular culture then you can do no better that to turn to the greatest psychologist who ever lived: Nietzsche.
Start with On the Genealogy of Morality from 1887 or Beyond Good and Evil 1886.
Cavell and Nietzsche start from the same place but end up at very different destinations. Nietzsche is an enduring genius - Cavell is an interesting footnote.
Dr. Cavell was a philosophy professor: nothing wrong with that: so was Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, et al. But he wasn't, in the strict sense, a philosopher, as was Socrates who lived and suffered for his way of life, which was, broadly, speaking truth to power.
After getting an M.A. in philosophy, many years ago, I kept searching for the guy or gal with the right stuff, the person who had successfully worked it all out -- a philosophical theory of everything. After decades, I found him: the mightiest Rationalist, Benedict de Spinoza (1632-77).
Exceedingly difficult to understand: Even Bertrand Russell didn't try to unpack his magnum opus, written in a geometric method of obsessively minute exposition. Neither did I for decades, but with the aid of brilliant new spinozists,* I now, finally, get it. It was worth the wait.
Cutting to the sales pitch: I infinitely recommend Spinoza's "Ethics" to one and all seekers. At fine bookstores everywhere.
----------------------------------
* Beth Lord is an excellent one.
7
I'm a huge Spinoza fan myself, but I think one makes a horrible mistake by wanting to erect one of history's great philosophies into "a theory of everything" and that "had worked it all out".
Every great philosophy invents new conceptual problems and their solutions, and those concepts allow us to think and perceive in radically new ways.
Learning how to philosophize by trying to reconstruct Spinoza's philosophy is absolutely perfect - but it is what all great philosophies allow you to do (even though a geometrical exposition - once you've been introduced into a method of reading allowing you to make sense of it - may make Spinoza's philosophy of particular pedagogical interest).
Philosophy isn't science though. So there will always be alternative and equally valid ways of thinking possible.
Philosophizing, as Plato called it, means making your thoughts "move".
That implies experimenting with philosophical concepts in real life, and if your life is such that Spinoza's concepts are particularly useful for you, that's wonderful. Later on, however, and for other people, other philosophies may be more relevant.
As Spinoza himself explained, philosophy isn't a religion. And as he writes at the beginning of the TIE, all human beings want to acquire a better and more powerful, happier "nature". We know that that's impossible, he adds, but as we cannot stop longing for such a nature, an "ethics" may at least give us some road map to what that might be ... nothing more.
Fine analytical remembrance, and what I too took from Cavell. I always was brightened finding Cavell about campus.
1
It's nice to see that a thinker like Cavell still merits notice in the Times. And I'm especially pleased that you mentioned Emerson. Although Cavell's eclecticism may be hard to match in this era, there is still much to emulate. Emerson said, "Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist." Some might now say, "Good luck with that." But this was a "scholar" berating himself as much as anything. It was an ideal, not doctrine. Let's not lose the ideals.
4
This, my 2d submission, looks at the contradiction formulated by the authors that I reformulate as follows: Should every citizen of the USA be taught in parallel courses about the expressed commitment to liberty and justice and the contradictory realities of genocidal destruction and slavery? And, if they have this experience, what next?
In the introduction to “Contending with Stanley Cavell (at Google Scholar), James Conant observes that since we all know we are Americans, hardly any of us ever take the trouble to become one by learning and discussing our history and its contradictions. I never was given that experience until I moved to Sweden.
The authors state that Cavell believed that the best approach to becoming a real American would be to engage in conversations with others, learning what they think about, how they see each other, and about the meaning of being a citizen.
Perhaps Cavell had Gordon Allport’s Contact Theory in mind, a theory that proposed that by meeting the “other” in the right setting, each person can feel at home with a person there who is an “other” in ways that otherwise are impossible.
For 18 years, I have been living that experience at the SE Red Cross, especially in the last 5 years at Träna Svenska (Practice discussing in Swedish). A typical meeting: Three or four who have lived in Sweden for a long time interact with asylum seekers in conversations about everything.
It works.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
4
I remember very clearly a graduate seminar on Cavell from the mid-1990s, and I remember the philosophy-democracy theme very well, too--and also the idea of always moving toward your next self through philosophical dialogue and friendship--especially with people who were different from you and could challenge you. It was inspiring, and it was also very difficult reading and thinking. It was also somewhat frowned on by others. Things were turning strongly toward the identity politics of race, gender, sexuality, etc., and getting the basic concepts and ways of applying that kind of social justice criticism was much easier to learn and succeed at than philosophical criticism. The rules and the outcomes could be learned and mastered for an exam, and it was the way to pass exams and write publishable papers and get a job.
I think I'll go back and read Cavell again.
4
Beautiful article! And very timely, I will tweet a link.
4
Philosophers divide their time between understanding what the majority believe counts as knowledge and what a minority believe ought to count as knowledge. The first is democracy; the second is elitism. Neither can be wrong.
2
Many contradictory thoughts after welcoming the title and the idea of American contradictin.
Fundamental contradiction: The US Census Bureau and thus the entire US government employs a system of classifying all of us that was invented by racists.
The first steps taken in creating this system were taken in the service of creating a racial order with a subset of people called white placed at the top.
Genome researcher David Reich has recently stated in this newspaper, after stumbling badly in his first try, that there are no genetically distinct races. He states that the groups we call races are socially constructed, a designation embraced warmly by many but softening the the truth, that each "race" was created to serve political ends.
Who will take the first formal step to end this contradicton?
Now I will read the essay with care and perhaps submit a second comment dealing exactly with an argument the authors present.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
4
That is absolutely not what Reich said in either of his two articles.
But what he did say - ironically in this comment's case - is that it is impossible to make binary declarations about race.
2
I will reply tomorrow when I have both columns. Midnight here in SE.
Larry L.
@ Steve RR - You use "that" in your 1st sentence so I cannot be sure what you refer to. I assume your "that" = my "He states that the groups we call races are socially constructed"
Here from "How to Talk About 'Race' and Genetics", his replies to readers' comments in direct quotation:
"From my (Reich) point of view, it should be possible for everyone to hold in their heads the following six truths:
1) 'Race' is fundamentally a social category - not a biological one - as anthropologists have shown."
Elsewhere in his reply he states: "When a teacher looks around (at) students of dierse 'races' she or he should not see them as members of fundamentally different groups of people. 'Race' has trivial predictive power."
Note that Reich carefully puts "race" in quotation marks as I always do.
Reply filed at 01:14 CET.
Larry L.
“Clarity about the nature” of the dangers of conformity “is essential at times like these, when the public must on a daily basis confront bald lies and cries of “fake news” from Donald Trump and his dangerous ilk. The point of these propagandistic devices is to turn us into a collective unthinking herd, to destroy the capacity for independent thinking that is democracy’s lifeblood.” The authors then go on to talk about “the genocidal destruction of indigenous communities and the embrace of slavery, practices whose legacies have disgraced us from our country’s founding to the catastrophe that is the Trump administration.” Linking the Trump administration to genocide and slavery through the vague word “legacies” sound to me like a classic “propagandistic device.” I guess we could all have a little more humility about falling into the dangers of conformity to a “herd mentality.”
4
Cavell seems to have had a fascinating life that he found enjoyable. And I agree that critical thinking is essential. However, despite my own Masters degree, I have always found philosophy a foreign language. I couldn't help thinking as I read this article, how elite it sounded. Not that elite is necessarily a bad thing, but could mean the best of ssomething, or the highest in the sociiety, such as good academia is.
The wider problem though, is creating a bridge with the average citizen who needs to learn critical thinking skills as well as civics in elementary school. This article doesn't offer any solutions about that matter, but as an obituary to Professor Cavell it succeeds.
3
There never was no will there ever be any "American Contradiction".
Because our lives and livelihoods have depended upon knowing what white people really think and feel, Africans in America have generally ignored what Europeans in America say and write about living in America. Because judging white people by their action and inaction reveals consistency instead of any contradiction or paradox.
A majority of the white American color aka race majority believes in enduring innate white supremacy and black inferiority. There is no meaningful divide among the condescending paternalism and pity of white liberals and the condescending paternalism and contempt of white conservatives on that inhumane philosophical pillar. Both sides deny any individual diverse human personal agency among blacks.
8
"A majority of the white American color aka race majority believes in enduring innate white supremacy and black inferiority."
I see this assertion quite often, but have never come across any empirical evidence, beyond the speaker's impressions or personal anecdotes, to back it up.
17
@ Blackmamba - Happy to see you back. I do not know how any of us can know what a majority of any of the American "racial" groups thinks.
I have recently added to my exercises in futility statements an effort to remind my fellow Americans, at least those who read comments, that when they write about whites they seem to forget that those put in the white box include a group that the USCB was going to call MENA.
MENA was to stand for Middle Eastern and North African, that is for all people with a major line of descent to those regions. Thus all who have roots in Kurdistan, Syria, Iran (ME) or for example Tunisia and Morocco, (NA) were either to become a subgroup of the USCB white "race" or be split off from that "race".
The USCB withdrew the proposal, a proposal pretty much ignored by tne NYT. My comments on the subject elicited two or three Emails from neo-nazi types who wanted the proposal to be accepted.
These people clearly do not belong to the white "race" that neo-Nazis, alt-Right have in mind. I know at least by name and conversation 100s of Swedish citizens having such roots, and most of these have been the targets of the Swedish neo-Nazis and experience Swedish forms of racism. What American members of this group think I do not know.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
@ sumwhatumaynot - approximately what I say in my 1st para below yours. Generalisations without source are just not acceptable.
Larry L.
Sorry, at least 45% of Americans (supposedly as of today) don't know their own history, or the reasons for their generational hatred of others, and can't possibly understand the risks to which they are exposing us all, including themselves.
37
The biggest contribution of Cavell to my mind is his elaboration of the Austinian epistemology that he also calls the "new epistemology" and contrasts with Cartesian epistemology. My firm hope is that this will remain the most enduring accomplishment of Cavell, that will be remembered for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, - that of having broken the suffocating stranglehold of the Cartesian regime. And it is this that will soon enable Cavell to join the rank of the revolutionizers of Western philosophy, in which Cavell himself included Descartes, Kant and Wittgenstein. It is a woeful omission on the part of the columnists not even to mention the word "epistemology."
3
Arjun--Naw, that's okay. You mentioned it 3 times, which is probably enough for this crowd.
2
That’ ok because you managed to mention it four times without ever explaining what you actually meant
1
Could you please explain what you mean by "the suffocating stranglehold of the Cartesian regime"?
Thanks in advance.
The Op-Ed demonstrates, with some considerable unintentional irony, the very problems which it purports to explore. Apparently, my thought must be independent, "thinking, discovering of my own sensibilities - " but not if I agree with or support Donald Trump or his political or policy choices. After nominally extolling the virtues of "thinking undistractedly," then the authors chime in with the usual conformist, mechanical Trump Derangement Syndrome clichés that identify them for all the world as liberal-leftists who never stray far from their particular herd. Trump is enabling a functioning democracy, not the least of which, because he so willingly offends the intellectual elite. These authors demonstrate that they are thoroughly committed to conforming to whatever intellectual fashions are embraced by the politically correct and would not dream of straying. Their words, indeed, signal their intellectual perceptions, as predictable as Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, and exclude everything that doesn't match their safe, conformist left-liberal prejudices. All this is much as leftwing intellectual have suddenly discovered that free speech isn't nearly as attractive when right-wingers adopt it. They don't really want to debate or discuss or think independently - they just want to say they did.
6
Mr. Wolpert. A question. What will be the status of one person/one vote in the "functioning democracy" that Trump is enabling? I am willing to accept the consequences of a form of government that abides by the principle of one person/one vote. Are you? The government we have now is the product of voter suppression through a variety of means. Anyone -- Democrat, Republican, or Independent -- who denies it is either ignorant of a liar. The idea that Trump is enabling a functioning democracy is not simply false; it is a lie. Now calm down and think about how ridiculous your claim is.
6
Glad that you get it, Tom: those who support Trump are non-thinking and thoroughly non-democratic, because he and his policies are. Same thing with other dictators or would-be dictators. There's no getting around that. Maybe you should read Cavell's work carefully.
30
How Trump enables democracy:
1. Whip up hysteria and hatred against refugees attempting to escape misery and violence by crossing into the "land of the free".
2. Fabricate claims about how Mexicans are "rapists" and "murderers".
3. Clamp down on free speech by abolishing the policy of net neutrality.
4. Provide immense tax breaks to the wealthiest people in society.
5. Cut back on programs - food stamps, public education, Medicaid, the EPA - that help people.
6. Encourage police to commit violence ("don't be too nice").
7. Give a boost to racists and Nazis ("there are some fine people there") in Charlottesville, Virginia.
8. Dismantle public services; for instance, advocate for the privatization of the U.S. Post Office.
9. Eliminate NASA climate research program.
10. Increase the likelihood of global trade war.
... and much else besides.
BTW, I am not a "liberal", I'm a Marxist socialist: I despise Trump, Hillary, Bernie, and the New York Times.
22
Wonderful homage to Stanley Cavell. Thank you.
3
Perhaps they should have mentioned the concept of the "new yet unapproachable America" -- that it is constantly subject to an idealistic frontier that continually hangs just out of reach, and yet is worth pursuing as "there is more day to dawn". (The remarriage comedy he focussed on is the cinematic expression of discovering what was there all the time, but needed refounding, like America).
1
Cavell's insights into what makes a society able to sustain democracy get to the heart of what the right has done for decades to limit the people's ability to know what is necessary for our democracy. From Reagan's administration taking civics out of high school classrooms to choking off funding for public schools to promoting for profit colleges, the right has undermined the ability for us to know ourselves and our democracy.
48