Philosophical Profundity

[Tostig]

I can't recall ever having had the inclination to call a bit of philosophy "profound", except in the case of "profoundly inane". I've been wondering recently what's behind attributions of profundity.

The opposite of profound might be "superficial". I do think some philosophy is superficial. For example, if one critiques Descartes' Meditations by complaining that he ignores somatic sensations in the gut, that critique is superficial (unless one draws something interesting and general from that observation). But it doesn't seem to follow that any critique of the Meditations that fails to be superficial is consequently profound.

Is profundity a matter of striking at the core of an issue? Berkeley strikes at the core of our conception of "material objects" in his suggestion that there are none such, but only minds and their experiences, co-ordinated by God. Ayer strikes at the heart of ethics when he says there are no moral facts. Yet these thinkers are not, I believe, the sort often labelled profound. Nor are those who give straightforward responses to their arguments in defence of mainstream opinion. Perhaps their views are too clear and comprehensible to be profound?

A philosopher writes about a matter of considerable importance; it's hard entirely to understand what he is saying, but you get hints and glimmers; any attempt to express it in familiar terms (or in newly-invented but clearly articulated terms) seems to fall short; straightforward objections seem to miss the mark, because they depend on exactly what the text does not provide, a plain interpretation that cannot plausibly be shifted to accommodate difficulties. If you are prone to philosophical trust -- if you believe that there is an elusive truth behind the text that you don't quite understand and that plain-speaking philosophers always (even necessarily?) miss -- then perhaps you will consider the text profound. Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Wittgenstein invite this sort of attitude.

If I think no philosophy is profound, then maybe that's because I am not much prone to philosophical trust, and because I am doubtful that there are any important philosophical truths so complex that they cannot be clearly stated in 400 pages.

Or, maybe, emitting evocative hints and glimmers that defy clear interpretation and engender interesting thoughts in others - maybe that just is profundity?

[Nihil]

If I think no philosophy is profound, then maybe that's because I am not much prone to philosophical trust, and because I am doubtful that there are any important philosophical truths so complex that they cannot be clearly stated in 400 pages.

Or, maybe, emitting evocative hints and glimmers that defy clear interpretation and engender interesting thoughts in others - maybe that just is profundity?

I often think so.

Your post reminds me of a discussion I had with Ozy the other day (my user title has yet to recover) about the limitations of language in discussing philosophical matters.

I have often found philosophical writing to be profound; but when I have, it's always been because the writing awakens some resonance with an idea that I have already had before. I don't think it is actually possible to communicate new and profound ideas to people through words - the best you can do is try to nudge their intuition towards an understanding that they had forgotten about already having. It doesn't matter how many thousands of words and hundreds of pages you throw at it; you can't implant something that isn't there.

[Tom Paine]

As we so well know, Nihil disagrees with me here. Profundity cannot be achieved through intuition; that is you mapping your ideas onto those of the philosopher's, and demonstrates he was not clear enough in leading you to his ideals. The only way we can create thought is through clear and precise use of the correct language; thus Nietszche's imprecise prose does not awaken philosophical feeling, whereas Descartes' far less fluid style does, because of its prose, even if the feeling is that it is flawed, because the flaws are inherently and easily identifiable.

The profundity of a philosopher has always seemed to me to be a measure of how much the person expressing it agreed with him, really...

[Nihil]

As we so well know, Nihil disagrees with me here. Profundity cannot be achieved through intuition; that is you mapping your ideas onto those of the philosopher's, and demonstrates he was not clear enough in leading you to his ideals. The only way we can create thought is through clear and precise use of the correct language; thus Nietszche's imprecise prose does not awaken philosophical feeling, whereas Descartes' far less fluid style does, because of its prose, even if the feeling is that it is flawed, because the flaws are inherently and easily identifiable.

The profundity of a philosopher has always seemed to me to be a measure of how much the person expressing it agreed with him, really...

It's not very useful to compare Descartes and Nietzsche. The latter's was a philosophy of life and action. It was concerned with passion, emotion and symbolism. Descartes, when he was interesting, was about an empirical and systematic examination of perception and knowledge (although he did permit himself the distasteful luxury of befouling his potentially worthwhile legacy with all kinds of gruesome and offensive religioneering). They have little common ground in subject matter or method, at least that I'm aware of.

Both have their moments. Each of them inspires, Nietzsche by challenging us, Descartes by at least opening up the possibility of a systematic analysis of one's existence from first principles.

However, the existentialists (amongst whom I loosely group Nietzsche) did inherit from Descartes. When you take the lame-brained religious cop-out out of Descartes, existentialism is where you end up. Philosophers like Nietzshe propose a non-rational and purely creative, absurd answer to this logical dead end. Where your much loved "clear and precise use of the correct language" leads inevitably to oblivion (as it must) then the choice is either to embrace nothingness and a cul-de-sac of thought and life, or the absurd expression of creativity that transcends reason.

[Tom Paine]

It's not very useful to compare Descartes and Nietzsche. The latter's was a philosophy of life and action. It was concerned with passion, emotion and symbolism. Descartes, when he was interesting, was about an empirical and systematic examination of perception and knowledge (although he did permit himself the distasteful luxury of befouling his potentially worthwhile legacy with all kinds of gruesome and offensive religioneering). They have little common ground in subject matter or method, at least that I'm aware of.

Both have their moments. Each of them inspires, Nietzsche by challenging us, Descartes by at least opening up the possibility of a systematic analysis of one's existence from first principles.

However, the existentialists (amongst whom I loosely group Nietzsche) did inherit from Descartes. When you take the lame-brained religious cop-out out of Descartes, existentialism is where you end up. Philosophers like Nietzshe propose a non-rational and purely creative, absurd answer to this logical dead end. Where your much loved "clear and precise use of the correct language" leads inevitably to oblivion (as it must) then the choice is either to embrace nothingness and a cul-de-sac of thought and life, or the absurd expression of creativity that transcends reason.

Other than referring to Descartes as using empirical investigation (when? Where?)...

While all philosophers may "inspire", I still charge that those who are not clear and precise inspire justification of one's own ideas. The clear and precise language leads not to a black hole but informed and reasonable debate, because everyone understands where everyone else is coming from. Imprecise and unclear terms however, lead to error when people define them differently, and so th whole debate is rendered worthless. It leads not to oblivion, but to enlightenment.

[Nihil]

Other than referring to Descartes as using empirical investigation (when? Where?)...

I am indeed guilty of massacring the term empirical, although there is some (dubious) method to my madness. What I'm attempting to convey is the methodical manner of investigation he employs, which aims to purposefully examine the nature of the relationship of the observer with the external universe and question how knowledge arises through the interaction of mind and senses. Forgive me, philosophers, for this gross transgression.

He does categorically state that the universe is made up of bodies with specific shapes, quantites, and motions, and "I will admit as true only that which has been deduced from indubitable common notions so evidently that it is fit to be condsidered as mathematical demonstration." This reductionist view is what lead me to err in the careless deployment of the unfortunate phrase.

It leads not to oblivion, but to enlightenment.

But what is this enlightenment of which you speak? Is that not a vague and imprecise term in itself? If not, please enlighten me.

After all, reason can't show us God, purpose, good or evil (or so we are told). WIthout all these comforting illusions, have we been enlightened at all, or plunged into an eternal abyss? I know what I think, but what say you?

[Tom Paine]

I am indeed guilty of massacring the term empirical, although there is some (dubious) method to my madness. What I'm attempting to convey is the methodical manner of investigation he employs, which aims to purposefully examine the nature of the relationship of the observer with the external universe and question how knowledge arises through the interaction of mind and senses. Forgive me, philosophers, for this gross transgression.

He does categorically state that the universe is made up of bodies with specific shapes, quantites, and motions, and "I will admit as true only that which has been deduced from indubitable common notions so evidently that it is fit to be condsidered as mathematical demonstration." This reductionist view is what lead me to err in the careless deployment of the unfortunate phrase.

Which tends to demonstrate the need for precise use of terms in philosophy to avoid error.

But what is this enlightenment of which you speak? Is that not a vague and imprecise term in itself? If not, please enlighten me.

A seeing of the truth. If you wish for more precision, a reasoned understanding of the truth of one or more aspects of the philosophical universe.

After all, reason can't show us God, purpose, good or evil (or so we are told). WIthout all these comforting illusions, have we been enlightened at all, or plunged into an eternal abyss? I know what I think, but what say you?

I say reason can show us purpose, good, evil. Mill and Bentham demonstrated logic can give rise to morality, and the philosphy of a self-made purpose is reasonable and reasoned by many; and I believe the illusion of God is more harmful than good, and the penetrating tool of reason's ability to dispel it is incredibly powerful.

[Denny Crane!]

Warning: Spam

Enlightenment lit. Light upon the soul.

Sorry carry on, carry on.

Peter

[Nihil]

Warning: Spam

Enlightenment lit. Light upon the soul.

Sorry carry on, carry on.

Peter

How very cryptic.

[Ummon]

When someone receives the gift of becoming really good at something, he stops using logics to do his work in that field. Logics then is only used to explain to the rest of the world the results. But it is merely a small, executive part of how they are acquired.

[Ummon]

He at least added spam before that.

[Denny Crane!]

Wow I can't believe my post remarked comment. Just a literal translation, I've always thought enlightenment carried with it to many religous connotations so I avoid it. Of course there was the philosophical enlightenment, comes from the study of eastern philosophy though which just makes me want to shy away from it.

As to what is profound well, what aren't philosophers of a certain calibre to come at it from another angle. They certainly aren't superficial, some certainly aren't repeating or regurgitating ideas. They have in their time and even now expressed thoughts that have both depth and insight. So in that sense I would call them profound. If you have spent years around these subjects and you find that familiarity breeds contempt I don't think you should abuse the language to display it.

Profound I think is an apt description.

Peter