Conceptual Analysis

(1) Anglo-American philosophy is myopic with its monistic view of conceptual analysis, seeking to obtain a list of necessary and sufficient criteria for a concept.

A more fruitful approach is extension, a pluralist approach, a list of examples.

A still more fruitful approach is aphorism, metaphor, trope, painting.

(2) On this continuum from formal analysis, through list, to metaphor, we can see the creative aspect of analysis. We can see that bound up in the project of the logothete (the namer) is the evaluative project. We live in a stream, in a senseless, ever-shifting world of images. The very creation of the self, the identification of discrete "things" in the universe, is artificial, is artifice, is a thing created. To pick "tree" out of a landscape, to identify "tree" as a UNIT, is to reveal our antecedent valuations, is to project an ALREADY EXTANT personality on the world.

Objective analysis is a blind alley. Speaking of "points of view" is not a tool to attain objectivity, but an expression of our limitations. That we can conceive of "points of view" and critique them pragmatically is simply evidence of our practical reason, our unproved, instrumental, and inherent ability to "separate" ourselves from our environment. It is not evidence of conceptual capability, or true objectivity.

(3) Thus we dispose of the liberal tradition.

A Half Full Look at a Half Empty Glass

Recently I was feeling a bit down about certain things. I was recommended to not be such a "negative nancy" and to have a more upbeat and appreciative tone. I think that the people suggesting this were actually conveying quite a pessimistic vision, ironically. They were saying that I should diminish my expectations if I am to be happy, and by taking on a more "realistic" expectation of what life has to offer in this certain department, I would be more satisfied. I think that their philosophy is tantamount to saying: PBJ, you should not be unhappy, because what you have is actually quite good relative to what is possible. That is, what is possible is worse than what I imagined. What a bunch of pessimists they are!

Post God, post Marx

My understanding of Marx is that he did not see immediate material gain as the highest good, i.e. he may have seen the world as one of material conflict but it did not entail that one obtains one's meaning from materialism per se. Nevertheless, there is a tendency among those of the Marxist, or alternatively, contemporary agnostic/atheist disposition, to believe that given that there is no god, man does not need to have a religion, i.e. man's greatest hope is to succeed in the material world (maybe this would also entail providing materially for one's family, or giving bread to the poor..., etc.). Of course I think that this sort of philosophy is quite deficient, and know this because I've felt totally materially "full" and yet still felt a lacking in my heart; that I would replicate this fullness in others can't be the end goal, for these individuals too would still feel a lacking... With that in mind, it is man's project, given that he can't rely on extrinsic metaphysical accounts, and likewise can't merely rely on satisfying his material needs, to build a life, i.e., to determine where he will now find God (which is in a sense a symbol for one's highest value, and so can be used by a nontheist without contradiction). This actually leads to my next idea, that centrally, man is driven by what he worships. This is actually a tautological claim: to say that man is driven by that which he worships is only to say that man is driven towards something (The only sense it would not be tautological is if one countered that in fact man is not driven towards anything and is just dust in the wind. I suppose if this were the case one can perhaps say that man is driven by Nothing, although this seems a bit strained). Given man has a drive, we can consider what he is driven towards. I know many people who seem only compelled by knowledge; for them, life has little meaning but to learn new ideas until one emulates an encyclopedia. I also know many who seem to be driven by status. For this man, it is of greatest achievement to be a member of the ruling class, and to feel like he has succeeded in the eyes of the majority. Next, I know of men who are driven by creative powers. They cannot but write, but draw, etc. Are all these modalities of worship of god? Is it rather the case that we are merely biding our time? I cannot be sure. But it is something I have luckily had the chance to explore of late. I can't really end this writing with anything consequential, as like all men I am still exploring; I still haven't found god.

The fecundity of dullness

The brilliant artist awoke and trembled, as was his habit. He had been frustrated for several days, as he knew that he was out of ideas. No. Rather, Man was out of ideas. Art had been destroyed by a vicious Postmodernist at Yale, and all that was left was shapes and colors, bearing little meaning and surely no aesthetic value (for how could there be value once the critique had so succeeded). The artist decided to create the only thing that could be created, Nothing. He did this by finding all the art that Man has created and incinerating it. A brilliant project this was, and it was extolled by all, as finally Man's creation's had caught up with his world.

The Unity of the Positive Law

In what sense is it meaningful to identify discrete laws?

Today, the health care bill passed. What does it mean for the bill to pass? All the institutional mechanisms are already in place: what additional work does a few men in a room raising and lowering their hands add? More deeply, why did I just identify the pertinent act as a room full of Congressmen?

Here's another way of asking the same question. How do we identify discrete laws? Is the law against speeding THAT law, or the law requiring the policeman to pull me over, or the authorizing bill to let the prosecutor prosecute me? Or what about the whole social framework that provides the funding and impetus for the system itself?

Rather, doesn't it make more sense to find these pragmatic distinctions formally meaningless? Isn't there nothing but the State, and the Law, the legal system, undifferentiated, complete, and claiming authority over the sum total of human behavior?

And aren't these distinctions, these identifications, the normative distinctions just that--- ethical / political / moral and profoundly bound up with notions of the POINT of the whole system?

Hear, hear!

Interviewer: Your book Literary Theory (1983) has sold almost a million copies. Do you enjoy writing for lay audiences?
Terry Eagleton: I enjoy popularisation and I think I'm reasonably good at it. I also think it's a duty.

Sometimes things may indeed be too complex for public understanding, but it is fair to expect that a professional thinker would do everything in his power to assure his research can be understood by as many people as reasonably possible. A professional philosopher does two things: 1. teach, 2. research/write. I really think that the first of these two job responsibilities is far too quickly dismissed as easy or mundane.

Man's nature

Is man good, evil, or neither? If man is naturally evil, can he be faulted as he is just acting according to nature? Is he held to a higher standard than animals because he has greater free will/intelligence?