>>>  Laatst gewijzigd: 19 januari 2020  

Woorden en Beelden

Filosofie en de waan van de dag

Start Glossen Weblog Boeken Denkwerk

Inleidingen in de filosofie

Voorkant Moran 'The Routledge companion to twentieth century philosophy' Dermot MORAN
The Routledge companion to twentieth century philosophy
London-New York: Routledge, 2008, 1024 blzn;
ISBN-13: 978 04 1529 93

(xiv) Preface and Acknowledgments

"On the other hand, although philosophy can never be completely disengaged and isolated from other scientific, cultural, and indeed social and political developments, the chapters in this volume focus primarily on the intrinsic philosophical issues, and external social and political developments are in general left to one side. One might say, then, that the chapters here offer an internalist vision of the development of twentieth-century philosophy. "(xiv)

[Maar het vervelende is dat dat altijd gebeurt, een geschiedenis van de filosofie die zich blind staart op zichzelf. Precht is de enige die ik tot nu las die de geschiedenis van de filosofie wat meer in een bredere samenhang probeert te trekken. ]

(1) Introduction: towards an assessment of twentieth-century philosophy [Dermot Moran]

"As always, the human world is extremely complex and escapes the exact lawfulness found in the natural sciences, and there is no clearly identifiable progress in moral concepts. As the German Critical Theorist Theodor Adorno once put it, “No universal history leads from savagery to humanitarianism, but there is one leading from the slingshot to the atom bomb.”"(4)

"So, despite their inaugural moments at the turn of the century, perhaps Nietzsche and Freud are not in fact the most representative or archetypal philosophical figures for the twentieth century, certainly if one considers the nature of their respective influences on philosophy. In fact, the pair of names most often advanced (in the work of Richard Rorty among many others) as best representing twentieth-century philosophy are: Heidegger and Wittgenstein, especially after both had made the “linguistic turn” subsequent to their own early publications. The influence of these two philosophers probably outweighs all other philosophers in the twentieth century." [mijn nadruk] (10)

[Het lijkt me nogal zinloos om toptienlijstjes te willen maken voor "de meest invloedrijke filosoof". Wat voor invloed en waarop? Hoe meet je die invloed dan? En was het wel een goede invloed? Moran ontsnapt hier trouwens niet aan zijn eigen voorkeuren: Husserl en de fenomenologie.]

"As we know, Husserl himself was isolated and humiliated by the rising Nazi movement, a movement in which his successor Heidegger enthusiastically participated. Any history of twentieth-century philosophy must face that great betrayal of Husserl and of the academy by Heidegger – a betrayal which might be interpreted as being a kind of Nietzschean philosophizing with a hammer. Heidegger hated the ensconced academic practice in the university and saw in Nazism a chance for university renewal and at the same time a vehicle for cultural renewal, or Erneuerung, the very term of Husserl’s project in the Kaizo lectures of the 1920s. Husserl had claimed that the First World War had exposed the “internal untruthfulness and senselessness” of contemporary culture. In response he sought intellectual renewal through radically self-critical reflection. Heidegger, on the other hand, in his Rectoral Address of 1933, demanded that the university dedicate itself to following the will of the Führer. It would later fall to other German philosophers, notably Jaspers, Habermas, and Adorno, to seek to break Heidegger’s spell and to show up his feet of clay. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that Heidegger continues to have enormous influence today, especially in the discussion concerning the meaning of art, poetry, and technology. " [mijn nadruk] (11-12)

[Die invloed van Heidegger zou ons zorgen moeten baren. ]

Ook Gottlob Frege is belangrijker en invloedrijker geweest dan veel mensen denken.

";... he had little interest in epistemology or ethics, for instance.(...) Like Heidegger, Frege had a dark side. Frege’s political beliefs were somewhat naive, to say the least. He allied himself with Bruno Bauch’s right-wing Deutsche Philosophische Gesellschaft (German Philosophical Society), a group that supported Hitler’s rise to power. Furthermore, Frege’s diary contains anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic sentiments, including the view that Jews should be expelled from Germany." [mijn nadruk] (12-13)

[Ik vermoed dat het een - geen belangstelling voor ethiek - met het ander -politiek naïef - samenhangt.]

"It is generally recognized that one of the most notable features of twentieth-century philosophy is that there developed two dominant intellectual traditions, traditions that in that century began to be named as the “analytic” or “Anglo-American” or “Anglo-Saxon” on the one hand, and “Continental” or “European” on the other. These traditions are widely held to have developed separately, with opposing aspirations and methodologies, and, indeed, to be fundamentally hostile to one another."(13)

[Ik heb dat nooit zo'n zinvolle tegenoverstelling gevonden. Moran blijkt het met me eens te zijn.]

"Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore must also be given enormous credit for establishing the manner of analytic writing in philosophy that soon became current: writing crisply, identifying a thesis, addressing its merits, entirely independently of its historical context or location in the scheme of a philosopher’s thinking." [mijn nadruk] (17)

[En waarschijnlijk ook van andere context. De vraag is of we daar zo blij mee moeten zijn. Ook dat is een vorm van reductionisme. ]

" The human and cultural sciences were often passed over by the analytic tradition, a move that the Continental tradition regarded as disastrous for the very conception of what science is. " [mijn nadruk] (18)

[Precies, dat is de eenzijdigheid, het reductionisme in de analytische filosofie.]

"In any event, to write a history of twentieth-century philosophy is not, as Hegel correctly recognizes, merely to assemble a list of all the philosophical works and tendencies. It is also an attempt to seize the rationale at work in the processes. "(25)

"The very notion of “Europe” itself has not remained static in the period in question, but has been the subject of intense analysis from Husserl and Jan Patočka to Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas. Edmund Husserl in his Crisis of the European Sciences (1936) sought to overcome the dangerous slide of European culture into irrationalism by tracing the roots of modernity in the mathematicization of nature successfully begun by Galileo. Modern science had literally split the world in two (into objective measurable properties and “subjective-relative” properties) and had separated fact from value to a degree that twentieth-century scientifically informed culture was left without means to analyze the incipient loss of meaning and value that threatened its very existence. " [mijn nadruk] (26)

(41) Part I - Major themes and movements

(43) 1. The birth of analytic philosophy (Michael Potter)

"analytic philosophy or, perhaps more appropriately, as the analytic method in philosophy. What this brief summary masks, however, is that it is far from easy to say what the analytic method in philosophy amounts to. By tracing the outlines of the moment when it was born we shall here try to identify some of its distinctive features." [mijn nadruk] (43)

Eerst komt Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) aan de orde. Uiteindelijk zijn zijn oplossingen niet erg bevredigend, vindt Potter.

"There is nothing deep, of course, in the distinction between a sign and the thing it signifies, nor in the distinction between both of these and the ideas I attach to a sign when I use it. What goes deeper is the claim that if we are to have a satisfying account of language’s ability to communicate thoughts from speaker to listener we must appeal to yet a fourth element – what Frege calls sense. "(48)

Vervolgens worden Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) en George Edward Moore (1873–1958) besproken.

[Ik vind het maar zinloze exercities, die weinig zeggen over hoe we taal begrijpen en toepassen. Het zijn simplistische theorietjes gericht op structuur, met weinig oog voor de complexiteit van hoe we taal gebruiken. We snappen de betekenis van een zin als 'De koning van Frankrijk is kaal' omdat we weten wat een koning is, wat Frankrijk is, wat kaal is, de zin maakt deel uit van een complex aan kennis. Die kennis maakt ook dat we tegelijkertijd snappen dat de zin een bewering uitdrukt die niet op waarheid getoetst kan worden omdat een koning van Frankrijk niet bestaat, laat staan een kale koning van Frankrijk. ]

Start  ||   Glossen  ||   Weblog  ||   Boeken  ||   Denkwerk