Philosophers are noted for their exquisite parties—replete with red wine and raconteuring, Ferrero Rocher pyramids and reminiscences of Frank Ramsey. The tradition of the philosophical party goes back to Plato’s Symposium, with its eloquent speeches about love—an occasion recreated, more or less, at the reception of every philosophy colloquium.
Sounds a bit like even the Kant of the Anthropology still hadn't fully gotten up from his dogmatic slumber. Attempting to prove that dinner parties are the objectively superior synthesis - that seems like the kind of deduction of reality from first principles that you'd find in the early Leibnizian Kant, where you know the people living on Venus must be lazy because it's hot.
Was Kant married, Kieran? I don't know anything about Kant but wonder- a la Mary Midgley- if there's a relation between a philosopher's life (in this case sociability) and their philosophy?
Very interesting,Kieran. Thanks for sharing it. I thought you might talk about Hadot or the 'incarnation' of ideas in one's way of life.
Not sure if this is relevant but there's a Sufi saying: the water takes on the shape of the container but remains water. I guess Susan Wolf would say human subjectivity must meet objectivity.
Who knows what historical,social and psychological forces/factors go into the making of the self! I wonder if the question would be any different, though, if there wasn't so much emphasis on 'the self' in our times?
There was a very interesting article ( in the TLS, I think) on why women might not necessarily be drawn to (a type of) philosophy (or to economics). Think it was called 'snookered'.
The author wrote it under the name of a fictional philosopher called Botul (who has a very funny biography, he would have revolutionized philosophy had he have a less ridiculous name) but what it says about Kant (quoting his letters among other things) is correct. Amusingly Bernard Henry Levy (or most plausibly an angry ghostwriter working for him) quotes Botul as if he was indeed a neglected giant of the history of philosophy.
So the film depicting him as “abstemious and abstruse” (“The Last Days of Immanuel Kant”) was half wrong?
Sounds a bit like even the Kant of the Anthropology still hadn't fully gotten up from his dogmatic slumber. Attempting to prove that dinner parties are the objectively superior synthesis - that seems like the kind of deduction of reality from first principles that you'd find in the early Leibnizian Kant, where you know the people living on Venus must be lazy because it's hot.
I’ll be getting my students to read this, who have (understandably!) found him tough going
Was Kant married, Kieran? I don't know anything about Kant but wonder- a la Mary Midgley- if there's a relation between a philosopher's life (in this case sociability) and their philosophy?
Very much unmarried. The Midgley essay is great; reprinted here in THE RAVEN:
https://ravenmagazine.org/magazine/rings-books/
Also on the topic of personality and philosophy:
http://www.ksetiya.net/uploads/2/4/5/2/24528408/self-expression.pdf
Very interesting,Kieran. Thanks for sharing it. I thought you might talk about Hadot or the 'incarnation' of ideas in one's way of life.
Not sure if this is relevant but there's a Sufi saying: the water takes on the shape of the container but remains water. I guess Susan Wolf would say human subjectivity must meet objectivity.
Who knows what historical,social and psychological forces/factors go into the making of the self! I wonder if the question would be any different, though, if there wasn't so much emphasis on 'the self' in our times?
There was a very interesting article ( in the TLS, I think) on why women might not necessarily be drawn to (a type of) philosophy (or to economics). Think it was called 'snookered'.
If you read French, There is a very funny little book called the sex life of Immanuel Kant.
https://www.amazon.fr/vie-sexuelle-dEmmanuel-Kant/dp/2842054245
The author wrote it under the name of a fictional philosopher called Botul (who has a very funny biography, he would have revolutionized philosophy had he have a less ridiculous name) but what it says about Kant (quoting his letters among other things) is correct. Amusingly Bernard Henry Levy (or most plausibly an angry ghostwriter working for him) quotes Botul as if he was indeed a neglected giant of the history of philosophy.
I will try to read it, though my French is poor. Someone should publish a translation!
Immanuel Kant is one of the West’s most daringly creative thinkers. Great to see his work being appreciated!