Delight Springs

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

See this Instagram post by @dremilyherring

"This week the New York Times ran the review of my biography of Bergson in print! If anyone knows how I can get my hands on a copy in Paris let me know!" --
osopher's profile picture
Great to see the book getting this attention! But Bergsonians (and Jamesians) will rightly resent Anthony Gottlieb's dismissive condescension. If subjective human experience is not relevant to our grasp of the significance of time, what in the world is??
@dremilyherring: https://www.instagram.com/p/DE0HV1_MCah/?igsh=ZGUzMzM3NWJiOQ==

==
I'm tempted to write a letter to the Times Book Review.

I wrote The New Yorker a letter, taking issue with Gottlieb's Leibniz, which they won't publish so soon on he heels of my last one. But I needed to write it:

Anthony Gottlieb wants us to overlook Gottfried Leibniz's "best of possible worlds" theodicy and give the old philosopher a break. [The Man Who Knew Too Much, Jan.6]


William James was an ecumenical philosopher prepared to give just about every variety of experience-based philosophy more than an even break. But he rightly drew the line at Leibniz,


a rationalist mind, with infinitely more interest in facts than most rationalist minds can show. Yet if you wish for superficiality incarnate, you have only to read that charmingly written 'Theodicee' of his, in which he sought to justify the ways of God to man, and to prove that the world we live in is the best of possible worlds. --William James, Pragmatism Lecture I: The Present Dilemma in Philosophy


The notion that suffering on earth could ever be adequately compensated by its hypothetical absence elsewhere in the cosmos is indeed a feeble attempt to rationalize the insufferable.




No comments:

Post a Comment