You searched for Heidegger , here are your results:
Here are two lists based on philosopher Douglas Lackey’s 1999 survey of philosophers. The results were published in The Philosophical Forum.
Interesting that the full lists are dominated by works in epistemology. Metaphysics and ethics are less represented by a significant margin.
The top ten books cited:
1. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations [179 citations]
2. Heidegger, Being and Time 
3. Rawls, A Theory of Justice 
4. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 
5. Russell & Whitehead, Principia Mathematica 
6. Quine, Word and Object 
7. Kripke, Naming and Necessity 
8. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 
9. Sartre, Being and Nothingness 
10. Whitehead, Process and Reality 
The top ten articles cited:
1. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” [131 citations]
2. Russell, “On Denoting” 
3. Godel, “On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Other Systems” 
4. Tarski, “The Concept of Truth” 
5. Sellars, “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind” 
6. Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” 
7. Putnam, “The Meaning of Meaning” 
8. Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion” 
9. Kripke, “Naming and Necessity” 
10. Moore, “A Defense of Common Sense” 
Also interesting that the top book and article are neo-pragmatist. What results would a new survey generate, now that we are well into the next century?
Posted 1 year, 1 month ago at 10:00 am. 2 comments
The syllabus and schedule [pdf] for my Contemporary European Philosophy course (PHIL 314) are now online at the Courses page.
In this course we investigate several major European philosophies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Philosophers we will cover include Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus. As well as covering issues in metaphysics, epistemology, and meta-ethics, we will read and discuss several philosophers of economics, including Karl Marx, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek.
Posted 1 year, 1 month ago at 7:41 pm. Add a comment
Prompted by Eduardo Marty’s link to this discussion of postmodernism and libertarianism, here are updated links to my 1999 cyberseminar on The Continental Origins of Postmodernism, conducted while I was on sabbatical and Scholar-in-Residence at the Atlas Society.
Abstract for the course: For this 1999 online seminar “The Continental Origins of Postmodernism,” TAS Director of Programs Will Thomas served as moderator. Stephen Hicks, Professor of Philosophy at Rockford College, served as the scholar-in-residence. Participants read key works in the development of Postmodernism, to understand the origins of this powerful trend in contemporary thought and to develop the background of an effective Objectivist response. “Postmodernism is influential in contemporary academic and intellectual culture,” Hicks remarked. “But most of us are trained in the analytic tradition, so we are less likely to be exposed to the major postmodern thinkers. The purpose of this seminar, accordingly, is to broaden our knowledge of the current intellectual landscape by exploring the distinctively postmodern content, method, and style of philosophy.”
Essays and discussion on:
Participants in the seminar: Melinda Ammann, William Dale, Roger Donway, Shawn Klein, Jamie Mellway, Eyal Mozes, David Potts, David Ross, Bryan Register, Will Wilkinson, Jason Walker, Michael Young, Susanna Fessler, David Kelley, James Lennox, Ken Livingston, Rick Minto, Kirsti Minsaas, and Susan Dawn Wake.
Related: It was at TAS that year that I wrote the first draft of my Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.
Posted 1 year, 4 months ago at 12:35 pm. Add a comment
Following up on “The constant decline of civilization?” — a series of quotations from across the centuries of intellectuals from Plato to Wordsworth to T.S. Eliot bemoaning the sorry state of their generation’s intellectual and moral life.
Here, from a review of Mark Lilla’s The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics and Richard Wolin’s Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse (both books recommended), is a twenty-first century intellectual carrying on the tradition by assessing the merit of four mid-twentieth century political philosophers.
“Although all these thinkers are gifted, few deserve truly extended study. I say this despite the fact that each is more penetrating than nearly anyone writing today. We are declining from our decline.”
And here is another intellectual, commenting directly upon our current generation:
“Historians will write of this time that the U.S. was in a period of intellectual decline, a kind of anti-renaissance of thought. Simplicity, and brevity displaced thoughtful dialogue. Repetition passed as true conviction, cult-like adherence to shallow philosophies unseated consideration of creative alternatives and honesty gave way to spin.
“This is not an era when thinking about anything for long is valued.”
How do we make great sweeping judgments like this, and why do some of us make them so confidently? My view is the opposite — we have more brilliant people than ever, and more awesome work is being done. But mine is a soft impression, and it’s an open question in my mind how we should weigh the data.
Is it this: History has sorted the good from the bad, so when we read history we tend to ignore the mediocre and shallow and be impressed with the intellectual and moral giants who once lived. But our own age has not been sorted, and we are painfully aware of the large number of chatterers and blitherers out there. So is it a presentist cognitive bias in our personal data sets?
Or is it projection? If one is pessimistic — and there is a lot to be pessimistic about — then one looks for, focuses on, and assigns greater evidential weight to the morons and the mediocre; but if one is optimistic — and there is a lot to be optimistic about — then one does the opposite.
So a question: How should we make an objective judgment about our generation’s stature and the trend-line over history?
* * *
Professor Mark Blitz, “The Political Responsibility of Intellectuals”. Reviews of The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, by Mark Lilla, and Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse, by Richard Wolin. Claremont Institute, 2002.
Professor Kathleen Reardon, “Reversing the Intellectual Decline.” Huffington Post, 2005.
Posted 1 year, 8 months ago at 12:23 pm. 3 comments
The Nazis were evil, killing millions of human beings, and they have universally and properly properly condemned for their horrors.
The Soviets were also evil, killing more millions than the Nazis did, yet they have not been universally condemned. The Soviets have been attacked by libertarians, conservatives, and moderates as a great lesson in evil — but not by the political left. (Alan Kors here takes them to task for this abdication of moral responsibility.)
In part this makes sense: When socialism was in power in Russia, China, and many other places, leftists were widely admiring of those regimes. So it’s understandable that after-the-fact shame would lead them to denial and avoidance. And younger leftists are likely to believe that socialism is moral in theory despite its practical failings, so they will want to cut Stalin and Mao some slack.
But Sidney Hook offers a philosophical explanation — that by egalitarian standards the communists were more moral than the fascists even though the communists killed more people:
“When I confronted them with the evidence that Stalin had unjustly killed more Jews than Hitler, which was true at the time, they retorted that he was killing them not as Jews but as dissenters. Since in this respect the Jews were being treated equally with others, that was more important in their eyes than the alleged injustices of their executions” (Out of Step, p. 353).
So a thought experiment. Which of the following regimes is worse?
* Regime A kills 5 Jews, but it doesn’t kill non-Jews.
* Regime B kills 6 Jews, but it also kills 6 non-Jews.
By the principle of individual rights, both are evil and Regime B is worse.
By the principle of equality, Regime B is better.
Question: Is Hook right that this is actually how leftist egalitarians think, or are the leftists in his anecdote engaged in bad-faith avoidance?
Update: I just came across this post by Professor Lester Hunt: “Nazism or Communism: Which is More Evil?”
Marxism = Nazism (another datum).
Heidegger, anti-humanism, and the Left.
Chipotle Mexican Grill versus egalitarianism.
18th-century Russia as egalitarian paradise.
[Chart image source: R. J. Rummel's Democide site.]
Posted 2 years ago at 8:56 am. 8 comments
More precisely: Who is the most loathsome philosopher in his or her personal life?
Let me set the bar high by naming my top two candidates.
1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who fathered several children and had them abandoned to orphanages, and of whom David Hume wrote in a letter to Adam Smith: “Thus you see, he is a Composition of Whim, Affectation, Wickedness, Vanity, and Inquietude, with a very small, if any Ingredient of Madness. … The ruling Qualities abovementioned, together with Ingratitude, Ferocity, and Lying, I need not mention, Eloquence and Invention, form the whole of the Composition.” (David Hume, letter to Adam Smith, October 8, 1767 [Correspondence, 135])
2. Martin Heidegger, who was a Nazi and who, his lover Hannah Arendt said, “lies notoriously always and everywhere, and whenever he can.”
I am open to other suggestions.
Some follow up questions. When one disagrees profoundly with an intellectual’s philosophy, as I do with Rousseau’s and Heidegger’s, is it legitimate to look for a connection between the philosophical and the personal? Or can deep philosophy vary completely independently of personal behavior? Is ad hominem ever a legitimate argument strategy? One should expect integrity, especially from philosophers — i.e., that they will live what they teach and teach what they live — but we also know that hypocrisy is widespread. Should it matter now that influential philosophers were personally immoral, or do only their ideas and arguments matter now?
Related posts on Heidegger:
Nazism and education [Section 14 of Nietzsche and the Nazis].
Heidegger, anti-humanism, and the Left.
Heidegger and postmodernism [Excerpt from Chapter 3 of Explaining Postmodernism].
Interview with director Jeffrey van Davis on Heidegger and Nazism.
Related posts on Rousseau:
Rousseau’s Counter-Enlightenment [Excerpt from Chapter 4 of Explaining Postmodernism].
Rousseau’s collectivism and statism.
Rousseau and the French Revolution.
Posted 2 years, 3 months ago at 3:29 pm. 13 comments
The Portuguese translation was published in Brazil, a Serbo-Croatian translation of the first chapter was published, and a new, expanded edition was published last month in Kindle and this month in a snazzy hardcover.
Samples from the scholarly reviewers of the first edition:
“By the end of Explaining Postmodernism, the reader may remain ill at ease with postmodernist malaise, but Hicks’s lucid account will demystify the subject.” Curtis Hancock, Ph.D., Review of Metaphysics
“With clarity, concision, and an engaging style, Hicks exposes the historical roots and philosophical assumptions of the postmodernist phenomenon. More than that, he raises key questions about the legacy of postmodernism and its implications for our intellectual attitudes and cultural life.” Steven M. Sanders, Ph.D., Reason Papers
“Refreshingly, Hicks does not take it as given that the poststructuralist viewpoints have been demonstrated to be in error. Rather, he seeks to trace them to a powerful ressentiment directed against the partisan of the Enlightenment and of capitalist achievement, and to provide the Enlightenment thinker with openings for serious intellectual engagement.” Marcus Verhaegh, Ph.D., The Independent Review
“This is not a book review but a flat out endorsement. Stephen R. C. Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism is a great but very scary read.” Tibor R. Machan, Ph.D., Hoiles Chair of Philosophy, Chapman University
“Stephen Hicks has written an insightful and biting commentary on the nature of postmodernism and its revolt against the Enlightenment. He situates the movement in a larger historical context and analyzes its cultural and political implications. Even when one disagrees with Hicks’ interpretations, his work will challenge and provoke. This is must-reading for anyone interested in philosophy-by-essentials.” Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D., Department of Politics, New York University
“Explaining Postmodernism is extremely valuable for understanding postmodernism from a standpoint outside of and critical of it. Perhaps the most important value of the work is Professor Hicks’s analytical skill in isolating the essential theses of postmodern writers, in summarizing the relevant historical background, and in tracing the lines of development that led to postmodernism. In addition to wonderfully clear expositions of Hegel, Heidegger, and other influential thinkers, the book has what I think is a brilliant analysis of the different pathways by which skeptical questions that Enlightenment thinkers asked about reason led to the nihilism of Derrida and Foucault.” David Kelley, Ph.D., Executive Director, The Objectivist Center
“Explaining Postmodernism offers a concise and convincing argument that post-modernism is not primarily about epistemology. If postmodernism were about science as a ‘hegemonic discourse,’ then postmodernists would endorse any political viewpoint that tickled their subjectivities. Yet every postmodernist is on the Left politically. Hicks concludes that relativism is not what motivates postmodern thought—but is a device that postmodernists have adopted for strategic purposes. Explaining Postmodernism will be of value to anyone who seeks to understand where postmodernism originated, what impulses motivate it, and how it can be challenged.” Robert Campbell, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Clemson University
“Stephen Hicks has written a very fine book, one that reveals both the historical roots and the current strategies of postmodernism. He has helped to reduce the puzzlement of those of us who have wondered how the truly amazing form of madness called postmodernism has managed to take over the minds of people who in other ways seem both sane and intelligent. Buy two copies and give one to a postmodernist acquaintance. It will ruin his week.” Max Hocutt, Ph.D., The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
The expanded edition also includes my Free Speech and Postmodernism and From Modern to Postmodern Art: Why Art Became Ugly essay. Images of the art works discussed and referred to in the latter essay are available at a dedicated page at my website here.
Posted 2 years, 5 months ago at 9:30 am. Add a comment