Comments on: Neither supernatural nor political

By: Amod Lele

Amod Lele — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:35:57 +0000

I’m not sure that’s the case. To say that “distance from politics” must be a political slogan or even a humanitarian utopia seems to stretch the concept of “politics” so far as to make it meaningless: everything is politics, and then in a sense nothing is politics. When Śāntideva tells us that knowledge of law and politics is fruitless, it’s not a political rallying cry; it’s an instruction that reminds us to focus on the more important matters of freedom from craving and ignorance.

My point about Rorty is that he’s part of the problem and not the solution, because he, as much as Rawls or anyone else, cares and writes about politics far more than about individuals and their ethical lives (if he even writes about the latter at all). He seems in that respect to be contradicting his own advice. But now that I think about it, he’s not alone in this matter. Martha Nussbaum’s most famous piece, the introduction to “Love’s Knowledge,” makes exactly the point you note here – that stories are philosophically valuable because they attend to particular individuals and not just abstract universals. And yet Nussbaum’s later work is itself concerned almost exclusively with the politics, to the point that she’s said “I don’t think one should do moral philosophy, I think it’s arrogant.” But this all just makes me more intrigued by the original point: why is it that we secular or non-supernaturalist Westerners seem so irresistibly drawn to politics, even people like Rorty and Nussbaum whose own claims suggest an anti-political direction?

By: elisa freschi

elisa freschi — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:43:39 +0000

Well, I don’t think anyone can be an ‘ally’ on this score, since as soon as one would propose, e.g., “distance from politics and attention to our neighbours”, this would in turn become a political slogan or at least a humanitarian utopia. In fact, Rorty made ME reflect on the issue through his way of demistifying great thinkers, and his proposal to read more literature (and less philosophy?), since in literature individuals are at stake and are not violated by all-comprehensive ideals. To put it more radically: no ‘ally’ is conceivable apart from the friends and companions one directly get in touch to (either personally or as characters in a novel).

By: Amod Lele

Amod Lele — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:13:25 +0000

I agree with most of what you’re saying, Elisa. It’s a theme I noticed in Śāntideva as well: of course he’s very concerned with helping others, but he sees politics as not being much, if any, of a help. I doubt that Rorty is an ally on this score, though. My sense is that he falls victim to the exact same overemphasis on politics that is shared by other secular thinkers, perhaps even more than they do. For Rorty wrote several volumes about politics (Achieving Our Country, Philosophy and Social Hope) but precious little about ethics – no discussion of how individual people can live a good life, only about the good society and good state.

By: elisa freschi

elisa freschi — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 07:59:57 +0000

You will probably know Richard Rorty’s Contingency, irony and solidarity. I read it some 13 years ago in its Italian translation, under the fascinating title (possibly due to the influence of A.G. Gargani) “Philosophy after Philosophy”. I liked the way Rorty deconstructed Heidegger through Derrida and so on, until he reaches the conclusion that overall perspectives (the second Philosophy of the Italian title) are just useless utopias. Instead, one can use irony in order to deconstruct them and concrete solidarity as the only possible way to enhance others’ lives. One could elaborate further and propose that political engagement is often NOT the best way to the target it itself aims at (namely, other people’s wellness). In fact, while dealing with the world’s welfare we might forget taking care of our crying niece. Or, we might be too worried about starving children in Africa to notice our neighbour’s grief… Apart from leading to omissions, active engagement can also produce bad results. A typical example is ecologist activism. I deeply share its concerns and I am grateful to it as a movement for the raise of ecological awareness it caused, but I often noted how some of its members are so busy travelling around and trying to make people understand that they should not throw away food rests together with old paper, that they themselves pollute the world through airplanes and mobile phones (and have obviously no time to care about where they throw old paper away). More explicit: communism often (think at the series of deaths and suicides in Russia after 1921) caused more suffer than one could have ever imagined –though being such a wonderful utopia.
In sum, aiming at a too high target may sometimes be good for you, but it does not mean that you are going to contribute to the target’s achievement more than the ones who aim at lower ones. You could even end up harming the very ones you are willing to help.