Conceptions of "philosophy"

[Justin S.]

Over the last year, I have delved into Martin Heidegger’s work, starting with the basic framework of ontology, hermeneutics, and ideas of historicity. Prior to doing so, I had an understanding (however imperfect) of the “canon” of philosophy, which is literally essential to a full understanding.
The thread here on Plato confirmed the importance of this concerning Nietzsche, although this applies to all thinkers as they are all responding within their historical context.
Since then, I have explored many of his lesser known writings (lectures, essays, etc.) and find them to be of enormous rigor, honesty, and “truth”.

I bring up Heidegger for a number of reasons. Firstly, there seems to be a general fascination with a (often bizarre) mix of German romanticism/nationalism/post-romanticism/”nihilism” etc. on this board and the metal scene. Heidegger covers these themes extensively.
Also, the thread on Plato/Nietzsche immediately made me think about Heidegger’s engagement of the two.

Most importantly, and what the thread title refers to, is the conception of “philosophy” and thinking in general. It is a term and idea that designates separation, implying that one carries about in a “non-philosophical” mode, and then inters into the realm of the “philosophical” when “serious” or highly abstract and metaphysical. Extending this to a larger scope, the separation of thinking into “theoretical”, “logical”, “technical”, “philosophical” etc., is extremely dangerous in that it confuses the manner with the goal and result. “Thinking is” (M.H.), whether it concerns an engine, theology, or “ethics”. To quote from Heidegger’s Letter on Humanism, “When thinking comes to an end…it replaces this loss by procuring a validity for itself as techne, as an instrument of education and therefore as a classroom matter and later a cultural concern… One no longer thinks; one occupies oneself with “philosophy”.”

That we have a separate area on a forum to conduct “philosophy” (titled “The Philosopher”, whether this is esteem, or a tip of the hat to Death is unclear, but the ambivalence is not) is quite sad, as the creators don’t understand what they have done. They themselves conceive of it as separate from “merely” thinking, and by attempting to elevate it through distinction (or possibly degrade it with a jab referencing “you know much about nothing at all&#8221, immediately degrade it to a mass of disposable opinions that can be dismissed by a wave of the hand as “philosophy”, that high minded, “unverifiable” non-sense.

By trying to prove the importance of thought, Philosophy has undermined it, and rendered it forgotten and impotent.
Heidegger demands to be read, if only to reawaken the question of “What calls us to thinking?”

 

[speed]

Over the last year, I have delved into Martin Heidegger’s work, starting with the basic framework of ontology, hermeneutics, and ideas of historicity. Prior to doing so, I had an understanding (however imperfect) of the “canon” of philosophy, which is literally essential to a full understanding.
The thread here on Plato confirmed the importance of this concerning Nietzsche, although this applies to all thinkers as they are all responding within their historical context.
Since then, I have explored many of his lesser known writings (lectures, essays, etc.) and find them to be of enormous rigor, honesty, and “truth”.

I bring up Heidegger for a number of reasons. Firstly, there seems to be a general fascination with a (often bizarre) mix of German romanticism/nationalism/post-romanticism/”nihilism” etc. on this board and the metal scene. Heidegger covers these themes extensively.
Also, the thread on Plato/Nietzsche immediately made me think about Heidegger’s engagement of the two.

Most importantly, and what the thread title refers to, is the conception of “philosophy” and thinking in general. It is a term and idea that designates separation, implying that one carries about in a “non-philosophical” mode, and then inters into the realm of the “philosophical” when “serious” or highly abstract and metaphysical. Extending this to a larger scope, the separation of thinking into “theoretical”, “logical”, “technical”, “philosophical” etc., is extremely dangerous in that it confuses the manner with the goal and result. “Thinking is” (M.H.), whether it concerns an engine, theology, or “ethics”. To quote from Heidegger’s “Letter on Humanism”, “When thinking comes to an end…it replaces this loss by procuring a validity for itself as techne, as an instrument of education and therefore as a classroom matter and later a cultural concern… One no longer thinks; one occupies oneself with “philosophy”.”

Taking his words out of context (unavoidable, his works in entirety are the context) is almost criminal, but it serves as some reference to what I am speaking about.

The fact that we have a separate area on a forum to conduct “philosophy” (titled “The Philosopher”, whether this is esteem, or a tip of the hat to Death is unclear, but the ambivalence is not) is quite sad, as the creators don’t understand what they have done. They themselves conceive of it as separate from “merely” thinking, and by attempting to elevate it through distinction (or possibly degrade it with a jab referencing “you know much about nothing at all”), immediately degrade it to a mass of disposable opinions that can be dismissed by a wave of the hand as “philosophy”, that high minded, “unverifiable” non-sense.

By trying to prove the importance of thought, Philosophy has undermined it, and rendered it forgotten and impotent.
Heidegger demands to be read, if only to reawaken the question of “What calls us to thinking?”

I think your second to last quote is quite profound. It demands my thinking about it for some time before I can make a sufficient reply. But since I am speed, I am reminded by the fact that the original philosophers--the Pre-socratics--came to the very same conclusion twenty five hundred years ago.

 

[Justin S.]

...I am reminded by the fact that the original philosophers--the Pre-socratics--came to the very same conclusion twenty five hundred years ago.

Along very similar lines, yes, and Nietzsche and Heidegger (among others) would certainly agree in general.

 

[speed]

Along very similar lines, yes, and Nietzsche and Heidegger (among others) would certainly agree in general.

Following upon the logic of your posts, should not the academic community be to blame for this aforementioned thinking as well? If anyone has seperated philosophy from everyday life and importance, it is the university system. My readings of Schopenhauer remind me of his battle with Hegel and the University system in general, who wished to construct, think, and teach philosophy in a academic manner totally removed from the world.

 

[Justin S.]

Absolutely, the structure of the Academy has depended (demanded?) upon these conceptual schisms for quite some time now; the multitude of factors that result in this are really complicated, but also very intuitive, i.e., underlying economic obligations of the University as an business/institution, cultural/social forces, etc. “Blame” is a tough word, partly because most of what I am critiquing regarding thought it so utterly common that its reinforcement is unconscious, and is concealed from analysis by all sorts of presuppositions that most people cannot recognize precisely because they are so common, hidden by ideas of “self-evidency” and judgments on intelligibility and meaning- concepts that are so central to the consciousness and, because of acculturation, not questioned, even in supposedly rigorous academia.

The problem of metaphysics and separating thought from the world (the floating, objective consciousness) and also from itself, for example, juxtapositions of different applications of thought as mentioned previously, is a central point of attack for Heidegger. He revels the central mode of Dasein’s (conscious entity) Being in his ontology to be “being-in-the-world”; that thinking cannot be distanced from: existence (thought must “be” to be thought), and the thinking entity, which in turn cannot be removed and considered outside of acculturation, historicity, and temporality. In this mode “world” does not imply the globe, but existence proper, literally: being in the realm of Being.

 

[Demiurge]

That we have a separate area on a forum to conduct “philosophy” (titled “The Philosopher”, whether this is esteem, or a tip of the hat to Death is unclear, but the ambivalence is not) is quite sad, as the creators don’t understand what they have done. They themselves conceive of it as separate from “merely” thinking, and by attempting to elevate it through distinction (or possibly degrade it with a jab referencing “you know much about nothing at all”), immediately degrade it to a mass of disposable opinions that can be dismissed by a wave of the hand as “philosophy”, that high minded, “unverifiable” non-sense.

Another way to look at it is that this forum is an attempt at providing a respite from gerede and geschreibe, where less explicitly social and more content-laden discussions can be held. In other words, while "thinking is," there is thinking about Being and thinking about "metal chicks."

 

[derek]

Absolutely, the structure of the Academy has depended (demanded?) upon these conceptual schisms for quite some time now; the multitude of factors that result in this are really complicated, but also very intuitive, i.e., underlying economic obligations of the University as an business/institution, cultural/social forces, etc. “Blame” is a tough word, partly because most of what I am critiquing regarding thought it so utterly common that its reinforcement is unconscious, and is concealed from analysis by all sorts of presuppositions that most people cannot recognize precisely because they are so common, hidden by ideas of “self-evidency” and judgments on intelligibility and meaning- concepts that are so central to the consciousness and, because of acculturation, not questioned, even in supposedly rigorous academia.

A pragmatic question: If we take Heidegger to have unearthed a great falsity in the way academic institutions unconsciously reinforce a false way of "thinking" then does he have any suggestions as to what steps need to be taken to remedy the situation? Or are his comments simply a lament on the subject?

 

[speed]

A pragmatic question: If we take Heidegger to have unearthed a great falsity in the way academic institutions unconsciously reinforce a false way of "thinking" then does he have any suggestions as to what steps need to be taken to remedy the situation? Or are his comments simply a lament on the subject?

I dont think Heidegger was the first to make these claims.

If we want to remedy the situation, we need more people like Camus and Sartre, or even more literary types like Dostoevsky and Proust. Sartre basically had the same ideas as Heidegger, and put them on paper in literary form for widespread human consumption. Camus wrote about the absurd and existentialism in his novels and his very well written essays.

Remember, the classical philosophers all the way up to Nietszche (although Hegel, and Kant were horrific writers as well), the English and French philosophers, and so on, were all skilled at the art of writing. They were men of letters. Some of them werent the most exciting, but they could all get their points across using language and keep the reader interested. Now, since really Nietszche, philosophers almost as a rule, use this very technical, poorly composed form of writing, that is only understood by a select few of them, as in my opinion, they do not have the necessary talent needed to write. The same thing happens in most academic departments. Frankly someone should have smacked Heidegger and Wittgenstein and others, after they published such poorly written books, with such sublime philosophical ideas.

Philosophy--especially academic philosophy-- has become unreadable, and incredibly poorly written. Heidegger is the poster boy for this problem. Unfortunately today, there arent any writers that are focused on illuminating any branch of modern philosophy.

 

[derek]

I dont think Heidegger was the first to make these claims.

If we want to remedy the situation, we need more people like Camus and Sartre, or even more literary types like Dostoevsky and Proust. Sartre basically had the same ideas as Heidegger, and put them on paper in literary form for widespread human consumption. Camus wrote about the absurd and existentialism in his novels and his very well written essays.

Remember, the classical philosophers all the way up to Nietszche (although Hegel, and Kant were horrific writers as well), the English and French philosophers, and so on, were all skilled at the art of writing. They were men of letters. Some of them werent the most exciting, but they could all get their points across using language and keep the reader interested. Now, since really Nietszche, philosophers almost as a rule, use this very technical, poorly composed form of writing, that is only understood by a select few of them, as in my opinion, they do not have the necessary talent needed to write. The same thing happens in most academic departments. Frankly someone should have smacked Heidegger and Wittgenstein and others, after they published such poorly written books, with such sublime philosophical ideas.

Philosophy--especially academic philosophy-- has become unreadable, and incredibly poorly written. Heidegger is the poster boy for this problem. Unfortunately today, there arent any writers that are focused on illuminating any branch of modern philosophy.

Good post. Much modern philosophy is so inclusive that it misses the point of thinking, reducing said thinking to the ramblings of a select few people clued up on what it is about. The obscurity of some of this stuff is remarkable, and I totally agree when you say that to conquer the problem thinking and philosophy need to drop the high-falutin' nature of the language and go back to tangible and exciting language.

 

[judas69]

Philosophy sadly is more a course in history than anything ..

 

[speed]

Good post. Much modern philosophy is so inclusive that it misses the point of thinking, reducing said thinking to the ramblings of a select few people clued up on what it is about. The obscurity of some of this stuff is remarkable, and I totally agree when you say that to conquer the problem thinking and philosophy need to drop the high-falutin' nature of the language and go back to tangible and exciting language.

I agree. But philosophy geeks and philosophers will complain things have gotten so advanced that it is impossible to write any other way. I vehemently disagree. For academic papers, sure, philosophy can continue to be written as such drivel. But for the wider audience, philosophers need to compose well written works in a form that can be digested by a wider audience. How do they think people became philosophers? Surely they read a little Plato or Nietzsche, and liked it. And how did ideas like existentialism, and nihilism become popularized? Because people became familiar through literature, and philosophical tracts that could be digested.

 

[Justin S.]

A pragmatic question: If we take Heidegger to have unearthed a great falsity in the way academic institutions unconsciously reinforce a false way of "thinking" then does he have any suggestions as to what steps need to be taken to remedy the situation? Or are his comments simply a lament on the subject?

Heidegger was very concerned with actually changing the situation, and was actively involved in many of Germany's Universities. In 1933, he was appointed rector of Freiburg University, and took drastic steps to eliminate specialization- going so far as to abolish distinct disciplines, in terms of conceptualization and organization. Clearly he did not want to destroy the pursuits, rather he aimed at the entrenched ideas and bureaucracies. Only then, he thought, could those seperate concerns actually achieve their potential, through the realization that they are in fact integrated.

His ideas on the ammount of involvement, and in what sphere, changed over his lifetime. However, his fundamental starting point- "being-in-the-world"- revels a being that has no choice but to engage, for it literally is engagement itself

 

[Justin S.]

speed, I plan to respond to your posts, especially concerning language and writing, but dont have the time tonight. I will try to get something up tomorrow.

 

[derek]

speed, I plan to respond to your posts, especially concerning language and writing, but dont have the time tonight. I will try to get something up tomorrow.

I also patiently await these posts

Fantastic thread, btw.

 

[Justin S.]

Literature is “philosophical” ideas in a context determined by an author. This becomes clearer when “philosophy” looses its meaning and is then understood in a more fundamental way as concernful thinking. The distinction of literature is the difference of approach to communication of thinking.

We generally distinguish literature from simply writing due to its intent, the artistry and usage of language in the creation of some situation that the reader engages. Literature is a creation of the author, and the ideas contained are thus grounded, and given expression, within a “story” or imagined scenario. This can be advantageous in that ideas and moods can be revealed in a rich way that explicit statement cannot express due to its self-imposed limitation of “exactness”. This is an important idea that I will return to. However, literature suffers from the bounds of its scope and a by the presence of a structural framework (plot, characterization, POV, etc.).

Modern philosophy seeks to free thinking from as many constraints as possible. There are many approaches to this but an overwhelming number concern themselves with the limitations of language- including what is deemed intelligible and contains “meaning”.

Too often individuals dismiss a work when it is not immediately understandable, or uses unconventional language. Both speed and Final Product have voiced strong criticism of certain writing styles, some of which may very well be what they describe-terminologically heavy works that illuminate very little other than empty phrases, ego, and trendy elitism. However it would be a grave error to lump all difficult and challenging works into that category. Heidegger is one of the casualties of this association. His efforts are, simply put, amazing- regardless of my stance on particulars. The rigor, the creativity and understanding of language, are all there for very precise reasons. It is the opposite of what you (and I) cry out against.

I disagree with speed’s statement that many contemporary thinkers are poor writers. Contained within his criticism are many presuppositions concerning the authors’ intents and understanding of language that they certainly would disagree with. Going back to Heidegger (since, as speed said, he is a poster boy for hatred of continental philosophy), he wished to utilize language to challenge and reawaken questions and thinking that has been forgotten. He sees the “exactness” and rigidity of our language and thinking to be one of the primary reasons for the problems of our day. This does not mean he wants language to degrade into merely symbols that communicate nothing- just the opposite- they are symbols to communicate, and he will utilize every means to facilitate that goal, including those outside of standard practice. He also goes to great lengths to explain all of these decisions so that they are not unintentionally vague. At other times, the language is deliberately inexact (exactly inexact?) to show how much ambiguity exists, and to allow a poetic (like literature, as mentioned above) expression of the concepts that would not be possible under the inflexibility of common tongue. This is a major theme of his later work, including the importance of poetry, specifically the work of Holderlin.

The subject matter does indeed warrant this approach. Concepts of “nothing”, “being”, etc, cannot be encountered with common speech- language that is incapable of acknowledging such phenomena due to its very construction and therfore limits of conceptualization.

I highly recommend the Introduction to Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) and Letter on Humanism. Both are a small time investment, but very revealing.

 

[speed]

Literature is “philosophical” ideas in a context determined by an author. This becomes clearer when “philosophy” looses its meaning and is then understood in a more fundamental way as concernful thinking. The distinction of literature is the difference of approach to communication of thinking.

We generally distinguish literature from simply writing due to its intent, the artistry and usage of language in the creation of some situation that the reader engages. Literature is a creation of the author, and the ideas contained are thus grounded, and given expression, within a “story” or imagined scenario. This can be advantageous in that ideas and moods can be revealed in a rich way that explicit statement cannot express due to its self-imposed limitation of “exactness”. This is an important idea that I will return to. However, literature suffers from the bounds of its scope and a by the presence of a structural framework (plot, characterization, POV, etc.).

Modern philosophy seeks to free thinking from as many constraints as possible. There are many approaches to this but an overwhelming number concern themselves with the limitations of language- including what is deemed intelligible and contains “meaning”.

Too often individuals dismiss a work when it is not immediately understandable, or uses unconventional language. Both speed and Final Product have voiced strong criticism of certain writing styles, some of which may very well be what they describe-terminologically heavy works that illuminate very little other than empty phrases, ego, and trendy elitism. However it would be a grave error to lump all difficult and challenging works into that category. Heidegger is one of the casualties of this association. His efforts are, simply put, amazing- regardless of my stance on particulars. The rigor, the creativity and understanding of language, are all there for very precise reasons. It is the opposite of what you (and I) cry out against.

I disagree with speed’s statement that many contemporary thinkers are poor writers. Contained within his criticism are many presuppositions concerning the authors’ intents and understanding of language that they certainly would disagree with. Going back to Heidegger (since, as speed said, he is a poster boy for hatred of continental philosophy), he wished to utilize language to challenge and reawaken questions and thinking that has been forgotten. He sees the “exactness” and rigidity of our language and thinking to be one of the primary reasons for the problems of our day. This does not mean he wants language to degrade into merely symbols that communicate nothing- just the opposite- they are symbols to communicate, and he will utilize every means to facilitate that goal, including those outside of standard practice. He also goes to great lengths to explain all of these decisions so that they are not unintentionally vague. At other times, the language is deliberately inexact (exactly inexact?) to show how much ambiguity exists, and to allow a poetic (like literature, as mentioned above) expression of the concepts that would not be possible under the inflexibility of common tongue. This is a major theme of his later work, including the importance of poetry, specifically the work of Holderlin.

The subject matter does indeed warrant this approach. Concepts of “nothing”, “being”, etc, cannot be encountered with common speech- language that is incapable of acknowledging such phenomena due to its very construction and therfore limits of conceptualization.

I highly recommend the Introduction to Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) and Letter on Humanism. Both are a small time investment, but very revealing.

I'm also going to need some time to reply to these very thorough comments.

 

[Demiurge]

Justin S., I agree entirely with your post. To complain about Heidegger's unconventional language is to miss the point, as one of his basic ideas was that modern language has lost the ability to think about Being and he, as its custodian, must use a different vocabulary.

 

[Cythraul]

Absolutely, the structure of the Academy has depended (demanded?) upon these conceptual schisms for quite some time now; the multitude of factors that result in this are really complicated, but also very intuitive, i.e., underlying economic obligations of the University as an business/institution, cultural/social forces, etc. “Blame” is a tough word, partly because most of what I am critiquing regarding thought it so utterly common that its reinforcement is unconscious, and is concealed from analysis by all sorts of presuppositions that most people cannot recognize precisely because they are so common, hidden by ideas of “self-evidency” and judgments on intelligibility and meaning- concepts that are so central to the consciousness and, because of acculturation, not questioned, even in supposedly rigorous academia.

The problem of metaphysics and separating thought from the world (the floating, objective consciousness) and also from itself, for example, juxtapositions of different applications of thought as mentioned previously, is a central point of attack for Heidegger. He revels the central mode of Dasein’s (conscious entity) Being in his ontology to be “being-in-the-world”; that thinking cannot be distanced from: existence (thought must “be” to be thought), and the thinking entity, which in turn cannot be removed and considered outside of acculturation, historicity, and temporality. In this mode “world” does not imply the globe, but existence proper, literally: being in the realm of Being.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is fucking verbose nonsense. Try to express your views in a coherent way and then we'll see whether or not they're worth a shit.

 

[Cythraul]

Philosophy sadly is more a course in history than anything ..

Yeah buddy, you're definitely on the right track

 

[speed]

Literature is “philosophical” ideas in a context determined by an author. This becomes clearer when “philosophy” looses its meaning and is then understood in a more fundamental way as concernful thinking. The distinction of literature is the difference of approach to communication of thinking.

We generally distinguish literature from simply writing due to its intent, the artistry and usage of language in the creation of some situation that the reader engages. Literature is a creation of the author, and the ideas contained are thus grounded, and given expression, within a “story” or imagined scenario. This can be advantageous in that ideas and moods can be revealed in a rich way that explicit statement cannot express due to its self-imposed limitation of “exactness”. This is an important idea that I will return to. However, literature suffers from the bounds of its scope and a by the presence of a structural framework (plot, characterization, POV, etc.).

Modern philosophy seeks to free thinking from as many constraints as possible. There are many approaches to this but an overwhelming number concern themselves with the limitations of language- including what is deemed intelligible and contains “meaning”.

Too often individuals dismiss a work when it is not immediately understandable, or uses unconventional language. Both speed and Final Product have voiced strong criticism of certain writing styles, some of which may very well be what they describe-terminologically heavy works that illuminate very little other than empty phrases, ego, and trendy elitism. However it would be a grave error to lump all difficult and challenging works into that category. Heidegger is one of the casualties of this association. His efforts are, simply put, amazing- regardless of my stance on particulars. The rigor, the creativity and understanding of language, are all there for very precise reasons. It is the opposite of what you (and I) cry out against.

I disagree with speed’s statement that many contemporary thinkers are poor writers. Contained within his criticism are many presuppositions concerning the authors’ intents and understanding of language that they certainly would disagree with. Going back to Heidegger (since, as speed said, he is a poster boy for hatred of continental philosophy), he wished to utilize language to challenge and reawaken questions and thinking that has been forgotten. He sees the “exactness” and rigidity of our language and thinking to be one of the primary reasons for the problems of our day. This does not mean he wants language to degrade into merely symbols that communicate nothing- just the opposite- they are symbols to communicate, and he will utilize every means to facilitate that goal, including those outside of standard practice. He also goes to great lengths to explain all of these decisions so that they are not unintentionally vague. At other times, the language is deliberately inexact (exactly inexact?) to show how much ambiguity exists, and to allow a poetic (like literature, as mentioned above) expression of the concepts that would not be possible under the inflexibility of common tongue. This is a major theme of his later work, including the importance of poetry, specifically the work of Holderlin.

The subject matter does indeed warrant this approach. Concepts of “nothing”, “being”, etc, cannot be encountered with common speech- language that is incapable of acknowledging such phenomena due to its very construction and therfore limits of conceptualization.

I highly recommend the Introduction to Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) and Letter on Humanism. Both are a small time investment, but very revealing.

First, let me state, that as Camus' Phd committee said to him: "He is more of a writer than a philosopher," I am of the same persuasion. My talent, or preference, is for the literary style. Clear, descriptive, poetic, and meaningful writing is what attracts me. Hence, saying this, and assuming that you Justin, appear to be a philosophy student, we represent the two opposing camps--which have grown apart in the last fifty years.

As you have stated within your first two paragraphs, literature can reveal more to its reader in philosophical terms than philosophical writing, as it is not concerned with exactness, and uses plot and characterization to further bolster its intentions. You say literature is bound by these ideas, but apparently you are unaware, or have not read many a postmodern book. Literature is really not bound by much of anything anymore. Remember, even Tolstoy in War and Peace, essentially included philosophical essays on sociology and his own philosophy etc, as part of the book-- essays related but apart from the narrative of his novel.

Many great philosophers have understood the power of literature and non-philosophical writing, to better propagate and explain philosophical ideas and theories. The list is quite compelling: Sartre, Camus, Voltaire, Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra), Ayn Rand--terrible writer and thinker, Plato with his dialogues, Lucretius--the list is quite extensive. And these are just the philosophers, there are countless examples of writers like Doestoevsky, Proust, Hesse, Gide, Kafka, Shaw, writing books essentially promoting or describing a philosophical idea or theory.

Hence, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for thinking literature is confining in regards to philosophical ideas or exactness. As I stated before, Philosophers would be wise to publish their academic writings in this ornate technical and obscure form of writing no one but them read, and writings in which they can prove their theories and or ideas. However, if the philosopher wishes to be read, and understood by a wider audience--and if the philosopher can conceptualize his ideas and theory without the crutch of this byzantine form of writing--then said philosophers would be quite wise to write literature, essays; any form that clearly explains their ideas. This is not a new idea. Why Camus, the Ancient Greeks, Bertrand Russell, even one could say Marx all wrote many a excellent essay, that were thus understood and had some practical use. In Economics, Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, which is wonderfully written, and has served as the economic inspiration for most right-wing politicians, who would not understand his academic writings. Obviously our government structure and many of the revolutions in the past, happened because philosophers like Rosseau, Marx, Smith, Locke, are quite readable, and can be comprehended by any educated person.

Thus, what I am getting at, is that seeing philosophy is not a science or a math; that philosophy has no desire to become a stale and dead exercise read and practiced by a few poorly paid men in universities and the odd devotee; and realizing many philosophers wish for philosophy to have some impact on our daily and practical lives; then philosophy must do all it can to come down from the academic clouds. It needs writers and philosopher who can conceptualizing their ideas in clear writing that an intelligent person who does not have a PHD in philosophy can understand.

As for Heidegger, his intentions are well and good. He is perhaps the most influential philosopher to other philosophers of this century. Yet, without Sartre would have been as well-known? And furthermore, besides academics, who trudges through one of this books on their own free will? Here is a man that is absolutely a pillar of thinking, and his ideas are so clouded by his own poor writing--and yes, I dont care what you tell me, his writing is quite poor--that his ideas are confined to academic departments. And whats worse, is that his defining influence to me at least, seems to have been to inspire all the rest of the philosophers to adopt his writing style--including you Justin. And what has happened to philosophy? It has become irrelevant since. The most important advances in the last 50 years--Derrida and the deconstructionists--who derived their ideas from Heidegger, are similarly unknown to all but a select few. Its such a shame. Consider the explosion and power of philosophy from the 18th century up to the 1920's and 30's. Now, it is so obtuse and academicized, interest in philosophy is met with a chuckle, and questions of why one is wasting their time with such drivel.

Philosophy, I think we can all agree, shouldnt be a science confined to ivory towers like physics or mathmatics.

P.S. American literature has the same problem as philosophy. Any attempts at decent literature, are academic in nature and follow either the horrific personalized ramblings of the horrid Hemingway, or are incredbly poor attempts to channel Thomas Pynchon by lesser intellects. And the rest of our literary output is composed of popularized drivel, that is predicated upon money rather than art. Thank god for the rest of the world--like Rushdie, Amis, Pavic, Naispul, Marquez, McEwan and others, for not following this trend.