If I were to evaluate philosophy by aesthetic criteria, I would say that a good philosophy should not be the equivalent of khaki pants, button downs, and loafers. Somewhere Deleuze says that a philosophy that causes no tears, no one to cry, is worthless. I don’t know that good philosophy need hurt, but I do think all good philosophy startles, surprises us, and fills us with a sense of wonder. It upsets doxa or common sense and commonplaces. It shouldn’t do this for the sake of being contrarian or counter-intuitive or shocking, but out of necessity: the necessity of the real or that which is unseen and unmarked in thought. A philosophy that simply confirms all that we think should be the case, our sense of how things ought to function, is a state philosophy and no real philosophy at all. If it carries no aura of the strange, the defamiliarizing, if it doesn’t unsettle and disquiet, it hasn’t fulfilled its function as philosophy. There’s a whole highly successful genre of philosophy that’s the equivalent of khaki pants. It’s celebrated because it confirms what we already thought and “makes sense”.
April 29, 2022
April 30, 2022 at 7:05 am
Hi Levi – It’s good to have your blog resurrected – I hope it stays alive.
The Deleuze quote you’re looking for is this, I think (I don’t know how often I have posted this in various fora, but it stands the test of time)
”When someone asks “what’s the use of philosophy?” the reply must be aggressive, since the question tries to be ironic and caustic.
Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power.
The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy.
It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. Its only use is the exposure of all forms of baseness of thought.”
(Nietzsche and Philosophy, p. 106)
April 30, 2022 at 8:30 pm
I expect as much from art. Why I’m puzzled by hyper-photo-realism, which should not be confused with what the trompe l’oeil painters were doing–who used their “realsim” to startle the viewer into awaremeness that what they were seeing, was art, not reality.
Ceci n’est pas une pipel! The pleasure was in the skill of the fabrication, in the momentary cognitive dissonance. Whether ‘represntative’ or abstract–the hope is to see with new eyes, what we have not seen before.
May 1, 2022 at 9:08 am
you might be interested in:
https://www.academia.edu/36385115/D_Debaise_and_I_Stengers_The_Insistence_of_Possibles_Towards_a_Speculative_Pragmatism
July 4, 2022 at 6:49 am
That is why certain rituals and beliefs of religions can startle people who come across them for the first time.