Photography & Philosophy (Still Another Time)

I have posted here a bunch of times about Steve Pyke and his portraits of philosophers. Over at The New Yorker you can find this announcement of an exhibition of his work in NYC starting today. The portrait I've lifted here is Kwame Anthony Appiah who does lots of interesting things. In one of my earlier posts I lifted a somewhat different portrait of Appiah but want to re-use this caption:

"I started philosophy looking for answers. But along the way I came to prize exploring the questions. Progress in philosophy consists, I think, in a clearer delineation of the conceptual options, not in reaching determinate conclusions." ~ K. Anthony Appiah

Why repeat this? Because it seems pretty smart. I work in a department that thinks social inquiry generates "determinate conclusions". There is little evidence that it does and a lot of reason to think that what we are best able to do is generate clearer understandings of our possibilities.

Photography & Philosophy (again)

"I started philosophy looking for answers. But along the way I came to prize exploring the questions. Progress in philosophy consists, I think, in a clearer delineation of the conceptual options, not in reaching determinate conclusions." ~ K. Anthony Appiah

Anthony Appiah, New York, 2003. Photograph © Steve Pyke.

On several occassions I have posted on and borrowed shamelessly from the work of Steve Pyke, primarily his portraits of contemporary philosophers. You can find those posts here. Yesterday, The New York Times published this post by Pyke on its blog 'The Stone' (as in Philosopher's Stone). Here is what he says about the preoccupation with making portraits of philosophers:

"Despite being unknown at a time, the philosophers of an era survive longer in collective memory than wealthy nobleman and politicians, or the popular figures of stage, song and stadium. Because of this disconnect between living fame and later recognition, we have less of a record of these thinkers than we should. Our museums are filled with busts and paintings of long-forgotten wealth and beauty instead of the philosophers who have so influenced contemporary politics and society. My aim in this project has been the modest one of making sure that, for this era at least, there is some record of the philosophers."

Of course, Pyke is assuming that Colleges and Universities will continue to teach philosophy into the future - a sketchy bet given the vicissitudes of intellectual fashion and dire academic budgets! Yet, unlike players in other market places, it turns out that philosophers who play with concepts and questions that are not labeled with a "sell by" date and so have some longevity outside of textbooks and museums.

Philosophical Food Fight

"Armchair bullshit, masquerading as philosophy: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com
/2010/06/13/the-very-angry-tea-party/?hp
9:50 PM Jun 13th"
via web

jcohen570

That is the reply that Josh Cohen (Stanford) - advocate of democratic deliberation - Tweeted (of all things!) to this post written by J.M. Bernstein (New School) at The New York Times philosophy blog. In the initial post, Bernstein offered an analysis (inspired by Hegel and Freud) of the anger embodied among members of the "The Party" crowd. He followed up here. Philosopher Brian Leiter (Univ. of Chicago) seconds Cohen here. And there is a rambling commentary here at Mother Jones as well. Now, I hardly put myself out as a model of tolerance and civil exchange, and my own theoretical leanings actually tend to converge with Leiter and Cohen, however their replies to Bernstein are not a great advert for doing philosophy (or political theory, or politics) in public.

I think there is a real and important question about why the radical right has managed to coordinate opposition to Obama around a set of ludicrous claims - like his place of birth or the notion, all evidence to the contrary, that he is a "socialist." Sure, there are lots of media politics at play. And the Mother Jones piece reiterates the findings that (as I suggested here) "the 'tea party' crowd tend to be ... a bunch of old, economically well-off, white guys who are 'angry' and 'pessimistic' because they think the government is paying too much attention to the needs of the poor and minorities and not enough to the rich!" Of course, that is not the only demographic among the members of the tea party 'movement'; it takes all types, I suppose.

Having said all that, what happens when you talk sense to people? What happens when you point out that the sources of political polarization in American politics derive from rising inequality and right-wing political strategy [1]? What happens when you point out that the Bush tax cuts and duplicitous military adventurism combine to underwrite the vast bulk of our current and future budget deficits [2]? What happens when you point out that redistributive spending tends to go primarily to red states [3]? Well ... there is some reason to think that despite the fear, anger and frustration that inform too much of American politics, there is some indication [4] [5] [6] that lots of voters are pretty damned sensible. They prefer to trim the military budget and raise taxes on the wealthy rather than simply slash social spending!

How does this connect to our point of departure? Well, Cohen and Leiter might have simply suggested that matters may not be nearly so bleak as Bernstein suggests, that there is reason to believe that citizens can indeed sort things out pretty reasonably despite emotional vicissitudes. (I actually think that we can dispense with the Freud and Hegel in Bernstein's initial piece and agree nonetheless that part of what has been going on is that individualistic Americans have indeed been forced to confront their interdependence and their vulnerability.) What would've been wrong with that?

Michel Foucault (15 October 1926 – 25 June 1984)

Michel Foucault at home in Paris, France, 1978.
Photograph © Martine Franck.

Photography & Philosophy

I have mentioned here several times before the portraitist Steve Pyke, among whose work you can find portraits of many famous contemporary philosophers. At his blog, lawyer & philosopher Brian Leiter has an interesting post, prompted by Pyke's work, on what philosophy is with lots of quotes and notes from the famous in the field.