Is Professor Pippin a proper philosopher?
May 14, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2013 10:01:27 GMT -5
The fact that Professor Pippin is an american worries me; can he be a proper professor? He last year put out a book entitled Kunst als Philosophie: Hegel und die moderne Bildkunst [Art as Philosophy: Hegel and modern figurative art] and he is spending this year in Munich as a guest of the Siemens people. Is that all right?
Anyway this Professor Pippin is given two whole pages in last week's T.L.S. to tell us something about Hegel. I would love to analyse his every word, but as usual with americans one does not know where in the confusion to begin. Perhaps the best approach is to recognize that although the name "Hegel" appears in every paragraph, we are not told a lot about Hegel's actual philosophy.
The article begins with a question that according to Professor Pippin already "has a clear answer." "There is a clear answer," he commences, "to Benedetto Croce's famous question: 'What is living and what is dead in the philosophy of Hegel?' What lives, at least in Hegel studies, is the endlessness of the question itself. Although he only died in 1831, Hegel has been buried and resurrected more than any other philosopher. Once Hegel was no longer studied as 'Marx: the prequel,' and once he ceased being treated as the epitome of the dark, illiberal side of the German soul, a variety of different Hegels emerged."
Now this is typical of the Professor's writing; let us give him the "kleines c" treatment as it were and pull it to pieces.
1) "There is a clear answer." No, the answer - if it is stated at all - is most unclear.
2) Croce's question is not exactly "famous" is it? I wonder how many people out of ten thousand know of it.
3) I cannot accept the terminology. It is just silly. Philosophy does not have dead bits and living bits. Philosophy as a system of thought is either true or false, logical or not. "Dead" and "living" are presumably metaphors of some kind, but what do they signify?
4) "What lives, at least in Hegel studies" - "Hegel studies" is a code word meaning "the treatment of Hegel's philosophy by american professors." See how we have already so quickly slid away from "what is living in the philosophy of Hegel" (Croce) to the far shallower "What lives in Hegel studies" (Pippin).
5) "What lives is the endlessness of the question itself." That may well be so in these "Hegel studies" but it has nothing to do with Hegel's philosophy! And of course he doesn't mean that the question itself is endless - that it requires an infinity of T.L.S.s upon which to write it down. I think he means that it will be asked anew for ever and ever over an infinite expanse of time future. But surely it is logically possible and certainly probable, even, that at some future point of time people will have forgotten all about Hegel and his philosophy? The man about town of 3013 will have better things to do than study Hegel will he not.
6) "Although he only died in 1831" - no, he must have done other things in that year before dying; he did not only die. What the professor so ungrammatically means may be retrieved in two steps: a) correct the misplacement of his "only", giving "Hegel died only in 1831," and b) completely replace the word "only" with the phrase "as recently as," yielding what I think he intended to say which is "Although he died as recently as 1831."
7) "Hegel has been buried and resurrected more than any other philosopher." Again this has nothing to do with Hegel's actual work, but by way of further fanciful metaphors relates to lesser persons' opinion of his work. And even then the professor gives only two examples, "'Marx: the prequel," and "the epitome of the dark, illiberal side of the German soul." Two is not a lot is it.
8) And now, surprise surprise, "a variety of different Hegels has emerged." I think he is back with his "Hegel studies" again. There can be only one Hegel can there not, and it is the Professor's duty to use the best of his abilities to make that one Hegel clear. The moment two Hegels emerge any Professor worth his salt must of necessity realize his error, turn around and go back - omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes!
When is he going to get onto Hegel himself we wonder. Well we have room for just one more extract:
"The heart of the heartland in Hegel is his account of the logic of reflection in his 'logic of essence.' The issues raised there are important almost everywhere else in Hegel. If, for example, the conditions for the possible identity of individual agents require, rather than are presupposed by, certain sorts of external relations to others, then Hegel's options in political philosophy will be a lot easier to understand as well. We will also understand better why Hegel's own favourite examples for freedom are cases of love and friendship, the achievement of 'being with oneself in another.'"
Let's leave the analysis of that one to the reader as an exercise.
Anyway this Professor Pippin is given two whole pages in last week's T.L.S. to tell us something about Hegel. I would love to analyse his every word, but as usual with americans one does not know where in the confusion to begin. Perhaps the best approach is to recognize that although the name "Hegel" appears in every paragraph, we are not told a lot about Hegel's actual philosophy.
The article begins with a question that according to Professor Pippin already "has a clear answer." "There is a clear answer," he commences, "to Benedetto Croce's famous question: 'What is living and what is dead in the philosophy of Hegel?' What lives, at least in Hegel studies, is the endlessness of the question itself. Although he only died in 1831, Hegel has been buried and resurrected more than any other philosopher. Once Hegel was no longer studied as 'Marx: the prequel,' and once he ceased being treated as the epitome of the dark, illiberal side of the German soul, a variety of different Hegels emerged."
Now this is typical of the Professor's writing; let us give him the "kleines c" treatment as it were and pull it to pieces.
1) "There is a clear answer." No, the answer - if it is stated at all - is most unclear.
2) Croce's question is not exactly "famous" is it? I wonder how many people out of ten thousand know of it.
3) I cannot accept the terminology. It is just silly. Philosophy does not have dead bits and living bits. Philosophy as a system of thought is either true or false, logical or not. "Dead" and "living" are presumably metaphors of some kind, but what do they signify?
4) "What lives, at least in Hegel studies" - "Hegel studies" is a code word meaning "the treatment of Hegel's philosophy by american professors." See how we have already so quickly slid away from "what is living in the philosophy of Hegel" (Croce) to the far shallower "What lives in Hegel studies" (Pippin).
5) "What lives is the endlessness of the question itself." That may well be so in these "Hegel studies" but it has nothing to do with Hegel's philosophy! And of course he doesn't mean that the question itself is endless - that it requires an infinity of T.L.S.s upon which to write it down. I think he means that it will be asked anew for ever and ever over an infinite expanse of time future. But surely it is logically possible and certainly probable, even, that at some future point of time people will have forgotten all about Hegel and his philosophy? The man about town of 3013 will have better things to do than study Hegel will he not.
6) "Although he only died in 1831" - no, he must have done other things in that year before dying; he did not only die. What the professor so ungrammatically means may be retrieved in two steps: a) correct the misplacement of his "only", giving "Hegel died only in 1831," and b) completely replace the word "only" with the phrase "as recently as," yielding what I think he intended to say which is "Although he died as recently as 1831."
7) "Hegel has been buried and resurrected more than any other philosopher." Again this has nothing to do with Hegel's actual work, but by way of further fanciful metaphors relates to lesser persons' opinion of his work. And even then the professor gives only two examples, "'Marx: the prequel," and "the epitome of the dark, illiberal side of the German soul." Two is not a lot is it.
8) And now, surprise surprise, "a variety of different Hegels has emerged." I think he is back with his "Hegel studies" again. There can be only one Hegel can there not, and it is the Professor's duty to use the best of his abilities to make that one Hegel clear. The moment two Hegels emerge any Professor worth his salt must of necessity realize his error, turn around and go back - omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes!
When is he going to get onto Hegel himself we wonder. Well we have room for just one more extract:
"The heart of the heartland in Hegel is his account of the logic of reflection in his 'logic of essence.' The issues raised there are important almost everywhere else in Hegel. If, for example, the conditions for the possible identity of individual agents require, rather than are presupposed by, certain sorts of external relations to others, then Hegel's options in political philosophy will be a lot easier to understand as well. We will also understand better why Hegel's own favourite examples for freedom are cases of love and friendship, the achievement of 'being with oneself in another.'"
Let's leave the analysis of that one to the reader as an exercise.