The thinkers who matter are those whom the world can't agree about, and usually the more a writer, philosopher or artist polarizes opinion, the better for all of us. In modern times probably no genius of the Western world still ignites such passionate controversy as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Only Marx, Nietzsche and Freud -- in many ways, his successors -- come even close.
Do you agree? I'm not sure I do, but I can't quite articulate what annoys me about this paragraph. Hopefully you all will have some insight as to why I should--or should not--agree with Mr. Dirda.
2 comments:
Fern, I suppose there are three things we could agree/disagree about, a) "The thinkers who matter are those whom the world can't agree about", b) "usually, the more a writer, philosopher or artist polarizes opinion, the better for all of us," and c) "in modern times probably no genius of the Western world still ignites such passionate controversy as Jean-Jacques Rousseau."
So, I'll take each in turn:
a) We could agree or disagree on the basis of what it means to matter, and depending whether we are referring to a writer an artist or a philosopher. If what it means to matter is "to have the most influence on people's lives" then I would have to disagree with a) on the grounds that it seems to me that those (let's take) philosophers who matter most are the ones that people agree with, to the point of holding their theories unconsciously. For instance, the philosopher who matters most (in the West) is Plato (equalled perhaps by the authors of the Bible, Jewish and Christian). Do you believe that love means finding your missing half? Do you believe that humans have an immortal soul? Do you believe that writing is a copy of speech? Do you believe that there is an objective reality beneath surface appearances? Do you believe that we should theorize the ideal government? Do you believe that wisdom means knowing how little you know? If so, you owe an intellectual debt to Plato.
b) This part I agree with very strongly. It may just be a matter of personal taste, but I am disposed to disensus rather than consensus. Politically, at least, fundamental agreement is the normal state of things--most disagreements are either agreements disguised by differing terminology, or what Freud called "the narcissism of minor differences". When we agree too much we cannot be sure that we aren't simply marginalizing uncommon opinions, or novel ideas. Furthermore, disagreement means debate, and debate is crucial to any democracy: the more opinions we have on the table the better. Mill once thought that even if we had certain knowledge of the truth on an issue that it would be important to hear debate on the issue in order to better refine the arguments for it.
c) I disagree with the choice of Rousseau as modern times' controversial, opinion-polarizing philosopher (even though I do think it would be fair to call him a "genius of the Western world"). I think in their own ways Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud have all been far more controversial/opinion-polarizing than Rousseau. However, these days, Freud is no longer controversial at all: psychoanalysis' is perhaps as much a part of popular culture as it is no longer a part of scientific discourse. Marx remains controversial to the extent that he remains unread; that he is opinion polarizing is and was more a feature of Cold War politics than of realistic appraisals of his work. Nietzsche, I think, is the most controversial / opinion-polarizing philosopher of modern times, and is engaging and relevant today as he was a century ago.
Ryan--Thank you. I was mostly referring to A & B because I am not well versed enough in philosophy to comment on C. I agree with your analysis and I think why I was conflicted about Dirda's statement was that I agreed in part and disagreed in part. It was helpful to see the statement seperated into it's individual parts and analyzed that way. Your comment about Mills made a lightbulb go off in my head regarding the gay marriage debate.
Post a Comment