Considering some philosophers, such as Ayn Rand, had traumatic childhoods and built around a certain sort of philosophy. Should we take into consideration their own lives and how they lived as a reflection of their own philosophy? The same with Socrates, and his own life and morality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If you're studying the person, certainly. Ayn Rand's (or anyone's) actual life gives a better picture of who they are and what they truly believe than what they write does, at least when the way they live and the way they write diverge.
However, if you're studying their philosophy, no. A fat, chain-smoking doctor can give you good advice on avoiding a heart attack.
Yes, of course their personal lives matter. How are we supposed to understand what a person is writing or why he is writing it if we don't understand who is doing the writing?
Yes, of course their personal lives matter. How are we supposed to understand what a person is writing or why he is writing it if we don't understand who is doing the writing?
These things should not matter as a philosophy is a self-contained set of ideas independent of their author. A philosophical perspective (such as objectivism in keeping with the Ayn Rand example) is meant to explain and justify a world view that leaves no room to be subjectively interpreted or dismissed ad hominem. For example, Ayn Rand (in keeping with the example) personally believed that homosexuality was vulgar and representative of an inherent moral lapse, but her philosophy by logical process finds no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships/individuals. Regardless of what Miss Rand believed, her philosophy doesn't change.
What else would a philosopher use to create their piece of work other than their own experiences? While that does not necessarily mean that their works are interchangeable with their life, you can get a good view of what I'm trying to say in Thomas Wolfe's Of Time and the River. Unlike a traditional book his story is based almost wholly off of his life and his immediate surroundings it is also a treatise on a variety of subjects that range from youth to eternity.
I like this question, and it is throwing me for some loops in my head so I'm excited to see the responses. What is the counter argument and what sources do you have?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And all that the Lorax left here in this mess
was a small pile of rocks, with one word...
UNLESS.
Whatever that meant, well, I just couldn't guess.
thanks to The Highlight Studios for the amazing avatar
Knowing a philosopher's personal history is sometimes useful in interpreting their meaning. If, for example, a philosopher starts discussing the concept of "sacrifice", it might help to know whether their upbringing was Greek pagan, Christian, Jewish, or something else, because that could affect what connotations the philosopher reads in the word and what assumptions they make about the topic.
This sort of endeavor cannot be ad hominem, because you're just trying to figure out what the philosopher is saying - you do this before you even start trying to figure out whether what they're saying is valid/sound/correct.
While that does not necessarily mean that their works are interchangeable with their life, you can get a good view of what I'm trying to say in Thomas Wolfe's Of Time and the River. Unlike a traditional book his story is based almost wholly off of his life and his immediate surroundings it is also a treatise on a variety of subjects that range from youth to eternity.
Thomas Wolfe is not a philosopher. A philosopher is trying to say something that is objectively true. And if something is objectively true, then by definition it is true regardless of the perspective and experiences of the person perceiving it (or reporting it).
This sort of endeavor cannot be ad hominem, because you're just trying to figure out what the philosopher is saying - you do this before you even start trying to figure out whether what they're saying is valid/sound/correct.
I think it can be ad hominem to discredit a philosopher for failing to live to the expectations (s)he sets out for all of mankind to follow rather than discrediting shoddy work.
A philosopher is trying to say something that is objectively true. And if something is objectively true, then by definition it is true regardless of the perspective and experiences of the person perceiving it (or reporting it).
This brings up an interesting question about is being objectively true and being achievable two entirely different matters. For that, there has to be an evaluation of system. And this is where I come into this thread asking why can't the creator (or articulate proponent) of the system be a great place to start for that system?
But I agree that knowing the philosopher's life is always a great place to start not only to understanding the meaning of the philosophy, but also the getting idea of where the background premises in a work that don't show up in a work as well as influences on the author that may or may not be properly expanded upon within the work. Understanding their experience helps understand where they derive what experience should be.
For example, in order to fully understand Søren Kierkegaard, his life is a key to his philosophy (which is basically an encrypted autobiography).
Considering some philosophers, such as Ayn Rand, had traumatic childhoods and built around a certain sort of philosophy. Should we take into consideration their own lives and how they lived as a reflection of their own philosophy? The same with Socrates, and his own life and morality.
A related problem appears in law. Should we look at congressional records, the circumstances surrounding the passing of the law in their interpretation?
The answer is yes, look at it insofar as it might help inform the general understanding of the intent. But no so far as to contradict the actual text itself.
We should be careful what we choose to impute on a philosopher's works because we have a particular judgment of that philosopher's life experience. For example some of us might see Socrates drinking of hemlock as being "fatalistic." Others might see it as courageous defiance of authority, and fidelity to his own being.
Which path do we now choose, and how has our perception of Socrates changed? When we read into a person's life, we may introduce our own prejudices into their writings.
After all, our views of their experiences, may not have been their views of their own experiences. What would have moved us greatly, may have been minor in their eyes. (a random example is the loss of a job---profoundly moving for some, less moving for others)
Furthermore, I would say that philosophers are probably better than other people at divorcing themselves from their experiences and pondering philosophies in a realm of sterile objectivity.
Overall, I'd say evaluating a philosopher's writings based on their personal lives as a task of highly inconsistent merit.
I want to chime in that I would side with the so called "New Criticism" on this issue. Though the personal life is certainly interesting, and can be of value, it is best to evaluate the text of an author on it's own merits. Furthermore, even if we wanted to access and correlate personal/ biographical inforamtion, it would be imposible to prove a causality between the events and the text.
Regardless, it is nonetheless interesting to research!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks UBG Reanimator RUB Delver R Burn UR Delver UBW Tin Fins UBGR ANT
I'm mostly just insulted Ayn Rand was called a philosopher in the OP of this thread.
A great work speaks for itself. Context may give us clues as to why the person wrote it, but if it is worth being thought it will be made self-evident in the text that we should contemplate it.
I'm mostly just insulted Ayn Rand was called a philosopher in the OP of this thread.
I don't understand, what's the issue with calling Rand a philosopher?
To answer the OP's question, no. I don't think that the philosopher's personal life should be taken in to consideration when studying and researching the philosophical texts of the philosopher. You can point out how someone's life could effect their philosophies, but the merit in the actual philosophy remains.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
If you're studying the person, certainly. Ayn Rand's (or anyone's) actual life gives a better picture of who they are and what they truly believe than what they write does, at least when the way they live and the way they write diverge.
However, if you're studying their philosophy, no. A fat, chain-smoking doctor can give you good advice on avoiding a heart attack.
These things should not matter as a philosophy is a self-contained set of ideas independent of their author. A philosophical perspective (such as objectivism in keeping with the Ayn Rand example) is meant to explain and justify a world view that leaves no room to be subjectively interpreted or dismissed ad hominem. For example, Ayn Rand (in keeping with the example) personally believed that homosexuality was vulgar and representative of an inherent moral lapse, but her philosophy by logical process finds no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships/individuals. Regardless of what Miss Rand believed, her philosophy doesn't change.
EDH:
[Competitive] Azusa, Lost but Seeking (54 Lands)
[Competitive] Azami, Lady of Scrolls (Time Warp combo/control)
[Competitive] Kruphix, God of No (True EDH DrawGo)
I'd have to disagree with you.
What else would a philosopher use to create their piece of work other than their own experiences? While that does not necessarily mean that their works are interchangeable with their life, you can get a good view of what I'm trying to say in Thomas Wolfe's Of Time and the River. Unlike a traditional book his story is based almost wholly off of his life and his immediate surroundings it is also a treatise on a variety of subjects that range from youth to eternity.
I like this question, and it is throwing me for some loops in my head so I'm excited to see the responses. What is the counter argument and what sources do you have?
thanks to The Highlight Studios for the amazing avatar
This sort of endeavor cannot be ad hominem, because you're just trying to figure out what the philosopher is saying - you do this before you even start trying to figure out whether what they're saying is valid/sound/correct.
Thomas Wolfe is not a philosopher. A philosopher is trying to say something that is objectively true. And if something is objectively true, then by definition it is true regardless of the perspective and experiences of the person perceiving it (or reporting it).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This brings up an interesting question about is being objectively true and being achievable two entirely different matters. For that, there has to be an evaluation of system. And this is where I come into this thread asking why can't the creator (or articulate proponent) of the system be a great place to start for that system?
But I agree that knowing the philosopher's life is always a great place to start not only to understanding the meaning of the philosophy, but also the getting idea of where the background premises in a work that don't show up in a work as well as influences on the author that may or may not be properly expanded upon within the work. Understanding their experience helps understand where they derive what experience should be.
For example, in order to fully understand Søren Kierkegaard, his life is a key to his philosophy (which is basically an encrypted autobiography).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
A related problem appears in law. Should we look at congressional records, the circumstances surrounding the passing of the law in their interpretation?
The answer is yes, look at it insofar as it might help inform the general understanding of the intent. But no so far as to contradict the actual text itself.
We should be careful what we choose to impute on a philosopher's works because we have a particular judgment of that philosopher's life experience. For example some of us might see Socrates drinking of hemlock as being "fatalistic." Others might see it as courageous defiance of authority, and fidelity to his own being.
Which path do we now choose, and how has our perception of Socrates changed? When we read into a person's life, we may introduce our own prejudices into their writings.
After all, our views of their experiences, may not have been their views of their own experiences. What would have moved us greatly, may have been minor in their eyes. (a random example is the loss of a job---profoundly moving for some, less moving for others)
Furthermore, I would say that philosophers are probably better than other people at divorcing themselves from their experiences and pondering philosophies in a realm of sterile objectivity.
Overall, I'd say evaluating a philosopher's writings based on their personal lives as a task of highly inconsistent merit.
if nietzsche had a social life, i doubt he would publish works as he did.
not to invalidate his idea thoughs
I want to chime in that I would side with the so called "New Criticism" on this issue. Though the personal life is certainly interesting, and can be of value, it is best to evaluate the text of an author on it's own merits. Furthermore, even if we wanted to access and correlate personal/ biographical inforamtion, it would be imposible to prove a causality between the events and the text.
Regardless, it is nonetheless interesting to research!
UBG Reanimator
RUB Delver
R Burn
UR Delver
UBW Tin Fins
UBGR ANT
A great work speaks for itself. Context may give us clues as to why the person wrote it, but if it is worth being thought it will be made self-evident in the text that we should contemplate it.
------------------------------------------
[Team Revolution]
I don't understand, what's the issue with calling Rand a philosopher?
To answer the OP's question, no. I don't think that the philosopher's personal life should be taken in to consideration when studying and researching the philosophical texts of the philosopher. You can point out how someone's life could effect their philosophies, but the merit in the actual philosophy remains.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem