Philosophical Contradictions

[speed]

Almost every great modern/enlightenment philosopher, seems fraught with contradictions. These contradictions may be related to their philosophy or philosophical system, political affiliations, personal life, etc. How does a lover of philosophy reconcile such contradictions? How can one support Sartre and Foucault, two lovers and supporters of individualism in their philosophies, with their pro-Mao-ist Marxist views? How can one continue laughing at Voltaire, the man who helped bring down the french aristocracy, when Voltaire was obscenely rich, an ardant capitalist, and travelled and lived only in the confines of the aristocracy? How can one support the views of Heidegger, another great proponent of existentialism and understanding the individuals role in the world, when he openly supported the Nazi party--even while he kept a Jewish mistress! I could go on for ever with these contradictions, with almost every non-classical philosopher.

What is it about the modern world that makes the seperation of philosophy and belief and personal life so impossible? The cynics, stoics, epicureans, peripatetics, practiced what they preached in real life. Why is this now impossible?

Finally, what is it that makes the philosopher's philosophy, also so personal nowdays? I read The Republic, and do not necessarily believe Plato actually believed what he wrote. Why do modern and enlightenment philosophers engage in lengthy diatribes and grudges against other philosophers who attack their ideas, as if it was an insult to them personally?

 

[Omnis_Sathanas]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One

I don't think anyone has ever adhered perfectly to their own philosophy. However, this doesn't bother me at all because changing the of personal ideas and external conditions happens rapidly, so it becomes extremely difficult to stick to a single body of ideas absolutely at all times. Even Aristotle noted that there can be no absolutes in terms of ethical behavior.

A philosophical system presents the ideal, not the actual.

 

[speed]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#One

I don't think anyone has ever adhered perfectly to their own philosophy. However, this doesn't bother me at all because changing the of personal ideas and external conditions happens rapidly, so it becomes extremely difficult to stick to a single body of ideas absolutely at all times. Even Aristotle noted that there can be no absolutes in terms of ethical behavior.

A philosophical system presents the ideal, not the actual.

Indeed, indeed. Can one make the logical leap that contradictions are perhaps almost inherent in great modern thinkers? I know of no great thinker who did not possess some rather glaring contradictions between his actions and philosophy, or even with his philosophy itself. Its almost like the Daimon of philosophers; akin to the Demiurge if you will. As if there was a imperfect part of the philosopher, and a perfect part; and both are necessary. I suppose this also most likely explains the continued illogical popularity of good and evil--its another possible way to explain why one would create great philosophy or thought, but lead a terribly unphilosophical life, or even contradict ones own philosophy with ones next work. A very interesting duality.

Also, does this not point to the imperfect human-ness of even the greatest thinkers? That someone like Sartre who wrote the massive and complex Being and Nothingness, would be the same person who protested with students and Maoists on the streets of France? That such a man who wrote such complex philosophy would buy into a crude utopian political/economic theory?

 

[Norsemaiden]

What would be most interesting to know though, would be whether the philosophers in question were themselves aware of their contradictions. And if so, did this trouble them in the slightest?

 

[derek]

A philosophical system presents the ideal, not the actual.

I'd agree with this.

Even Seneca was never the most hardcore Stoic.

Interesting question though. I think when these things become apparent, the conviction that taints their words is definately weakened.

 

[Justin S.]

Almost every great modern/enlightenment philosopher, seems fraught with contradictions. These contradictions may be related to their philosophy or philosophical system, political affiliations, personal life, etc. How does a lover of philosophy reconcile such contradictions? ...How can one support the views of Heidegger, another great proponent of existentialism and understanding the individuals role in the world, when he openly supported the Nazi party--even while he kept a Jewish mistress!

I can see why initially Heidegger may seem like a walking contradiction, but after exploring more, I think he is one of the few who actually lived in an integrated fashion. Most of the ideas of contradiction stem from a misunderstanding of the elements under discussion (Nazism, Jewish mistress, "existentialism", etc.).

"Nazism" is a complicated thing that is far from a unified/codified system (contrary to the stereotyped boogey-man of our time). What is National Socialism to Heidegger in 1934 is not the mechanized extermination and strict authoritarianism of the years to come (which also are not ideals even to many leaders of the regime, but perceived "necessary" harsh responses to a harsh time of "total war" in political, demographic, spiritual, and biological terms)- in fact they are near opposites in some ways. The movement in the early-mid 1930's was something that had strong aspects of compatibility with Heidegger's project (which is not "existentialism" or some pro-subjectivist "freedom" movement).

Heidegger desperately wanted the movement to be a collective breakout from the "they", into a new spiritual/national reality. Quite clearly, this was not to be, and he saw this only a year into his involvement (he withdrew from activism in early 1935). Nevertheless, the time is total tragedy on so many levels, which is why he never commented on it, or the extermination programs- to do so, or "apologize" would have been contrary to his thinking (true contradiction). In this sense, Heidegger's involvement and silence is an immense display of integrity.

Concerning his affair(s), he was not an ideologically motivated anti-semite, but a realistic and practical one (ie, not based in some historical/biological narrative, but the reality of jewish over-representation in German academics, economy, politics, etc.). I do agree that his affair is a tough issue, but I dont see it as being particularly "contradictory" in terms of his thinking (the Nazi = rabid anti-semitism equivocation is too simplistic and reductionist).

Finally, what is it that makes the philosopher's philosophy, also so personal nowdays? I read The Republic, and do not necessarily believe Plato actually believed what he wrote. Why do modern and enlightenment philosophers engage in lengthy diatribes and grudges against other philosophers who attack their ideas, as if it was an insult to them personally?

Because many modern philosophers see the distanced "theoretical" attitude as the joke that it is. One can never erase the fact that a grounded and casually linked agent is acting, thinking, speaking, doing, and that this is the essence of his being. All is "personal". I dont think one goes about writing a "Republic" for the fuck of it.

 

[OldScratch]

I can see why initially Heidegger may seem like a walking contradiction, but after exploring more, I think he is one of the few who actually lived in an integrated fashion. Most of the ideas of contradiction stem from a misunderstanding of the elements under discussion (Nazism, Jewish mistress, "existentialism", etc.).

"Nazism" is a complicated thing that is far from a unified/codified system (contrary to the stereotyped boogey-man of our time). What is National Socialism to Heidegger in 1934 is not the mechanized extermination and strict authoritarianism of the years to come (which also are not ideals even to many leaders of the regime, but perceived "necessary" harsh responses to a harsh time of "total war" in political, demographic, spiritual, and biological terms)- in fact they are near opposites in some ways. The movement in the early-mid 1930's was something that had strong aspects of compatibility with Heidegger's project (which is not "existentialism" or some pro-subjectivist "freedom" movement).

Heidegger desperately wanted the movement to be a collective breakout from the "they", into a new spiritual/national reality. Quite clearly, this was not to be, and he saw this only a year into his involvement (he withdrew from activism in early 1935). Nevertheless, the time is total tragedy on so many levels, which is why he never commented on it, or the extermination programs- to do so, or "apologize" would have been contrary to his thinking (true contradiction). In this sense, Heidegger's involvement and silence is an immense display of integrity.

Concerning his affair(s), he was not an ideologically motivated anti-semite, but a realistic and practical one (ie, not based in some historical/biological narrative, but the reality of jewish over-representation in German academics, economy, politics, etc.). I do agree that his affair is a tough issue, but I dont see it as being particularly "contradictory" in terms of his thinking (the Nazi = rabid anti-semitism equivocation is too simplistic and reductionist).

And excellent observation!

 

[speed]

Because many modern philosophers see the distanced "theoretical" attitude as the joke that it is. One can never erase the fact that a grounded and casually linked agent is acting, thinking, speaking, doing, and that this is the essence of his being. All is "personal". I dont think one goes about writing a "Republic" for the fuck of it.

I dont know if its distanced or theoretical. In the case of Plato and some of the ancients and even some of the renaissance humanists like Machiavelli, its more literary,dramatic, and sophist-like than anything else.

To draw back from oneself, and create arguments/theories one may not even believe, is the sign of both an artist, and someone supremely confident or self-assurred in their ideas.

Thus, I strongly disagree its a joke. If anything, it may be due to philosophy's ever growing scholasticism,obscurity and seperation from law, literature and the humanities, that has created this highly personal philosophical climate of the past 150-200 years. And, I also clearly am supporting those philosophers who do uphold this dialectical or distanced position. I think its truly enlightened, as lets face it, every philosophical system has flaws, and its nonsense to keep building a system over them without addressing them.