Re: Philosophy general debate

["Ivan R" <listen_to_reggae@hotmail.com>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org



Well what a lovely set of responses to that particular passage from Deleuze.
I had originally posted the passage more for where Deleuze discusses 
critique and philosophy's role (and worth) as a guard against 'stupidity', 
and did not actually think to take him so literally.
But I feel that perhaps I should clarify that where Deleuze writes "A 
philosophy that saddens no one.. is not a philosophy' he is in fact 
paraphrasing Nietzsche, as this qoute appears in a monograph on Nietzsche. 
The original qoute, as found in  Deleuze's footnote reads,

"Diogenes objected, when they praised a philosopher in front of him: What 
has he to show that he is great, he who has given himself up to philosophy 
for so long without ever making anyone grieve? Indeed it would be necessary 
to put as an epitaph on the tomb of university philosophy: it has made noone 
grieve."
> From 'Schopenhauer Educator"

As for contintental philosophy being literature, I'm sure many post-moderns 
would agree with this diagnosis, indeed a few have staked a career on 
claiming just that, but that they might like to include their compatriots 
across the channel in the category of literature also!
Interestingly enough American pragmatist Richard Rorty takes the line that 
philosophy as an activity is not really anything worth getting to bothered 
about, and that it is literature (and art etc) that is really important.

Cheers,
Ivan




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml