ask a question

recent responses

all topics

info

⚲

Philosophers

Could someone elaborate on Nietzsche criticism of shame. In particular when he says 'What is most human about you? - To spare someone shame." I recognize the connection between this, and the falling tightrope walker in the part one of _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_, and that he falls because the buffoon shames him. I conclude from this that Nietzsche means to shame someone is to point them away from the path towards the overman. This, coupled with his belief that admitting you are wrong, even when you are right, is a good thing, leads to the idea that humouring someone, allowing them to persist in false ideas, which could do them harm, is the good thing to do. Does he mean then that we shouldn't correct people in their mistakes for fear of shaming them? This seems at odds with the purpose and practice of philosophy.

Dear Friend, You have pointed out perhaps my most favorite Nietzsche quote. It's from The Gay Science : "What do you consider the most humane? - To spare someone shame. What is the seal of liberation? - To no longer be ashamed in front of oneself." I have told many people, including my students, that if I ever got a tattoo it would be this quote! I still don't have the tat' but I stand by the claim. I don't think he is saying anything about not calling people out when they are wrong. He is the first one to do the calling, after all. Instead I think FN is worried about the totalizing sense of shame that overtakes some people - particularly during his time and place. We are talking about an era where even piano legs had to have a sense of modesty! The problem is that feeling shame is it can be like saying "No" to life. It is the opposite of vitality, of moral and intellectual adventure. Someone who is ashamed of himself will never take a risk nor do anything bold for fear of further...
Philosophers

What qualifies one as a philosopher? I use a number of tools (reason, ethics, etc) to philosophize, and I can even use a smattering of philosophical terminology, but I would hardly consider myself a philosopher, though I suppose one could call me philosophical... in short, even if we can't all be Nietzsche (mercifully, most would say), are we all not philosophers (some admittedly better or worse than others, of course)? Or must one have gone through a certain process to be deemed so?

You likely already know the root of the word philosopher: lover of wisdom. We could stick with just a simple, stripped down understanding of who philosophers are as lovers of wisdom. Anybody who loves wisdom would then qualify. 'Ah ha!,' you say, 'but what is wisdom?' Uncle, uncle - I give up! So I grant you the old school definition doesn't get us very far. Philosophical questions are basically questions for which there are no ultimate, permanent answers. I would say 'philosopher' should include anyone who wants to give such questions serious study, be it formally (at university) or informally (philosophy cafe groups, book clubs, or leisure reading). By the way, there is a certain snob-appeal to the title 'philosopher.' The qualifications of academic philosophy have given philosophy an especially rarified air, and perhaps that is another reason why people shy away from (or seem pretentious in) claiming the title. Some of Europe's most famous philosophers wouldn't be 'qualified' as...
Philosophers

As a newbie to philosophy, I've been spending much time with a good friend who studied philosophy in college. It's been, thus far, a fascinating discussion on the ancient philosophers, the evolution of the different schools of thought, and a great introduction from which I hope to delve into more specific readings of many of them. We've gone from Socrates/Plato/Aristotle to Descarte, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Camus, and Nietzsche. Even with all of the fascination I have with these interesting minds from the past, I feel like I note a trend that many great philosophers build on, refine, or otherwise take inspiration from the ideas and works of those before them. So, then who are the modern philosophers alive and well today? My friend suggested two in particular who he feels are noteworthy - Kitcher and Quine - though Quine passed away in 2000. I also have read a bit by Peter Singer, who I find interesting and quite different, too. Perhaps I'm already in the company of a great many others here,...

I have to say it is encouraging that you are interested in living philosophers. It reminds us that the great minds of the past don't get to have the last word. The film "Examined Life" hit the arty cinemas here last year, and I believe it soon will be on DVD. There you will find Peter Singer, with whom you are already familiar. Also featured are Cornel West, Martha Nussbaum, Judith Butler, and many others who are well respected for their originality and clarity. It seems there is a book project associated with the film; the book is edited by Astra Taylor. Good luck!