Nesen dažādu iemeslu dēļ (laikam jau tāpēc, ka bija jādara pavisam kaut kas cits) sāku lasīt Rassela "The Analysis of Mind", kas it kā nebūt neskaitās tā slavenākā Rassela grāmata. Rassela uzskati (lai arī ne īpaši oroģināli) likās visnotaļ interesanti, taču ne jau par to šoreiz ir stāsts. Lieku reizi pārliecinājos par to, ka lai arī ko varētu teikt par viņa idejām, bet vienu gan viņš pavisam noteikti prata, proti, - rakstīt. Pie reizes atminējos arī ko par mūsdienu angliski rakstošajiem filozofiem reiz teica manis ļoti augstu vērtētais Džonatans Bārnss (Jonathan Barnes):
"Few living philosophers can write – or at any rate, few English-writing philosophers can write English. One or two of them try, usually with nauseating results. Most don't even try – and don't even know they're not trying. They produce sentences which might have come from the pen of a tax inspector or an accountant.
Perhaps some people think it doesn't really matter: after all, badly written philosophy may be just as good, qua philosophy, as well written philosophy. But I think it does matter – at least, it matters to me. When did I last read a new book of philosophy and wish that there were still another chapter to go? When did I last read an article in a philosophy journal and smile at a witticism or relish a well-turned phrase? (Last week, actually – but that was exceptional.)"
Te kāds varētu teikt, ka, protams, tas jau attiecas tikai uz sausajiem angļu analītiķiem. Šajā gadījumā niez nagi citēt Bārnsa teikto par tā saucamo analītiko un kontinentālo filozofiju:
"Well, most philosophers who belong to the so-called analytical tradition are pretty poor philosophers. (Most academics who do anything are pretty poor at doing it; and philosophy, or so it seems to me, is a subject in which it is peculiarly difficult to do decent stuff. A modestly competent historian may produce a modestly good history book; a modestly competent philosopher has no reason to publish his modest thoughts.) But there's a big difference between the analyticals and the continentals: what distinguishes the continental tradition is that all its members are pretty hopeless at philosophy. Myself, I've read scarcely a hundred continental pages. I can't see how any rational being could bear to read more; and the only question which the continental tradition raises is sociological or psychological: How are so many apparently intelligent young people charmed into taking the twaddle seriously?"
Visu interviju var izlasīt šeit
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-0
"Few living philosophers can write – or at any rate, few English-writing philosophers can write English. One or two of them try, usually with nauseating results. Most don't even try – and don't even know they're not trying. They produce sentences which might have come from the pen of a tax inspector or an accountant.
Perhaps some people think it doesn't really matter: after all, badly written philosophy may be just as good, qua philosophy, as well written philosophy. But I think it does matter – at least, it matters to me. When did I last read a new book of philosophy and wish that there were still another chapter to go? When did I last read an article in a philosophy journal and smile at a witticism or relish a well-turned phrase? (Last week, actually – but that was exceptional.)"
Te kāds varētu teikt, ka, protams, tas jau attiecas tikai uz sausajiem angļu analītiķiem. Šajā gadījumā niez nagi citēt Bārnsa teikto par tā saucamo analītiko un kontinentālo filozofiju:
"Well, most philosophers who belong to the so-called analytical tradition are pretty poor philosophers. (Most academics who do anything are pretty poor at doing it; and philosophy, or so it seems to me, is a subject in which it is peculiarly difficult to do decent stuff. A modestly competent historian may produce a modestly good history book; a modestly competent philosopher has no reason to publish his modest thoughts.) But there's a big difference between the analyticals and the continentals: what distinguishes the continental tradition is that all its members are pretty hopeless at philosophy. Myself, I've read scarcely a hundred continental pages. I can't see how any rational being could bear to read more; and the only question which the continental tradition raises is sociological or psychological: How are so many apparently intelligent young people charmed into taking the twaddle seriously?"
Visu interviju var izlasīt šeit
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-0
ir doma