• AmadeusD
    1.3k
    Is this quote to insinuate that I am somehow wrong to posit that Rawls didn't write about Hegel in his career generally? I want to be clear: It could be that Rawls only citation is Hegel - but unless he's specifically trying to elucidate Hegel in his own work, I can't rightly justify a reading-acorss. That's all.
  • Joshs
    5.1k


    It could be that Rawls only citation is Hegel - but unless he's specifically trying to elucidate Hegel in his own work, I can't rightly justify a reading-acorssAmadeusD

    I’m not sure how easy it is to differentiate between being strongly indebted to and influenced by a philosopher in one’s work on the one hand, and ‘trying to elucidate’ a philosopher in one’s work on the other. Isnt this merely the difference between an implicit and an explicitly articulated overlap between Rawls and Hegel? If I tell you I am strongly indebted to the work of Kant, and you then claim that Kant’s work is non-philosophy, then it seems to me you're indirectly invalidating or failing or understand an aspect of my own work.
  • AmadeusD
    1.3k
    Isnt this merely the difference between an implicit and an explicitly articulated overlap between Rawls and Hegel?Joshs

    Not to my mind, but a fair objection. Being influenced by someone's thinking or writing doesn't mean taking on their positions, whether philosophical or otherwise, to me. Even 'heavy' influence doesn't mean you're going to even appear related. What I would say is that had Rawls explicitly written on Hegel and Hegel's work itself I would then have no choice but to judge Rawls work as inextricably connected with Hegel's and that they stand together, in some sense. As it stands, I see influence in his separate, and unique work which is 'Rawls work on Legal and Political philosophy", rather than "Rawls work on Hegel" and do not see them stand together. A good personal example is my current "being influenced" by Alfred North-Whitehead whos thinking I am coming to really enjoy and probably will take on some aspects of - but his theses? Not my bag at all, in terms of conclusions.

    If I tell you I am strongly indebted to the work of Kant, and you then claim that Kant’s work is non-philosophy, then it seems to me you're indirectly invalidating or failing or understand an aspect of my own work.Joshs

    This doesn't hit at all for me, so I guess that's the difference. I cannot see how they connect - Eg. If you incorporate George Lucas into your work, and it's insightful philosophically, that's a good thing and a success for you. But it doesn't make Lucas a philosopher(or Gaarder, or Gibran, or Bulgakov (or all of hte Russians lol)).
    If you are somehow offended (not emotionally, but in terms you supplied) by my denying that Kant is a philosopher (lol.. nice eg) then that appears to me something you should work through. It smacks of taking your ball and going home because someone said your wooden plank isn't actually a baseball bat.

    I think plenty of super-bright per se philosophers are influenced by plenty of per se non-philosophers. I don't deny this one is a controversial claim to that though :P
  • baker
    5.5k
    It wasn't meant as a joke. Some people, esp. those more science-minded, seem to have no inner life.
  • Born2Insights
    9
    What do you guys think about dark humor and sarcasm?
  • AmadeusD
    1.3k
    I think they are required skills to enjoy life, and "take it as it comes". Though, recognizing them can be difficult.
  • Tom Storm
    8.1k
    What do you guys think about dark humor and sarcasm?Born2Insights

    Depends what you mean. Most alleged dark humor and sarcasm is fairly tame and piss-poor. The really dark stuff is off limits to most as it deeply offends. Sarcasm is often predictable and dull - note also the old the saying that 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. Irony and satire are somewhat richer, but may also suffer from conventional dullness if not undertaken by someone with some talent.
  • Born2Insights
    9
    Makes sense not everyone can handle that. Just to make light of certain circumstances and all humor can be proficient if someone knows what they’re doing.
  • AmadeusD
    1.3k
    I thinn your response is parochial in some sense.
    Those parameters will only meet your humour benchmark. For others, it will be different t
  • Tom Storm
    8.1k
    I think your response is parochial in some sense.
    Those parameters will only meet your humour benchmark. For others, it will be different t
    AmadeusD

    Perhaps you didn't finish your response. I assume you see my comment as personal judgement. I don't disagree. Given he asked - 'what do you guys think' - what I provided is what I think. :wink:

    Is it possible to answer this question without personal judgement?
  • AmadeusD
    1.3k
    nah, the T was a mistake.

    I mean to say that you’re trying to talk about other peoples humour…
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.