Thursday, 14 March 2013

angling for fake philosophers

Lucian of Samosata was a satirist who wrote in Greek in the second century AD, a period known to literary scholars as the Second Sophistic. His dialogue, The Dead Come to Life or The Fisherman, constitutes a reply to the criticism that had greeted an earlier work, Philosophies for Sale, in which he had been seen as satirising the ancient philosophers whose ideas formed the basis of the schools of thought current in his own period. 

In the later work, Lucian's alter ego, Parresiades (or 'Frankness') is put on trial in Athens for his slanders and the ancient philosophers themselves come back from the dead to accuse him. 'Pelt him,' shouts Socrates leading the attack:
Pelt the scoundrel with plenty of stones! Heap him with clods! Pile him up with broken dishes too! Beat the blackguard with your sticks! Look out he doesn't get away! Throw, Plato, you too, Chrysippus.
Parresiades claims that his scorn is not directed at the ancient philosophers themselves but at their descendants in the contemporary period who have not been willing to appear in their own defence. Some are lured up to the Acropolis with promises of money, but, as soon as they realise that they are to to be judged, they scarper again. 'What is this?' says Philosophy (who is presiding over the proceedings), 'Are you running away? By Heaven they are, most of them jumping over the cliffs! The Acropolis is empty.'

In the end, Parresiades borrows a hook, a line, and a rod that have been dedicated in the temple by the fishermen of Piraeus, baits the hook with a strange combination of figs and gold, and then casts the line down into the town below and goes fishing for fake philosophers. They begin to bite immediately and, as they are pulled up, the authentic ancients comment on them, much as anglers might, in reality, comment on specimens pulled from the water.

Here is the scene as Parresiades lands a dogfish and shows him to the philosopher, Diogenes. (The joke is that Diogenes was one of the founders of Cynic philosophy, the name of which comes from the Greek term kynikos (κυνικός) or dog-like, in part - it appears - because of the Cynics' refusal of conventional modes of life and their insistence on eating and sleeping in the streets.)
He is up! Come, let me see what you are, my good fish. A dogfish! Heracles, what teeth! How about it, my fine fellow? Caught, were you, gormandizing about the rocks, where you hoped to skip under cover and keep out of sight? But now you will be in public view, hung up by the gills! Let us take out the hook and the bait. No, by Zeus, he has swallowed it! Here is your hook, all bare; the fig and the gold are secure in his insides.
The useless fish are thrown back into the town and the dialogue ends with Philosophy sending Parresiades out into the streets to brand the impostors with a fox- or ape-shaped mark.

Fishing for philosophical charlatans - I must watch out for the hooks! Wouldn't want to end up suspended by the gills from the top of Park Hill. (Or branded with a fox-shaped mark for that matter...)










Dogfish.

2 comments:

  1. I had a great post, full of insight and wisdom but I lost it. So instead I will tell a story about fakes. When I first met Steve at Cannon Hall in Barnsley, I was worried that the rather kitsch pots were not valuable enough to be in a museum collection. Steve said I was obsessed with things being valuable. I was living in London at the time. I wanted to interview him and he told me about his grandfather's walking stick and how it was rubbed from use and then he lost it but found an almost identical one, similarly worn, in a charity shop. I told him I was a fake academic. He turned out to be recording me as well as me recording him. Neither of us wrote the interview up. Since then I have continued to be a fake academic and have wondered periodically when I would get caught. This post is great as there is something very interesting and perhaps positive about being a fake philosopher.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In many ways Lucian's time resembles our own. What is professed as philosophy at many universities today, especially the still dominant form of 'analytical' philosophy and its descendants, has become a kind of fake philosophy. It may be useful as a kind of conceptual hoovering, but with philosophy it has little to do. With its exclusive emphasis on 'claims' that require 'arguments' and 'debate' (ever more incessant debate in 'journals' and 'research programs')in order to be progressively settled, the official philosophy actively discourages speculation, the veering out of intellect into what is not simply a matter of fact or logical analysis, and hence it sacrifices difficult truth for correctness, and becomes meaningless. It leaves that realm over to myth, the myth of politics, entertainment, science with its bent for the unequivocal and its ignorance of the truth of contradiction, the life coach.

    This type of philosophy only recognises as legitimate a functionalised conception of reason. It has become the blind ideological justification of an alienated existence, while it thinks it is the custodian of pure rationality. With respect to ultimate questions, it sells muteness in place of understood speechlessness in the face of wonder. This type of philosophy is the institional police of what Adorno called the 'Denkverbot': the endemic prohibition to think that is most needed to keep capitalism going. Its task is to prevent transformation, to prevent creativity.

    The language of this type of fake philosophy is at once authoritarian and colloquial. Herbert Marcuse analysed it brilliantly way back in the 60s, in One-Dimensional Man, chapter 7, 'One-Dimensional Philosophy':

    'The style in which this philosophic behaviorism presents itself would be worthy of analysis. It seems to move between the two poles of pontificating authority and easy-going chumminess. Both trends are perfectly fused in Wittgenstein’s recurrent use of the imperative with the intimate or condescending “du” (“thou”); or in the opening chapter of Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind, where the presentation of “Descartes’ Myth” as the “official doctrine” about the relation of body and mind is followed by the preliminary demonstration of its “absurdity,” which evokes John Doe, Richard Roe, and what they think about the “Average Tax payer.”'

    Philosophy has to regain its self-understanding as an authentic response in the face of existence as such, which cannot be reduced to the methodology of the sciences, or logic, or indeed to the procedures of literature. Philosophical thought and philosophical language is something else than all of that, something sui generis.

    This includes reclaiming its relationship to truth, not as something that can be handed over or taken in as a ready minted coin, as Hegel says, but more in the way Adorno formulates it:

    'One might almost say that truth itself depends on the tempo, the patience and perseverance of lingering with the particular: what passes beyond it without having first entirely lost itself, what proceeds to judge without having first been guilty of the injustice of contemplation, loses itself at last in emptiness.' (Minima Moralia, 48)

    We are back to fishing.

    ReplyDelete