Can a bad person be a philosopher?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by agaton

What do you mean by bad philosopher? Some one who is not accepted, who has opinions that differ from 'official' line? How can we judge? We who tend to be mistaken, who tend to change opinions so often?

That is an interesting question, but that really is not relevant. The issue is whether a bad man (like Heidegger) must also be a bad philosopher, as the author of the book seems to think.

[sarek]

Originally Posted by Fido

Not true... Science, and physics are amoral, but all other philosophy is entirely moral... All the forms of non physical philosophy are moral forms... If we can abstract all good into a single idea, it is life; but how do we know life except as a series of pleasant or painful sensations causing us recognizable emotional states???...

I would say a philosopher is free to think and write about whatever comes to mind. Morals? Maybe. The nature of reality? Maybe.
Fact is that the choice is a free one. You can decide whether or not to talk about moral viewpoints and when you do you are still free to take any position you like.
I do not see an inherent fundamental requirement for a philosopher to take any kind of moral standpoint.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by sarek

I would say a philosopher is free to think and write about whatever comes to mind. Morals? Maybe. The nature of reality? Maybe.
Fact is that the choice is a free one. You can decide whether or not to talk about moral viewpoints and when you do you are still free to take any position you like.
I do not see an inherent fundamental requirement for a philosopher to take any kind of moral standpoint.

This is not about Heidegger's (or anyone's) moral standpoint.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

This is not about Heidegger's (or anyone's) moral standpoint.

I disagree. If Heidegger's philosophical writings are morally vague (i.e. they address general principles and not specifics), but his personal philosophy in life was Naziism, then we're talking about a bad person and a philosophy that is a distillation of this bad person.

[jgweed]

It was not that long ago that Marxists dismissed Mill's On Liberty by arguing that it was "merely" the expression of his economic class, or from other sources that Nietzsche's works were the ravings of a madman. This seems a reductionism of the many different motives that cause someone to write what they write.

It assumes that a work is always the result of one motive that is believed to dominate a person's life. That would be like arguing that Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" is an example of gay music; Copeland was gay, therefore every action must be defined by his "gayness." And what are we to make of "The Importance of Being Earnest"?

Just as importantly, such attributions seem to ignore that once a work is published, it takes on a certain independence from its origins, and stands or falls on its own merit. While true in the arts or literature, this is especially true of philosophical works because they are subject to examination by reason which is common to all men. We do not admire a philosophy because it was written by a likable or decent person of good morals, but because the perspective presented rings true.

[Aedes]

But Copeland was a musician -- this is an abstract art.

Nietzsche and Heidegger and Mill communicated specific ideas. One need not be a philosopher, I mean a novelist or poet could do it too.

I actually find Nietzsche's personal ideas somewhat admirable in that he utterly took on his revolting former friend Richard Wagner for his antisemitism, and his eventual insanity only affects one's reading of his philosophy if you think it lacks the coherent thought of someone sane. I find Nietzsche's misogyny to be horrible; I find the antisemitism to which he's ascribed to be misinterpreted, because this was a philosophical position about morality that was conflated with antisemitism by others. Nietzsche was not always careful about choosing his words, and I think he comes off as more abrasive and angry than the mere content of his ideas suggest.

Heidegger's philosophy has a very close relationship with Hitler's ideas, it's much 'cleaner' though in that he doesn't accrete ideas like conquering Russia and exterminating Jews to it.

One always better understands a thinker by understanding their era. Some contemporaneous philosophers, like Camus and Sartre, expressed a certain defense of humanity and human freedom in response to Naziism. Why shouldn't we judge Heidegger in the same context?

[Lily]

I think that being a philosopher is looking for answers, and of course one could find the "wrong" answers. Like when I'm looking for something and end up finding something else...

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I disagree. If Heidegger's philosophical writings are morally vague (i.e. they address general principles and not specifics), but his personal philosophy in life was Naziism, then we're talking about a bad person and a philosophy that is a distillation of this bad person.

Yes, I think that was what I was saying. Heidegger was an evil person, quite apart from his moral philosophy.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes, I think that was what I was saying. Heidegger was an evil person, quite apart from his moral philosophy.

The most important questions for me are how separable are his philosophy from his politics? Is Naziism immediately evident in his philosophy even if he doesn't name it?

Not all of Naziism was gas chambers and eugenics and war, of course. The question is whether this philosophy is best expounded by Heidegger, and if so is the implementation of this philosophy something that would 'inevitably' lead to Hitler?


When you think about it, Plato's Republic is one of the most repulsive Utopian visions imaginable. To put that philosophy into practice would be horrible. In other words, I think implementation of Plato's Republic would inevitably lead to a terrible society.

One big question about Plato is whether he believed that or not. I've always wondered since reading the Republic whether Plato had a huge tongue-in-cheek when writing it, i.e. he wrote it with a little bit of irony.


I bring this up because with Heidegger you don't get a Utopian vision, but you get a marriage between a philosophy and a related political system. Related, at the least, because they call directly upon Nietzsche's ideas of transcending the constraints of past morals. So Heidegger had the opportunity to see the abstract and the actuality in parallel -- Plato never did.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by Aedes

I actually find Nietzsche's personal ideas somewhat admirable in that he utterly took on his revolting former friend Richard Wagner for his antisemitism, and his eventual insanity only affects one's reading of his philosophy if you think it lacks the coherent thought of someone sane. I find Nietzsche's misogyny to be horrible; I find the antisemitism to which he's ascribed to be misinterpreted, because this was a philosophical position about morality that was conflated with antisemitism by others. Nietzsche was not always careful about choosing his words, and I think he comes off as more abrasive and angry than the mere content of his ideas suggest.

I agree with you on Nietzsche. By all accounts, the man was courteous, polite, and kind, but you wouldn't get that impression from his writings. He comes off as someone who is concerned with the cultural developments of his time, but more often than not he comes off as being a bit angry and abrasive as you said. The odd thing about Nietzsche is that while he scorned antisemitism and praised the Jews, you can see how his absolute valuation of the will to power could be used as nazi propaganda. I believe that power is worth being valued, but the violent domination and subjugation of fellow human beings should not be. Some things are so dark and counterproductive to the well being of our species, that they should be universally objectionable. Power should be valued primarily as a means of self-overcoming and self-fulfillment. The will to power can express itself in both beautiful ways and ugly ways. We should seek to express our will in beautiful ways and overcome our darker inclinations.