Can a bad person be a philosopher?

[kennethamy]

In his book, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, the author, Emmanuel Faye argues that Martin Heidegger was not a philosopher, and that his works should not be classified under "philosophy" because they were entirely based on National Socialism. Faye argues that Heidegger's work should be classified under "hate speech".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/bo...?_r=1&ref=arts

I think this view is just wrong. Heidegger was certainly a bad man, and (IMO) he was a bad philosopher. But (again in my opinion) just as a bad man need not be a bad plumber, so a bad man need not be a bad philosopher. Being a bad philosopher is being bad at philosophizing, and being a bad person is being bad at being a person (in this view I am taking from Aristotle) Both are "jobs", but being bad at the one job has nothing to do with being bad at the other "job". "Bad philosopher" carries no ethical meaning, but "bad person" certainly does.

[Aedes]

I don't think it comes of necessity that a bad man = a bad philosopher or vice versa.

I do feel it happens to be true in the case of Heidegger himself, though.

I think that one needs to be somewhat familiar with Hitler's 2-bit philosophy to understand how it found its way into Heidegger. For instance, one of Hitler's strongest philosophical convictions was that Thou Shalt not Kill should be rejected as nonsensical weakness and a constraint on greatness. This finds its way more subtly into Heideggers' idea that conventions should be questioned or broken -- again an elaboration of Hitler's mode of thinking.

[sarek]

I really wish that philosophy was a route that led exclusively to 'good' thoughts. But philosophy is in essence a-moral, as are all the products of the mind.

[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?

[Sasori-sama]

What is a bad person?
What do you need to think or do in order to be called a bad person?

Doesn't this depend on the one who judges?


I would say that rather the person who judges other philosophers by only his own moral attitudes is the one to be called a bad philosopher.

[Aedes]

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?

Well, I think what's meant here is not bad by logical process but rather bad by espousal of bad things -- like inhumanity, cruelty, violence. And I don't think we really need to go down the road of absolute moral judgements to agree that most healthy humans are averse to cruelty and violence and share in general terms the ideas of good and bad.

[hue-man]

Originally Posted by Sasori-sama

What is a bad person?
What do you need to think or do in order to be called a bad person?

Doesn't this depend on the one who judges?

Here we go again with moral relativism in its normative form. According to this normative ethic, there are no bad people, and a person can only be considered to be bad by their own standards. Therefore, you can rape a child, kill millions of innocent people, and still not be considered to be a bad person. This is the negation of morality disguised as theory.

Originally Posted by Sasori-sama

I would say that rather the person who judges other philosophers by only his own moral attitudes is the one to be called a bad philosopher.

Ah, but you would say this, for this is your attitude. This is probably the most self-defeating sentence I've ever read.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

In his book, Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, the author, Emmanuel Faye argues that Martin Heidegger was not a philosopher, and that his works should not be classified under "philosophy" because they were entirely based on National Socialism. Faye argues that Heidegger's work should be classified under "hate speech".

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/bo...?_r=1&ref=arts

I think this view is just wrong. Heidegger was certainly a bad man, and (IMO) he was a bad philosopher. But (again in my opinion) just as a bad man need not be a bad plumber, so a bad man need not be a bad philosopher. Being a bad philosopher is being bad at philosophizing, and being a bad person is being bad at being a person (in this view I am taking from Aristotle) Both are "jobs", but being bad at the one job has nothing to do with being bad at the other "job". "Bad philosopher" carries no ethical meaning, but "bad person" certainly does.

I am a lousy person, with nearly zero social skills, and I struggle with all my relationships, so naturally, I hope bad people can be philosophers... If you look at philosophers you see that few were able maintain relationship, but then, philosophy uses reason while relationships live or die on the strength of emotion...This lack of emotional connectedness is what we see most in bad people...If they cannot feel good, or bad as emotional states that cause one as much pain as another, then they will never recongize good or bad as forms...

---------- Post added 11-09-2009 at 10:31 PM ----------

Originally Posted by sarek

I really wish that philosophy was a route that led exclusively to 'good' thoughts. But philosophy is in essence a-moral, as are all the products of the mind.

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???...

[TalkingBook]

...Emmanuel Faye argues that Martin Heidegger was not a philosopher, and that his works should not be classified under "philosophy" because they were entirely based on National Socialism. Faye argues that Heidegger's work should be classified under "hate speech".

This is an interesting argument, as I'd class National Socialism itself as a sort of incomplete philosophy (albeit one that just about nobody ascribes to today).

In fact, it sounds like the entire book is a literal case of a "reductio ad Nazium". Ideas should of course be considered for themselves, and not with relation to their creator. Hitler commissioned the creation of the Volkswagen, but I'll be damned if I don't see them all over the place, shouldn't they be considered "hate machines" under this logic?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by TalkingBook

This is an interesting argument, as I'd class National Socialism itself as a sort of incomplete philosophy (albeit one that just about nobody ascribes to today).

In fact, it sounds like the entire book is a literal case of a "reductio ad Nazium". Ideas should of course be considered for themselves, and not with relation to their creator. Hitler commissioned the creation of the Volkswagen, but I'll be damned if I don't see them all over the place, shouldn't they be considered "hate machines" under this logic?

I doubt that people can create ideas, though I do not doubt that one person or another can be the first to express an idea which is a certain relationship between a mental state and reality... I like Heidegger; and I only have one book by him, on Kant, but if he absorbed any of Kant, then it sort of points to a possible defect of Kant... I read the other day that Hitler, who claimed to be a great reader, carried Schopenhaur into the first world war... Because of his mental defects he more represented Nietzsche's Overman: Cold, distant, and unable to relate...