tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post5839555698554040492..comments2023-04-14T15:49:59.069+03:00Comments on Torn Halves: Response to WertherTorn Halveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05484735405128600839noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-33619849337814719202009-11-17T13:11:54.236+02:002009-11-17T13:11:54.236+02:00Thanks a lot for your response. Hab was certainly ...Thanks a lot for your response. Hab was certainly right about the value of dialogue, even if he got the character of the most timely dialogue wrong. Solipsism is definitely not conducive to intellectual progress.<br /><br />I am looking forward to links to Nussbaum stuff (beyond the Harvard law Review). I'm interested to see what this therapy is. My own hunch - speaking as an unwilling but inveterate stoic - is that stoicism itself is in need of therapy, but the therapy isn't philosophy. <br /><br />Will now pop over and look for your Eagleton quote.Torn Halveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05484735405128600839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-38421641429566170202009-11-06T22:04:45.241+02:002009-11-06T22:04:45.241+02:00I should also point back to a quote from Terry Eag...I should also point back to a quote from Terry Eagleton I posted a while ago, in which he says how it can be that "celibacy is a revolutionary option." I think that has a lot to do with what I am trying to say about Stoicism. http://unabgeschlossenheit.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-reason-faith-and-revolution.htmlLucienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06991287827933849844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5314448479497631270.post-24439601078288952922009-11-06T19:06:52.170+02:002009-11-06T19:06:52.170+02:004,096 is as close as you can get to 4,000 in binar...4,096 is as close as you can get to 4,000 in binary, I think....<br /><br />I'll see if I can get you that stuff, maybe through email. I should add that the Nussbaum book I've been referring to, The Therapy of Desire, is a great place to start. In keeping with the anecdote you just told about her, she says "The central motivation for philosophising is the urgency of human suffering, and the goal of philosophy is human flourishing." The whole book has a secondary function as a critique of the way philosophy is done nowadays, by contrasting it with a completely different example of what philosophy can be.<br /><br />Saying that theory is parasitic on already-achieved moral education is far from saying that theory is useless - like you say, we use it to help understand, articulate, and communicate things that we grasp in a more intuitive way. Actually I do look back on reading "The Culture Industry" as some kind of turning point in my life, but that's really because it said better and more fully things that I already felt. Anyway that's a complicated topic.<br /><br />I'll try to get more into the answer to your question later (I need to get somewhere), but you're right about Stoicism: even though I play around with treating it as a primary allegiance, that will probably change as soon as I actually read more of it (working on it...) For what it's worth, I would definitely side with Nussbaum on the point about anger and complacency - but there are a lot of issues to untangle here, like the difference between adopting principles for yourself and educating others about them, and about educating people with different levels of power and material freedom. More later!Lucienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06991287827933849844noreply@blogger.com