At one point in this review, the reviewer writes, "Sloterdijk asserts that Jean-Paul Sartre was "a master in the sublime art of not being willing to learn." (p. 175) This name-calling and provocation is somehow alluring while being distracting and vacuous." Now, I think Sartre, who was not beyond ideological demolition jobs when it suited him fine, is fair game (and so is Sloterdijk)--yeah, yeah, I know there are folks who think fair-play governs philosophy. (But these scholars confuse the ideal world with our lived reality!) Moreover, I don't see an argument that Sloterdijk is altogether wrong in his assesment.
But it is a different sentence in the review that caught my attention: "These popular essayists [including Sloterdijk--ES] are less concerned with wisdom than provocation and persuasion -- and the only love visible in their works is self-love. Of course, not all books need to be rigorous or philosophical." I am reminded here by the Nietzschean saying about taking the tiger to task for being a tiger, or is it a Lion? Anyway, in the review there is an implied contrast here between love of wisdom and provocation. Now, it's true not all provocateurs are philosophers. But it does not imply that provocateurs cannot be philosophers. In particular, it seems to me that our patron-saint, Socrates, teaches us that provocation may well be constitutive of the pursuit of wisdom. (Amusingly, the review is obsessed with provocation.) Either way, when philosophy turns polite, hasn't something been lost? I am willing to allow that in a rational, future state the truth and conventional wisdom may coincide...but ours is not that world.
(Full disclosure: I have grown increasingly disenchanted with Sloterdijk, but that has petty sources in his willingness to snub me.)
Recent Comments