This is Stefan Heßbrüggen's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Stefan Heßbrüggen's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Stefan Heßbrüggen
Recent Activity
Just to clarify: in a very rough approximation, I use the singular in order to refer to philosophy as what you could call a 'social fact' shaped by institutions and externalities, i. e. as a single identifiable strand of our (read: Western) culture (all this should be read with Rortyan undertones). This single tradition is shared by all people belonging to different traditions in the plural when meeting in a search committee. This seemingly puts me at odds with attempts to broaden this context to include 'reflexive traditions' that do not belong to this 'zapadnocentric' mainstream. But I hope that it is possible to use 'philosophy' as a purely descriptive, social category devoid of any elevated or, to use Rorty's term, 'redemptive' connotations, so that folks could do things 'we' do doing philosophy without doing 'philosophy'.Spelling this out in detail will have to wait until I have tenure. 'Zapadnocentric' derives from the Russian word for 'West' - a neologism I find quite handy at times…
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2014 on The Walk-On Philosopher at Digressions&Impressions
Link was eaten in the last comment - if you can insert it, please do, else here it is:
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2014 on The Walk-On Philosopher at Digressions&Impressions
On September 1st 1542, the Leipzig humanist and professor of Latin and Greek Joachim Camerarius received a goblet worth 16 guilders from his grateful colleagues in the faculty of arts for his engagement in administering the university. Camerarius is certainly no central figure in the history of philosophy (though maybe to some extent in the history of classics). He was honored for what we call today the "service to the profession". I think at times that this is misleading, because our real service is to the discipline and its tradition. I personally try to honor this obligation of 'carrying on' by trying to do justice to some of those bygone colleagues which rarely appear in standard accounts of the history of philosophy - not because I am convinced that what they have to say is urgently to be heard in this time, but because I suspect that their collective work has contributed to who and what we are today as philosophers. This is at the same time a humbling and a gratifying experience - humbling because doing philosophy in the Germany of the Thirty Years War was certainly more difficult than today, and gratifying because in the context of their own time, some of them were diligent and sharp minds furthering the advancement of knowledge in much the same way we still try to do that today. So one - though, of course, not the only - way of shaping a healthy professional attitude is to serve as Baillet to the Rembrandtsz Van Nierops of history. Today's colleagues trying "to progress even closer to the truth" will have to console themselves with the hope that future generations will not lose their antiquarian curiosity or that they will survive in the acts of the university as having received a goblet for their service. The source for the Camerarius anecdote:
Toggle Commented Sep 9, 2014 on The Walk-On Philosopher at Digressions&Impressions
Please honor the license (
Thanks for this enlightening exchange, but the following is unparsable for outsiders like me: On the one hand, GPOS was reckoned to have made little progress in the area: every tentative push forward was met by a ferocious counter-assault from Harvard or UCLA. And after Kuhn exploded his little bomb–within the Encyclopaedia, no less–people just seemed to lose heart. T/O was taken over by 4S and HPS folks, and the context of justification simply exited with scarcely a whimper. Would you care to provide some names for 'Harvard' or 'UCLA', a reference for 'within the Encyclopaedia' (title is sufficient) and a resolution of '4S'? These details are ungoogleable (does that word exist? it should!). I was glad to know that "HPS" is "History and Philosophy of Science".
One afterthought: Noli putare, quae hoc loco postulantur, iam in propaedeutica celeberimmi Wolfii philosophiae morali praemissa, nimirum in philosophia practica universali, quam dicit, nosmet obtinuisse, ideoque hic haud fere novum campum perlustrandum proponi. To me, this makes more sense than the English rendition of the quote in question. Here is the source (Born's latin translation of the Grundlegung): I have always suspected that Kant did his philosophical thinking in Latin and translated his thoughts into German, while he was writing.
ad 1. I agree that the author and the editor(s) were somewhat careless, though I may be biased, because I know some of the people involved personally. ad 2. I have dug around a bit and can come up with this: (link to TOC)
I can help out (the editors of the volume work at my former alma mater). This is part of a series: Münster University invites philosophers for a two-day seminar, where they are confronted with papers written by groups of students and teachers. So each paper has at least two, maybe three or four authors (there is no toc online, so I can't verify this, but this was usually the format). Mentioning all these authors by name would have made the review unreadable. Mentioning only the first one and adding 'et al.' would have been unfair. If you want to know more on the series:
Stefan Heßbrüggen is now following The Typepad Team
May 31, 2011