Skepticism

Continuing my book list...

Stanley Cavell's The Claim of Reason is fascinating. Let me say this much, first.

I actually discovered the book through Rorty's essay titled Cavell on Skepticism which has, I am certain, formed my opinion of Cavell thus far. He is best known for this book as it form(ed/s) the centerpiece of his work, and which (apparently) has its origins in his doctoral dissertation.

I specifically find Cavell's statement on page 154 particularly interesting. States Cavell,

"I understand ordinary language philosophy not as an effort to reinstate vulgar beliefs, or common sense, to a pre-scientific position of eminence, but to reclaim the human self from its denial and neglect by modern philosophy."The above quoted, in some sense, is at the center of Cavell's vision (at least within the work presently in discussion). Interestingly, Cavell, in a recent interview, states of his book that

"...for the past 200 years, let's say, philosophers have been professors of philosophy. Kant is the philosopher that showed us that you can be a professor and produce great philosophy. It wasn't clear before. Descartes wasn't a professor of philosophy, Locke wasn't, Hume wasn't, Schopenhauer wasn't, Spinoza wasn't. But you could say of them and of their successors that they attempt to produce a system that answers the basic questions of existence. That system, or something of the sort, has since the 17th century converged on questions of knowledge, rather than on the questions of beauty or of goodness, though every philosopher has some view of all of these things. Or, philosophers can undertake to question all efforts to create a system of philosophy. But in my book, the compulsion to systematization and the compulsion to question systematization are equal human drives. And so I question both of them."

The Claim of reason is a fascinating read. And it is a book that, In Rorty's words, "helps us realize what Wittgenstein did for us." That is, it is a book that calls into question the moral worth of epistemology courses and of the discipline (that is philosophy) itself.

Want to know if your cut out to be a philosopher, Cavell has some interesting things to say in this respect, too.

"When I asked my philosophy teachers, I found myself doing this day and night, I said, "How do I know if I'm really doing this, if I'm really responding in a way that means anything to these texts or that means anything to anybody else but me?" And the awful and the wonderful thing is there really is no answer to this question. A famous story for some of us is that Wittgenstein, whom many of us do not doubt was an original and important philosopher, asked this question of Russell, "Am I a philosopher or am I a complete fool?" And Russell told him he wasn't a complete fool. But there's still a prior question, which is why Wittgenstein asked it of this person, and why this person was credible to him as an answerer. So, you pick your shots."


JS