Think of me and the mods like editors responsible for maintaining the quality of a prestigious publication. We make subjective appraisals, of course, but I hope we try not to make arbitrary decisions based on whim.

I'm sure we can continue on good terms. You're a good contributor. I honestly didn't think you would get upset or even remark on the deletions at all; I assumed you would have appreciated my reasons and would not have minded.

but belittles it by mocking personal qualities of the philosopher involved. — andrewk

Dear andrewk, as someone interested primarily in Schopenhauer, I can't tell you how many times I've read, both on the last forum, on this one, and on the Internet at large, comments that seek to discredit his arguments on account of his alleged personal failings. It's one of my perennial frustrations, but these comments are never deleted and nor would I want them deleted.

Unlike said comments, I'm not even trying to advance an ad hominem but am merely poking fun for its own sake. If that's not allowed on a forum, then that forum is far too self-important.

a prestigious publication — jamalrob

Well there's your problem! Your standards are stratospheric, jamal, sheesh.

I assumed you would have appreciated my reasons and would not have minded. — jamalrob

To be honest, I don't all that much, and would not have brought it up were it not for the suggestion of another mod. It's water over the dam now.

Unlike said comments, I'm not even trying to advance an ad hominem but am merely poking fun for its own sake. If that's not allowed on a forum, then that forum is far too self-important. — Thorongil

But it's not true that it's not allowed on this forum. I do prefer, however, that it is not allowed to derail serious discussions. It's about context.

My interlocutor derailed with me, so I don't see the danger in that case. Be that as it may, sure, I'm all for context.

I absolutely agree with you about Schopenhauer. While I doubt I'm anywhere near as enthusiastic as you are, I very much enjoyed what I have read from him. I don't know what personal failings people mock him with - perhaps his ugliness or his lack of success in love - but I would regard bringing them into a discussion of his philosophy, unless there was a very clear link between them and the philosophy itself - as delete-worthy behavior. I am relatively new on here so I don't know all the available buttons yet, but I imagine there is a Report button you could use to report such posts to moderators.

I feel the same about people interjecting irrelevant comments about Heidegger's Nazi party membership into discussions of his philosophy of being and time, even though I have a dislike for Heidegger the person and do not understand his philosophy.

If you feel that deletion of such interjections is too self-important, that's fine. But if you choose to make a fuss about it, isn't that being rather self-important about your heckles?

By the way, I'm intrigued by this:

Again, I love Camus, but he looks like a douche — Thorongil

It sounds like you regard the word 'douche' as somehow insulting or disgusting. The only meanings I know of for that word are that it is French for 'shower' and in English refers to the act of washing out a woman's vagina with some fluid, usually introduced by a flexible tube - a practice that was mistakenly believed to help with contraception.

Can you explain how either of these meanings cause the word 'douche' to be an insult?

Odd that you think Camus looks "douchey" in that photo, because to me he looks pretty cool. I wonder, could you post a picture of a philosopher who does not look douchey?

I don't know what personal failings people mock him with - perhaps his ugliness or his lack of success in love - but I would regard bringing them into a discussion of his philosophy, unless there was a very clear link between them and the philosophy itself - as delete-worthy behavior. — andrewk

There are a whole host of examples that are continually brought up. The main one I come across is his not living the ascetic life he so exalts in his philosophy.

I feel the same about people interjecting irrelevant comments about Heidegger's Nazi party membership into discussions of his philosophy of being and time, even though I have a dislike for Heidegger the person and do not understand his philosophy. — andrewk

That's another great example of what I mean. I would be in favor of making fun of Heidegger for being a Nazi, but I wouldn't claim his philosophy was bunk (if I, too, could understand it) on account of that fact. Another example I just thought of is Wagner. Lots of people won't listen to his music simply because of his anti-semitism. Well, I think his music stinks, but I don't listen to it for that reason, not because he was an anti-semite, which would be silly. All the same, I wouldn't personally report anyone who said such a thing in a comment.

But if you choose to make a fuss about it, isn't that being rather self-important about your heckles? — andrewk

I don't see why it would be, no.

It sounds like you regard the word 'douche' as somehow insulting or disgusting. — andrewk

Yeah, in the US, but maybe not elsewhere in the world, calling someone a douche or a douche-bag is basically to call them a smug asshole and someone who's trying way too hard to look cool. So I think a lot of postmodern theorists look like smug assholes in their photos, which they do.

There's a whole host of examples that are continually brought up. The main one I come across is his not living the ascetic life he so exalts in his philosophy. — Thorongil

To me, that's his saving grace.

I wish to retain my anonymity, so I won't post a photo of myself, but a picture of me would be an example of a non-douchy philosopher. So you know, I'm a cross between Tom Cruise, Baden's mom, and Satan. Odd yes, douchy no.

I don't know, most all of them except for the postmodernists?

I've always thought this portrait of Kant makes him look like a total nerd:



Of course, there's the other oil painting of him which centers on his forehead that makes him look like a badass.

To me, that's his saving grace. — jamalrob

You damn hedonist.

Oldies like Aristotle and Aurelius look classy in their busts, I think. Once photography was invented, philosophers were doomed.

Here's the pic I posted in my deleted comment. It's schopenhauer. He's posing.

I meant more recent philosophers, contemporary with the French intellectuals whose style does not appeal to you.

I think what's happened is that smugness has become associated with that style in retrospect, because those philosophers are sometimes considered today to have been part of a smug, affected philosophical tradition. I don't think they look especially smug, myself.

John Searle

That's my favorite of his photos.

:D

One last one - there's a pipe :-O

I'll take your word for it.

Let's see. There's Ortega y Gasset, who here looks perfectly normal, even with his pipe:



Cioran always looks pained and anxious:



Pascal Bruckner is a Frenchman who manages to look normal:

In that photo, Ortega y Gasset is wearing a Panama hat and holding a cigarette holder. I'm confused.

He's from another time. The look on his face is utterly unpretentious.

John Searle — csalisbury

What's he got in his hands, a rifle?

Interesting - in those photos I see, in order: Cosmopolitan sophisticate, suffering genius (the romantic rehashing of the 'saint'), and bedroom eyes/serene guru. All 3 are trying to convey something about themselves.

Ah, I see. So this is more about facial expressions and poses? Well I'm still confused, because Foucault looks utterly unpretentious in the photo you posted. Barthes and Baudrillard don't look pretentious to me either.

Just trying to work out what is and isn't douchey in the world of Thorongil.

You do realize that the suffering genius thing is heavy - just dripping - with self-consscious posturing, right? It's baffling me that you would cite Cioran - Cioran! - as someone who doesn't try to strike a pose. Cioran!

Baudrillard ought to be condemned for that sweater, though.

The sweater is my favorite part!

Yep, a rifle. He's been out pheasant hunting, I assume, and is relaxing by the hearth.