Henry, I printed this essay out so I could sit down with my pen and notebook to read through it. First, thanks for your erudition and the discipline which you use in writing. You are a role model for serious readers and learners. Second, I wasn't familiar with Callard before reading this and have very little exposure to Socrates. I had intentions of remedying my lack of Socratic knowledge and now will likely add this book to the mix. The first highlight for me was Callard's interpretation that thinking is a group project, discourse being a necessary component. The second piece that struck me was her argument that we should be pleased to find ourselves wrong. While I concur with this, I suspect it doesn't sit well with many modern thinkers. Superb review and analysis. Thank you.
Maybe I am mistaken, but having studied philosophy lightly (sorry for the oxymoron), I concluded that a philosopher created their own philosophical system, like Socrat, Ciceron, Schopenhauer, and Sartre, to name a few. But not the people who studied the philosophy of others and made it their main subject and profession. Writing about L. Tolstoy's philosophy didn't make Bakhtin a philosopher. Our famous poet, V. Mayakovsky, had the same relationship with Lilia Brik and lived in their apartment with her husband. Their relationship was considered ethically, not philosophically...And in the comments, I read that somebody was excited to read about this triangular situation of the three philosophers or mb, simply philosophy professors.
You are very kind. Maybe I shouldn't meddle in serious professional discussions, but I accept Substack, a democratic program, so I invited myself to read and comment. Thank you.
Love the insight that Socratic enquiry enlarges things, including the questioner. So many intellectual systems seem reductive, as you say. My pet bugbear is the enduring mental tic of saying everything is explained by power. Once you possess this master key the world becomes smaller and plainer, not because illusion has been removed but because you have all the answers (or so you think).
>We should look for the ways in which things can be elevated, not denigrated. In literary terms, this is a call for the romance temperament against the tragic temperament
…but tragedy is not tragedy without being elevated. The characters and events must be of a “certain magnitude” (since we’re talking Greek philosophers), and if their nobility is then denigrated, made “nothing but”, then the result is not tragedy. Othello’s final speech is as great and beautiful as anything he says in the whole play. Oedipus at Colonus is a transcendent figure, not a denigrated one. Hamlet has his moments, quintessence of dust and all that, but Hamlet is a special case, and in any case the prince who asks Horatio to absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain to tell my story, has arrived at a different and more elevated understanding: imagine if he was still quintessence of dusting in that scene! Wouldn’t be any good at all!
Henry, I printed this essay out so I could sit down with my pen and notebook to read through it. First, thanks for your erudition and the discipline which you use in writing. You are a role model for serious readers and learners. Second, I wasn't familiar with Callard before reading this and have very little exposure to Socrates. I had intentions of remedying my lack of Socratic knowledge and now will likely add this book to the mix. The first highlight for me was Callard's interpretation that thinking is a group project, discourse being a necessary component. The second piece that struck me was her argument that we should be pleased to find ourselves wrong. While I concur with this, I suspect it doesn't sit well with many modern thinkers. Superb review and analysis. Thank you.
I like this comment very much, thank you :)
This sounds like a fascinating book - thanks for drawing our attention to it!
hope you enjoy it
A wonderful review, Henry!
thanks!
Maybe I am mistaken, but having studied philosophy lightly (sorry for the oxymoron), I concluded that a philosopher created their own philosophical system, like Socrat, Ciceron, Schopenhauer, and Sartre, to name a few. But not the people who studied the philosophy of others and made it their main subject and profession. Writing about L. Tolstoy's philosophy didn't make Bakhtin a philosopher. Our famous poet, V. Mayakovsky, had the same relationship with Lilia Brik and lived in their apartment with her husband. Their relationship was considered ethically, not philosophically...And in the comments, I read that somebody was excited to read about this triangular situation of the three philosophers or mb, simply philosophy professors.
I think there's a common useage to call philosophy professors philosophers, the way we call history professors historians.
I know about it, of course. That is why I felt uncomfortable about my note. I think the reason for my reaction has been in the comments. Sorry.
no need to be sorry!
Thank you!
You are very kind. Maybe I shouldn't meddle in serious professional discussions, but I accept Substack, a democratic program, so I invited myself to read and comment. Thank you.
of course you should comment!
Love the insight that Socratic enquiry enlarges things, including the questioner. So many intellectual systems seem reductive, as you say. My pet bugbear is the enduring mental tic of saying everything is explained by power. Once you possess this master key the world becomes smaller and plainer, not because illusion has been removed but because you have all the answers (or so you think).
yeah agree
this witty conversation is in my pantheon of GOAT public discussions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2jqm7dRCEw (Economics vs Philosophy with Tyler Cowen):
for those that haven't listened: and relevant to some of what you discuss here, Henry. Great job.
oh I don't know this, thank you!
I will read it! I remember that New Yorker profile. It was exciting to read about someone living with the freedom to do what she wanted.
cool! lmk what you think!
Incredible article - very excited to read this book.
thanks!!
>We should look for the ways in which things can be elevated, not denigrated. In literary terms, this is a call for the romance temperament against the tragic temperament
…but tragedy is not tragedy without being elevated. The characters and events must be of a “certain magnitude” (since we’re talking Greek philosophers), and if their nobility is then denigrated, made “nothing but”, then the result is not tragedy. Othello’s final speech is as great and beautiful as anything he says in the whole play. Oedipus at Colonus is a transcendent figure, not a denigrated one. Hamlet has his moments, quintessence of dust and all that, but Hamlet is a special case, and in any case the prince who asks Horatio to absent thee from felicity awhile, and in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain to tell my story, has arrived at a different and more elevated understanding: imagine if he was still quintessence of dusting in that scene! Wouldn’t be any good at all!
The end of tragedy is catastrope, a turning down, and of comedy anastrophe, a turning up; these are distinct, recognised, temperaments.