This is a good question to aspire to have an answer to. For most people it means something like: "What's the most important, most holistic piece of wisdom you could give me, which opens up onto the rest of your concerns, unlocking the better questions I could ask?"
This tends to be context specific, as the little taste of wisdom that will hook each individual is different, but if I had to aim to maximal generality I'd say: "The secret to life is knowing what mistakes are worth making, but you can only learn this by making some that aren't."
That's got enough of the paradox about it to be intriguing in a way that encodes an entry point into both more specific yet abstract questions in ethics and logic, while still functioning as concrete advice independently of whether those questions are chased up immediately.
It's hard to find such propositions, poised on the cusp between abstract and concrete, but it's worth trying to find some, if for no other reason than it will make dinner parties less frustrating experiences for everyone involved.
It's also worth noting that this question is often asked aggressively, with greater or lesser degrees of playfulness, as if to say: "If you love wisdom so much you spend all your time (and my taxes) searching for it, show me some you've actually found!"
It is *very* useful to have a stock response to this, either to humorously dissipate the tension, or to hoist the bastard by their own petard. One can do the former by self-effacement, rejecting the implied responsibility of studying/teaching philosophy, but not the latter.
The type of person who seeks to belittle you by putting you on the interrogative spot needs to learn a quite particular bit of wisdom: "Never ask a question you do not expect to be answered." Do your best to make sure that they learn this, with as much flair as you can manage.
That's my philosophy, anyway.🖖
(This thread brought to you by the panic attack induced by that one family member who insists on belittling you by asking such questions, and whether you've got a job yet, even when you're clearly in a depressive episode. Solidarity in spite.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with pete wolfendale

pete wolfendale Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @deontologistics

22 Mar
I don't claim to be an expert on the history or politics of protest, but I'm a specialist in a particular kind of logical fallacy: the conflation of obligation (duty) and supererogation (virtue). I think it's worth seeing how this plays into discussions of 'peaceful' protest.
There's much to be said about the virtue of non-violent resistance as a strategy of protest and contestation. But the way in which liberal ideology fetishises protest as a means (voice) shorn of its end (change) thereby positions this strategic virtue as a public duty.
Do we have a duty to be 'peaceful' when we protest? I'd argue that there's no such specific duty beyond the more general and defeasible obligation to respect one another's rights to safety and property. Why? Because the 'we' such a duty might apply to is barely constituted.
Read 13 tweets
21 Mar
On reflection, I think what most personally frustrates me about the current compact between research and teaching in the academy is that my own writing is more clearly pedagogical than hermeneutic, but this has not earned me any points towards becoming a pedagogue.
I would rather explain the key ideas of a thinker, or rehearse the dialectical development of a key concept, in ways that both optimally compress them and make them maximally accessible to non-specialist scholars. I think this is a virtue, but it really isn't rewarded in any way.
I can do the exegetical nitpicking when needed, and I respect it when it is done well, but for every insightful close reading that breathe life into the context of a philosophical thought there are a dozen lifeless analyses, half of which are also wrong.
Read 11 tweets
21 Mar
It's very hard to definitively determine which acts are evil, but I'm pretty sure that framing impossible demands ('damned if you do, damned if you don't') for no good reason is on the list. Nevertheless, I think we tend to underestimate just how easy it is to do this.
This is sometimes the result of vindictiveness, but it's more commonly the result of indifference: imposing a set of rules/norms with a blindspot you can maybe see, but simply don't care about, largely because you'll never be in the position to make that impossible choice.
I've been complaining about the ways this indifference manifests in bureaucratic systems for quite a while now (cf. deontologistics.co/2019/11/04/tfe…). But I think it's important to see how we can channel this indifference even when we don't have any special role in enforcing rules/norms.
Read 14 tweets
18 Mar
One small thought for the evening: I rag on Nietzscheans a lot, but there's a peculiar hermeneutics of power that is broader than Nietzsche's influence, even if he is a representative figure in it. I also don't think this hermeneutics is worthless, just that there are excesses.
I could, and probably should, write a book about these excesses, but I see the sort of Tory history Nietzsche specialised in as a useful corrective to the sort of Whig history that Hegel is famous for (cf. my piece on Hesse's Glass Bead Game - glass-bead.org/article/castal…).
But the excess that concerns me this evening concerns the relation between power and joy. Nietzsche is often, quite rightly, compared with Spinoza, the other great thinker of the conjunction of power and joy (cf. Deleuze). There's obviously a significant relation here.
Read 28 tweets
16 Mar
So, this morning I'm thinking about Stan Lee's maxim ('with great power comes great responsibility') and the discursive responsibility that comes with the discursive power of having a personal communication platform (everything from a syndicated column to a Twitter account).
To recap my basic stance on moral logic: 1) ought-implies-can (Kant), entails that decreased capacity implies decreased responsibility, 2) with great power comes great responsibility (Lee), which entails that increased capacity implies increased responsibility.
I think that these principles permit us to deploy claims about what *is* the case as reasons in discourse about what we *ought* to do without falling into the naturalistic fallacy (Hume) and deriving how things ought to be in any given instance from the way things already are.
Read 61 tweets
15 Mar
Someone pay me and @tjohnlinward to write a treatment for this.
For anyone who wants to hear the oral history:
Just to give you a slight inkling of the semiotic riches to be plundered here, the Worm was said to have coiled itself around the hill on the top of which this monument now stands: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penshaw_M…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!