Ganja's novel. 4:4

4:4
Vincent Descombes. Modern French philosophy: Sat. / Per. from French - M.: Ves Mir, 2000

Ganja's novel

Publication date: January 22, 2001

Incent (Vincent?) Descombes was born in Paris in 1943. His works are published in Russian for the first time. The collection includes two works by the gifted thinker: “Identical and Other” (1978) and “Philosophy of Stormy Times” (1988). The publisher's notice was written, obviously, while heavily drunk. Well, let's leave him alone. The author's introduction to the first, earlier work deserves more attention. French philosophy, the venerable scientist authoritatively declares, is a philosophy that speaks French. Well, it's hard to argue with that. 1:0 in favor of the foreign guest. Modern French philosophy, the researcher continues, is all the discourse that takes place today in France and is considered by today's public as philosophical. 2:0. But today's generation is obliged to pay off the debts of the previous generation, so we are considering the period 1933-1978. Fathers and sons are strong, that's why it's 3:0. But this very discourse is produced in a special place called "university space" .

More about this. Philosophy in France is something like our diamat (more precisely, on the contrary). It has been studied there almost since kindergarten. On this score, there is a unified state program in philosophy (at least there was in 1978), and the teaching of philosophy in France is entirely determined by the “nature and functions” of this program. A teacher at a lyceum, and even more so at a university, is selected by the state on a competitive basis and is a government official entrusted with a great state mission - to transmit the state spirit. This can be done in different ways, but in any case, this requires a certain political position. The choice of such a position “was and remains a decisive test in France; it is precisely this that is called upon to reveal the ultimate meaning of thought . ” Thus, a complete philosophical statement in France is considered, for example, not Cogito ergo sum, but something like “Cogito ergo sum, then vote for the communists.” As a result, all possible philosophical statements are divided between political parties, and redistribution occurs regularly. A unique situation arises when a philosopher as a philosopher there is nothing to say.

Still 3:0. Already good.

Let's try to express this differently. They usually imagine the matter in such a way that there is a scientist who works with some subject and produces knowledge about it, and there is a philosopher who, performing an act of thought , for the first time produces this subject itself or reproduces it on new grounds, subjecting the old ones to criticism. Then it should be said that the French philosopher (= teacher of philosophy) in the vast majority of cases is engaged in expressing a general feeling about something, something vague, floating in the air of the era. You could call it fashion.

France is a trendsetter. Philosopher-couturier. Not bad. 4:0.

“Philosophy in Pursuit of the Zeitgeist” is the title of the first chapter of the later work of the invincible Frenchman, “Philosophy of Stormy Times,” as has already been said. We agreed to call the spirit of the times fashion in the sense in which “fashionable” means “in the spirit of the times.” This poses a very serious question: what can philosophy give to fashion that, say, the beauty industry, the automobile industry, or fiction cannot give it? Can a philosopher be fashionable - that is, capture the spirit of the times - in some other, completely special sense than simply wearing a fashionable suit and driving a fashionable car? In Descombes' formulation: “How can philosophy treat actuality?”

In other words, can a philosopher speak out about what is , firstly, precisely as a philosopher, and not as a citizen or consumer, and secondly, not in a doubling manner, that is, say something about an event not as an event and about a thing not as a thing, but precisely about this event and about this thing? The question is serious, if we consider that doubling is the philosophical way of reasoning par excellence. Existence as existence, thought as thought - isn’t it true, there is something to be proud of?!

It's still 4-0, but we feel the mental advantage is already on our side.

So, what will give us the right to qualify a statement about this particular event as philosophical? From Descombes's reasoning one can understand approximately the following. We are unable, due to certain circumstances, to reason about particulars otherwise than by subsuming them under some general principle. All our reasoning is an explicit or hidden syllogism, and as we know, they must contain at least one general premise. And this premise can be either a proverb or a maxim . A proverb is a commonplace of culture. What is a maxim? In appearance it cannot be distinguished from a proverb, but the philosopher who uses it is convinced that there is something in it that is not in the proverb. If culture is a certain ordered system of proverbs and sayings, then the philosopher, expressing a maxim, imagines himself located outside of any culture.

But this is now considered impossible. It turns out that if the philosophical nature of a statement is determined by the maxim it contains, then philosophy does not exist at all, since any maxim is a proverb. By the way, Descombes himself uses in this case the common proverb about the impossibility of an external position in relation to culture, thought, language, and so on. The reasoning goes something like this: you can only imagine yourself as a philosopher, while remaining a complete piece of shit.

And here it would have been 4:1, but the opponent turns out to be more cunning than we could have imagined.

All this is nonsense, he says, about syllogisms, maxims and all that stuff. In fact, old Kant was cool when he clearly showed that the philosopher as a philosopher has nothing to say about an event. It is of little use to a philosopher to observe what is happening on stage, but he may be interested in the aesthetic reaction of the audience. Let's leave the event to its participants, let's better analyze our audience reaction. And let's draw conclusions.

That is, let's extract a moral. We, as spectators, are free to express any moral judgments, which, as we know, are of a universal nature. But we cannot give a universal political assessment, we simply do not have the right to do so, since we - if we are not in power - do not bear any responsibility for our judgments.

However, Kant believes that such a political judgment is possible, the boundaries of which will coincide with the boundaries of individual nation-states. Here is an example of such a judgment that could be expressed on any occasion: “The people have the right to demand respect for their independence from their neighbors if they can force them to respect themselves, and if this requires preserving the monarchical system, then it should be preserved.” . That is, the philosophy of a particular event appears when it is necessary to present philosophical grounds for preferring one or another interpretation of this event.

Everything is true, but one can object. After all, interpretation is an assessment made not at all on philosophical grounds, but by virtue of the same generalities. That is, philosophical foundations are imaginary foundations. Well, what is philosophical - read: universal - in the statement “Every people has the right to independence”? The common place of a local and still very young culture - that’s all.

4:1. You may not agree, but here I am my own judge.

However, on p. 330-336 Decombe makes a desperate attempt at revenge (since, as you understand, our one is worth more than four of them) and unfolds an absolutely fantastic picture in the spirit of medieval allegories. Imagine a noble assembly, at the head of which sits Free Will in all regalia, and around, with their heads bowed respectfully, are the Advisors - one for Economics, another for Politics, the third is responsible for Conscience, and so on. An operation is being developed. First the Physics advisor lays out how it will go objectively, so to speak, and then the other advisors lay out their pros and cons. The operation may turn out to be politically advantageous, economically ruinous, and from the point of view of Conscience - unconscionable, and so on. Free Will listens, listens, and then says “Stop” and makes a decision. The philosopher, as one can imagine from these confused remarks, which are more reminiscent of another dream of Vera Pavlovna, must play the role of secretary of Free Will, namely: draw up regulations, limit speeches to a time frame, whisper in Free Will’s ear whose comments are valuable and whose You can only listen politely, nothing more. A sort of cunning and shrewd administrator under an extravagant president. To limit the arbitrariness of Free Will is the task of our hero.

This is a little utopian - in the exact sense of the word, since it is not clear where everything is happening - the picture, as usual, rather raises questions than answers them. Why is the will necessarily Free? Who is this philosopher, since he is given the right to compose the Hierarchy of Values? Well, there are many more similar questions - for some reason they remind me of the questions of a patient, but at the same time meticulous doctor to a patient in a psychiatric hospital, who had previously been delirious in reality for several hours.

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that it would be fair to award a draw: 4:4. Experts in logic and game theory may object: how can this be, after all, it was just 4:1. Their opinion is interesting and valuable to me, but as a philosopher and also a free person in some respects, I believe that this is the right decision. That's where we'll stop. As for practical recommendations for future philosophy teachers, they have one task: to forget philosophy like a nightmare if they want to have something to say in their lectures. Which, by the way, is not an end in itself. The majority have nothing to say, for which we congratulate them.

Once again for those who haven’t heard: the score in our friendly match is a draw - 4:4!