I’ve had a few queries and comments, mostly in YouTube but also in some other places lately, that got me thinking about a sort of general topic. And this is one of those, if the shoe fits, wear it. Many of you listening to this, probably this isn’t the case for you, but you might know somebody that this would be helpful for to hear, or maybe just share this idea with them.
And I’m going to put it in a really flippant sort of contemporary culture way. You don’t want to make judgments about philosophy or philosophers based on what the kids these days call “vibes”. And actually, it’s not just the kids these days. There’s lots of other people who use the term ironically, and it’s been around for a very long time. I mean, longer than my generation, the generation before mine, the boomers were talking about good vibes.
And so, you know, it’s made its way back into the popular parlance and taken up a seat in popular conversations about philosophy and many, many other fields as well for, I would say, close to a decade now.
And what do I mean by this? So we could get a little bit more expansive and perhaps even rigorous about this notion. People have been doing this for a very, very long time, going way back in the literature that we have, you’ve got to do some work in order to find it, I imagine. But I’ve encountered this in literature, about literature, about philosophy, about other fields as well.
And it consists in making a judgment not based on actually spending time reading the thinker and working through their thought in a kind of careful and receptive manner and then coming to a well-founded conclusion about them but instead taking shortcuts, going by your gut, or reading for the gist, and only catching maybe 10% of what’s being said, or even just going by what you’ve heard about them from other people, and using that as sort of your input as you then start reading your way through people.
I’m going to give you a prime example of this that happened recently, and it was in Substack, and it was specifically about Alasdair MacIntyre, because I’m advertising that I’m teaching this upcoming class on MacIntyre’s After Virtue, which is a complex book. It’s covering a lot of the history of ideas coming all the way up to present culture, and you know there’s a good bit of sophistication to it. This person asked about something that showed me that they they didn’t really know that much about MacIntyre, and whatever ideas they had were kind of garbled and
They asked about universal moral frameworks. Does MacIntyre ever deliver on his promise to provide that? And that’s exactly the opposite of what MacIntyre does. He mentions universal moral frameworks as something that the Enlightenment was attempting to provide us with and then failing to do so over and over and over again with a number of different attempts, a number of different responses and steps. And he’s quite right about that.
And so this person, you know, maybe they were reading and not reading attentively, so they fell into the mistake of thinking that the philosopher who is criticizing a position is actually endorsing that position. So I wrote them back and I was like: yeah, MacIntyre doesn’t do that. If you think that he is, why don’t you cite me (and I’m being flippant here), cite me some chapter and verse, meaning tell me where in the text you’re actually finding this.
And their response was to say: Well you know, I just read a few chapters of it and that was the impression that I got from it. And I wrote back and said, well, see, there’s your mistake. You don’t ever want to make judgments about a philosophical work or about a philosopher or about a school based just on small sample size and your first impressions of that, because they’re probably going to be wrong.
And I’m going to say right up front (well not exactly up front, because I’ve been talking now for several minutes about that!), but I’m going to lay it out for you: I’ve done that myself plenty of times. And I think pretty much every one of us who’s in the philosophy business for a while has probably fallen into that mistake, but we don’t want to say that as reason for justifying it. We actually want to say: Oh, I can relate to you.
It’s an easy mistake to make early on, and you definitely want to avoid it. Those of us who did, we can say, yeah, it led me into some blind alleys and reasoning wrongly about what I should read and what I shouldn’t read, and what different people are thinking. And it’s better to be disabused of that illusion that you’ve actually got it figured out based on vibes or impressions or feels or whatever you want to call it.
It’s better to have something solid, something that actually does relate to the text in a way that’s reasonably representative of it so that you can have good judgments going forward.
And you know, I had somebody just today in YouTube who asked a question that actually made me laugh a bit. They wanted to know whether taking a course in formal logic would help them as they go to study continental philosophy, and so I had to tell them: No actually that’s not going to be of any help whatsoever. And I was kind of wondering where they got that idea from. I suppose they thought that formal logic is going to be helpful for everything. It’s not even helpful for most analytic philosophy quite frankly, If you’re reading around in actual analytic philosophy, particularly the classical works in it, let’s say from the first 30, 40 years of the inception of that new way of doing philosophy,
And the person responded by saying: well you know, I’ve read some Hegel and I’ve read some Zizek. So I thought maybe as I’m going to read other continental philosophy, formal logic would actually be quite helpful. And then I got a formal logic textbook and I found it quite difficult.
And I thought: well, I don’t think you’ve actually read Hegel and Zizek then. Or you have “read” them, but that means you sort of like ran your eyes over them and digested some of the words. But there’s no way that you attentively studied Hegel, say going through the entire Phenomenology, or the Science of Logic or even the Philosophy of Right, or even any of the lectures, and worked your way through that and then found sort of an intro level formal logic class difficult.
It’s just not going to be the case. So I think the same would hold for Zizek. Zizek is a very stream of consciousness thinker in some of his works. His earlier works are actually quite rigorous and you need to understand a lot in order to make sense of what he’s saying adequately. So clearly this person felt that they understood Hegel and Zizek in some respect, but I don’t think that they did.
And we don’t have to single out continental philosophy in this respect. I think there’s lots of people who go by vibes when it comes to Spinoza, right? They are attracted to some ideas that they maybe got in somewhat digested form, even in the media of memes and they’re like, yeah, this is a really cool guy. Everything’s substance. I’m just a mode of substance. And well, there’s a lot more to it than that.
Or people do this with Aristotle. Aristotle is the best thinker ever. And then you’re like: well, I don’t think you’ve actually read that much of his works. People who, for example, will talk about the organon in very glowing terms and then want to apply those logical works, which usually they don’t actually read the whole of. They’ll read the Categories and On Interpretation and the two Analytics, and then that’s it for them. They don’t read the Topics, which is an amazing, important work and would actually be quite helpful for them to do. And it’s quite different than the other works as well that get classified in that.
But people talk about this and it’s sort of like when I’ve talked in the past about texts with aura, ideas, thinkers take on a kind of aura, a positive set of feels that then get contrasted to other things the other philosophers. They’re not as good as Aristotle he’s The Prince of Philosophers, or the Philosopher, as Thomas Aquinas called him. And none of this is actually going to be helpful for a person who wants to genuinely study and make progress in this complicated field that we call philosophy.
I bring it up in part because, again, if the shoe fits, wear it. If you’re falling into this sometimes, not necessarily all the time, if you’re listening to this, you’re probably inclined towards philosophy already and not making these sorts of beginner level mistakes all the time. But we can fall into this.
If you know people who could benefit from hearing this message, maybe you want to pass that along to them. You can send them this if you want to. You’re probably able to reproduce this in your own voice and words in a conversation with them. And it might actually turn out to be quite helpful to take a stumbling block out of the way that holds people back from using the precious time that they have for studying philosophy in a more productive manner.
