"Write your way out of it." – J.D. Salinger
It begins with a boy who was not born a nationalist and ends with a nationalist who was never a boy.
At least, that is a possible beginning and end. In the words of Aristotle, we now only lack the middle to have a complete story.
So now that we know it begins with a boy, let’s move towards the middle, where we can place him geographically in Barcelona, Spain …
Read the rest of the essay “The Boy in the Classroom“, or read the entire literary magazine Loud Zoo.
Filosoffen Byung-Chul Han er en filosofisk pendant til den danske psykolog Svend Brinkmann. De er begge to dygtige og kamplystne; de er begge to vigtige stemmer, der går imod neoliberalismens uendelige positivitet, hvor kritikken ikke har været fraværende, men nok bare er blevet mere folkelig.
Han udfordrer i sine bøger flere af tidens tendenser – inklusiv dem, som nogle ynder at lovprise. Begrebet ”transparens” er netop et af tidens positive slagord. Jo mere gennemsigtighed, desto bedre, synes moralen at være.
Det er denne floskel, som Han angriber i bogen Transparenssamfundet.
Som de fleste af Hans bøger er Transparenssamfundet et mindre essay, det vil sige mere en pamflet end en bog. Og som alle hans bøger – jeg har vel læst seks-syv af dem på dansk, tysk og spansk (se her, her og her)– er også denne givende. De bedste er dog endnu ikke oversat til dansk!
Transparenssamfundet, skriver Han manifesterer sig primært som et positivsamfund. Her er alt glat og gennemsigtigt, hvilket gør den ”transparente tid” en ”skæbne- og begivenhedsløs tid.” Hvis nogle skulle være i tvivl om, hvad Han mener med en begivenhedsløs tid, så fastslår han dette med sætningen: ”Transparenssamfundet er et helvede af det samme.”
Tænk på sociale medier som Facebook eller Twitter, hvor der re-tweetes igen og igen. Mere af det samme. De færreste læser eller forholder sig minimalt til det, som de sender videre, enten fordi de er bange for at skabe gnidninger, det vil sige gøre kommunikationen mindre gnidningsfri, eller også fordi det, som kommunikeres, ikke inviterer til andet et ”likes” og venlige, men ligegyldige, nik.
”Et nyt ord for ensretning: transparens.”
Det, som Han efterlyser er det begivenhedsrige, det spontane, det legende, det narrative og friheden. Alle disse tillader ingen transparens, siger den tyske filosof.
Transparensen mangler respekten og nænsomheden overfor det fremmede, det anderledes; det, som ikke lader sig eliminere fuldstændig. Et eksempel kunne være de personer, der siger: ”Jeg kan godt lide dig, fordi du ligner mig.” Her er eventuelle forskelle udglattet. Intet er på spil.
Transparens tåler heller ikke huller. I stedet for er kravet, at du hele tiden skal opdatere, kommunikere, være en del af informationsstrømmen, men det betyder også at inspirationen forsvinder. Nye tanker og ideer kræver tid, altså en form for tomrum. Det er netop på grund af fraværet af pauser eller tomrum, at vi konstant zapper rundt i en positiv suppe af åndsløshed.
”Ånden er langsom, fordi den dvæler ved det negative og bearbejder det.”
Hans østlige rødder præger hans filosofiske tilgang. Den berører klassisk kritisk teori med referencer til Hegel, Nietzsche og Heidegger, men den er også beslægtet med mindfulness og zen, idet han konstant plæderer for at være opmærksom på det, som sker. Det er i kraft af vores opmærksomhed, at vi kan stille kritiske spørgsmål til, hvorvidt transparens reelt beriger vores liv.
Dette kommer til udtryk, når Han taler om hvordan transparens underminerer ethvert tomrum, hvor ”tomrum” refererer til det buddhistiske begreb intet eller tomhed, hvor det ikke handler om væren, men om tilblivelse.
I tomrummet kan man undslå sig enhver definition, hvorved man bedre kan følge livet, derhen, hvor det nu engang tager en. Heri ligger der også en kreativ og opfind gestus, idet man forsøger at komme på omgangshøjde eller i samklang med livet. Der ligger også noget frigørende, idet friheden ikke defineres (hvorved den ville blive mindre fri), men snarere er skabende og blivende.
Modsat er transparens blot et udslag af tidens manglende tillid. Det er, fordi jeg ikke tror på dig, at jeg vil have fuld gennemsigtighed. Når politikere beder danskere om at overvåge eller holde øje med hinanden, så underminerer dette den tillid, som reelt holder samfundet sammen. Transparens modvirker, at mennesker kan møde hinanden, som to fremmede mennesker, der kan vække hinandens nysgerrighed. I stedet for opfordrer transparenstanken os til at blotte os overfor hinanden, men altid på en genkendelig måde. Selv når folk er mest intime, lyder de som et ekko af naboen.
Transparens optimerer det allerede eksisterende, som når politikere og ledere er underlagt krav om transparens, hvorved de ikke kan tage svære, men nødvendige beslutninger. Det vil sige, beslutninger som ikke kan efterleve konsulentens naive forestilling om ”win-win” forsømmes eller udskydes.
Nogle gange gør det bare ondt, at tage en beslutning.
”Transparens og sandhed er ikke identiske.”
Transparenssamfundet er endvidere en del af pornosamfundet, hvor alt skal udstilles for derefter at blive udbyttet. Har man først set en pornofilm, bliver det pludseligt svært at skelne det ene kønsorgan fra det andet. Det er også her, at et af Hans yndlingsbilleder dukker op: vi er både gerningsmand og offer. Vi udstiller os selv, fordi vi bilder os ind at være frie, men sandheden er at vi ofrer os selv. ”Narcissisten, som er blevet depressiv, drukner i sin grænseløse intimitet med sig selv. Intet tomrum og fravær distancerer narcissisten fra sig selv.”
Begreberne tomrum og fravær berører den buddhistiske tanke om ”ikke-selv”, det vil sige at alt hænger sammen, der er ingen distinkte grænser mellem dig og mig. Vi formes løbende i kraft af en myriade af faktorer. Jeg er altså ikke andet end en foranderlig proces, som formes af alt det, som ikke er mig. Men alt det, som er mig fremmed møder jeg sjældent i dagens transparenssamfund, hvorfor jeg også bliver mindre og mindre.
Har det kapitalistiske samfund ensrettet os, hvorved vi ikke er andet end en flok næsten identiske cv’er, der per definition altid er kedelige at læse, fordi de sjældent er narrative, men blot en opremsning af en persons uimodståelige målbare bedrifter?
I al for lang og dårlig haiku-stil kan Hans konklusion opsummeres:
Den digitale kommunikation er gennemsigtig
ren transparens
en glat strøm uden hængsler
Den digitale kommunikation er uden moral
den har intet på hjerte
intet andet end sig selv
Den digitale kommunikation er gennemlyst
som en scene i en pornofilm
er den ikke oplysende
Den digitale kommunikation er opmærksomhedshungrende
her udstiller man sig selv, mens man fængsler sig selv
– friheden er blevet kontrollerende
Eller: ”Nietzsche ville sige, at vi ikke har afskaffet Gud, så længe vi endnu tror på transparensen.”
A Philosophy of Mindfulness is out!
In this book, I argue that we need a “new” philosophy because we—many of us, at least—are blind. We see rather little of that which surrounds us.
By mixing mindfulness with the affirmative philosophy of Gilles Deleuze, I unfold a philosophy of mindfulness. A philosophy that makes us less blind but also ethically responsible in relation to what we experience. Hereby, I move mindfulness from the sphere of psychology into philosophy, or from being primarily an inward-turned practice to an out-turned one.
A Philosophy of Mindfulness puts emphasis on experience, experiment, and actualization or affirmation. Each experience matters; life is the experience of making contact or being connected with what is in the midst of becoming—that is, life—and then passing it on to the next generations.
”If philosophy did not exist, we cannot guess the level of stupidity [there would be]. Philosophy prevents stupidity from being as enormous as it would be were there no philosophy. That’s philosophy’s splendor, we have no idea what things would be like … So when we say ”to create is to resist,” it’s effective, positive, I mean.” – Deleuze, L’Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze.
What does it means to think philosophically?
I don’t think that only philosophers think or reflect. Rather, philosophers do so in a distinctive way by creating concepts that can help us see things we weren’t aware of before. It can be the way Simone de Beauvoir made many readers aware of the problematic assumption that men were the first sex and women were merely a diversion. It reminds me of how Deleuze and Guattari, years later, said that for far too long, the hegemonic ideal has been a white, 33 year old heterosexual man called Jesus, which not only discriminates, but also hinders our thinking. In a broader sense, be open toward other ways of living. This is also why solely giving advice, potentially, takes away the responsibility from each of us to be accountable for our actions.
So while we all – or most of us – think daily about what to eat, wear, do, etc. (especially if you have children who need healthy lunches and clean clothes), thinking philosophically requires that we pay attention to the present moment — that we critically reflect on what is happening, including evaluating our own behavior. It emphasizes that philosophy can’t teach you what to think or give you clear steps to attaining peace of mind. However, it can nurture critical thinking that can help us evaluate various forms of thinking. Instead of telling us what to think, philosophers can help us clarify how thinking is possible and perhaps even show us what philosophical thinking looks like.
For example, today it seems rather convenient to say that people who voted for Brexit or Trump can’t think, but here we might just be showing our own arrogant tendency for moralizing, i.e., judging. Instead, differences in opinions are an invitation to confront our own possible lack of understanding. Why do they believe that this is right? Once we get a better grab of their life-situation and moral reasoning, then we might show how the arguments behind these votes exhibit incoherent thinking. Thus, empathy for difference is not a blind acceptance but an ongoing process of questioning.
Similar, Trump voters, for example, seem to fear women, blacks, Mexicans, homosexuals, etc. He discriminates and represses what scares him, but more importantly, he does so based on irrational feelings of fear. He acts stupid. Yet, we should still ask whether Trump is the main problem, or whether it’s the ideology created him and later put him in power. There is, of course, no evidence that shows that men, in general, are better than women at anything, no evidence that Caucasians are better than blacks, etc. His value judgments, therefore, are not based on facts, but ignorance. But how can ignorance seduce so many?
So, although philosophy should not be about giving advice, it can still be taught. People can learn to become more aware about their own unreasonable beliefs and recognize their blind spots, such as whether they unintentionally discriminate by how they use language, etc. Such teaching is not taking away personal responsibility, but instead giving responsibility back to the people so they can become informed citizens and think for themselves.
Another example may illustrate this. Today, the media talk a lot about “fake news.” (I wonder whether all this talk is true or an example of how the concept of fake news can be used strategically.) People seem to ask: Who is responsible? Who should control it? However, instead of blaming Facebook or any other medium, I think it is troubling that so few people apparently are capable of critically questioning the news they receive — the sources, motives, agendas, and how the news is framed. Also, it seems as if many believe that objective journalists exist, even though everything is subjective. The truth is not out there, but created through our engagement with the world. Even journalists who strive to deliver well-researched news are still colored by their career objectives, personal beliefs and ideas, editors’ input, etc.
Therefore, if people really can’t think for themselves, then teaching them how to think becomes a social responsibility for all of us — mostly through schools.
Luckily, I have seen a growing trend, which I embrace, in which philosophy is being taught to children. I think that going forward, teaching philosophy is the best way to combat future sexism, racism, and other discrimination, the sad consequences of not being able to think philosophically. I stress best way because teaching people how to think won’t necessarily guarantee that they don’t repress, discriminate or violate other human beings, still self-knowledge tend to minimize self-deception in most sane people.
Plato’s Academy, Athens: Philosophy was from the beginning open to the world, in direct relation with the world – in the streets, parks, etc. Philosophy for all!
”Det narcissistisk-depressive subjekt hører kun ekkoet fra sig selv,” skriver filosoffen Byung-Chul Han i hans seneste bog I sværmen. Han fortsætter, ”Sociale medier som Twitter og Facebook skærper denne udvikling, det er narcissistiske medier.”
Vi lever i en narcissistisk tid. Og ligesom Narcissus så ”drukner” mange. Enten brænder de ud eller de bliver deprimeret, ifølge Han, er depression ”en narcissistisk sygdom.”
Buyng-Chul Han er født i Sydkorea i 1959, men rejste i sine unge år til Tyskland for at studere metallurgi. Dette studie var nu ikke andet end et røgslør, som Han brugte overfor sine forældre, så de ville lade ham rejse. I stedet for metallurgi påbegyndte han en anden karriere: filosofi. Han kunne hverken læse eller tale tysk på daværende tidspunkt, men ikke desto mindre er han i dag professor i filosofi og kulturvidenskab ved Universität der Künste Berlin.
I 2010 fik Han sit kommercielle gennembrud, da han udgav bogen Træthedssamfundet. Som titlen indikerer er der noget udmattende i tidsånden (læs mere her). Siden har han udgivet mere end ti bøger bl.a. Transparenssamfundet, der ligeledes er oversat til dansk. Størsteparten af Hans bøger er små hæfter med skarpslebne læsninger og tolkninger af samtiden. Han henter sin filosofiske inspiration hos Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche, Arendt Foucault, Barthes, Blanchot m.fl. som han applicerer på helt konkrete dagligdags emner, såsom internettet, informationstræthed, positivitetens ulyksaligheder, eksistentiel udmattelse, dræbende narcissisme, transparens, kommunikation, magt, psykopolitik og så videre.
I sværmen berøres alle disse emner, men bogen tager primært udgangspunkt i internettets sværm af informationer, ”likes” og billeder, der påvirker vores måde at tænke og føle på.
”Den digitale kommunikation nedbryder generelt alle distancer,” skriver Han. Hermed refererer han ikke kun til de fysiske distancer, som når jeg kommunikerer med min ven i Berlin, men også de mentale. ”Fraværet af distance fører til, at det offentlige og private sammenblandes.” Det private rum – dér, hvor jeg ikke er et objekt – forsvinder. Alt synes nemlig at blive et objekt midt i internettets sværmeri. Anonymiteten fordufter lige så stille. Det samme gør respekten, der netop forudsætter en vis anonymitet. Nogle vil måske hævde, at de ikke er anonyme, men derimod en del af et netværk af venner. Måske. Men ifølge Han, så udvikler disse virtuelle relationer aldrig et ”vi.” Vi er aldrig andet end narcissistiske øer. Internettet og dens digitale kommunikation, finder sted, nu, nu, nu. Dette fremmer mere kommunikation. Hele tiden. Hurtigere. Uden fordybelse. Internettet inviterer os til at oprette en profil, som vi derefter uophørligt optimerer. Jo flere ”likes” eller ”retweets”, desto bedre. Vi profilerer os hele tiden, som kåde hunde i løbetid.
Det er denne evige kamp om at blive nogen, som ”udvikler tvang med hensyn til præstation, selvoptimering og selvudbytning … Mere frihed betyder dermed mere tvang,” som Han skriver. Dette er ét af nutidens store paradokser, da tvang og frihed traditionelt ikke ynder at holde hinanden i hånden. Men faktum er: ”Nutidens præstationssubjekt er gerningsmand og offer på en og samme tid.”
I stedet for marxismens ide om klasser og efterfølgende kapitalens udbytning af os, udbytter vi i stigende grad os selv. Det er mere effektivt, fordi vi gør det, mens vi bilder os ind, at vi er frie. ”Det nye menneske fingererer i stedet for at handle. Det vil kun lege og nyde.”
Internettets sværmeri spolerer ikke bare vores naive antagelse om at være frie. Den gør os åndeligt mindre. Når intet selekteres, det vil sige, når alt blot konsumeres, produceres og distribueres på en og samme tid, så forsvinder det eksklusive. Sproget bliver eksempelvis fladere og fladere. Enten er det pil op eller pil ned, et smil eller fem tommeltotter. Ligeledes medfører kravet om transparens – gennemsigtighed – at alt fortroligt minimeres. Fuld transparens gøre politikere og andre beslutningstager mindre vovede. Det handler jo om at få mange likes – her og nu. Og ikke at ændre verden.
De, der nærer stor tiltro til internettets demokratiske muligheder, vil måske miste lidt af deres optimisme efter at have læst Han. For ham er internettet proppet med ligegyldig støj. Og som Han slår fast: ”Åndens medium er stilheden.”
Moralen er, at internettet gør os dummere, ikke smartere (apropos den falske varebetagelse af smartphones). Den digitale kommunikation forstyrrer. Den er additiv, ikke narrativ. På nettet handler det ikke om fortælle, hvorledes noget hænger sammen, hvorfor noget er mere sandsynligt end noget andet. Snarere handler det om at tælle. Antallet af følgere, venner, likes, retweets, etc.
Internettet giver selvfølgelig kendskab til alle mulige ting, men det fremmer ikke vores erkendelse. Enhver erkendelse er forbundet med noget smerteligt, noget negativt – og med tidens omklamrende positivitet er snart ingen erkendelse mulig. Hermed ikke sagt, at folk partout skal falde sammen med stress for at gøre sig nogle erkendelser omkring, hvad der er vigtigt i livet. Selve tilegnelse af viden, det at gøre sig nye erkendelser, kræver ikke bare mod, men også en masse hårdt – og til tider – smertefuldt arbejde. Er du i tvivl, så sæt dig ned og læs i Kierkegaards værker, eller læs David Foster Wallaces Infinite Jest.
Jeg kan kun anbefale Han. I sværmen inspirerer til lidt kritisk tænkning, men rummer også forløsning. Det er nemlig muligt, at stå imod samtidens udvikling, der i stigende grad reducerer os til smilende, lettere dumme, forbrugere.
Selvom bogen er kort, anbefaler jeg at tage den i et par bider. På den måde kan du selv teste og vurdere, om Hans ideer og tanker passer. Hive ham lidt modstand. Et sted skriver Han: ”Det er ikke ’næstekærligheden,’ men narcissismen, der behersker den digitale kommunikation.” Hvor mange tommelfingre, vil du give sådan en sætning?
Andetsteds har jeg skrevet om stress ud fra en socialpsykologisk tese, altså hvor samfundets idealer og normer har en stor del af “æren” for nutidens stressepidemi: Kan læses her. Moralen er, at det individuelle og sociale kan ikke adskilles.
“Selp-help books don’t work.” – Svend Brinkmann.
Svend Brinkmann, a professor of psychology, has written what I hope will be—but fear won’t be—the last self-help book. Contrary to the intentions of these books, they rarely help anyone but the publisher and, sometimes, the writer. It’s good business, Professor Brinkmann would agree.
Brinkmann’s Stand Firm: Resisting the Self-Improvement Craze is a paradoxical book. On the one hand, it’s billed as an “anti-self-help” book, while, on the other hand, it’s yet another self-help book. The author says, “The idea is that it will act as a kind of anti-self-help book, and inspire people to change the way they think about, and live, their own lives.” This description could fit any self-help book. Perhaps for this reason, he writes a few pages later, “Overall, the book should be read as a self-help book.” However, this one has a clear agenda: it tries to eliminate all other books in this genre.
In Stand Firm, Brinkmann presents seven steps to counteract the accelerating pace of contemporary culture and to find peace of mind. These steps are based on an easy-going reading of the Stoics and the philosophy of common sense. They are:
The first three steps are dualistic. Instead of looking inside ourselves, we should look outward. Instead of being positive all the time, we should cultivate our negativity. Instead of saying “yes” constantly, we should say “no” once in a while. It’s all about balance. Then, to emphasize this point, we are also encouraged to put a lid on our emotions—especially the more negative ones. Finally, we should just get rid of the coaches who tell us to look inside and be positive and authentic, and then we perhaps could read a novel, while we dwell on the past. Most novels, after all, deal with memories.
Thus, Professor Brinkmann encourages us to relax, that is, stand firm against the moralizing domain of change, movement, and development. “Mobility trumps stability in an accelerating culture,” he writes. Therefore, it has become difficult to put down roots or to achieve stability. How we then find balance, that is, know what is worth standing firm on and what is not, is probably the task that this professor finds most difficult to address. So, in a sense, he only helps the reader half of the way.
Stand Firm places itself in the continuation of the Frankfurter School and critical theory, with the main enemy identified as capitalism. This diagnosis of an improvement-obsessed culture is well-argued and solid, but it doesn’t add up to anything new. We can find more or less similar diagnoses in other self-help books or literature on mindfulness. However, Brinkmann’s errand isn’t so much a critique of capitalism as it is of positive thinking. His claim is that this pop psychology approach doesn’t lead to a richer life. On the contrary, what we need is a dose of negativity.
This particular fight against positive thinking is what makes Brinkmann’s book innovative, mainly because his critique of the self-improvement craze is formulated in the tone of those business consultants who push positive thinking. He uses their own vocabulary against them. This makes his ideas easier for the reader to follow because the vocabulary is familiar, but it also serves to keep the conceptual framework of the book rather simple (cf. the traditional self-help book).
Personally, I miss a deeper understanding of concepts such as self, time, character, and introspection. And, perhaps more importantly, as mentioned above, I’d like to read Brinkmann’s thoughts on what I should stand firm on in a metaphysical, changeable world. Yet, my frustrated interests stress that, like most self-help books, this advice is addressed to a privileged reader, who seems more bored with, and confused about, life rather than really suffering.
Let me clarify this point further. For instance, many people can’t just say “no” at work because they can’t afford to lose their income. Also, since Brinkmann refers to our duty to do good deeds, then when is it right to be tolerant and when is it right to express our disagreement with those who are intolerant? Imagine that we witness sexism or discrimination in our organization, what is our duty as good employees? What is our duty if we are also a father or mother and, therefore, also a primary supporter of our family?
Based on the examples in the book, the ideal reader doesn’t suffer financially. For example, we are encouraged to discipline ourselves by avoiding an extra glass of wine or desert, not cheating while playing golf, or taking the bus instead of our car. I recall a classic self-help book about a man who sold his Porsche . . . To continue, Brinkmann suggests that we should visit a museum once a month, as well as reading at least one novel per month. This tells us something about who he expects to read his book.
Still, I have respect for this author’s project. I think that Brinkmann shows courage in writing this self-help book disguised as an anti-self-help book. Also, more importantly, his work as an academic—a highly-respected professor at a good Danish university—give his words more weight. He legitimizes the idea that it’s okay to be negative and so on. He deserves a big round of applause for this undertaking. This book will without doubt help many people who are caught in our current performance society.
Yet, some other questions emerge: How can we know when to say no if we are encouraged not to reflect or engage in introspection (i.e., steps one and three)? Philosophical self-knowledge has nothing to do with the navel-gazing that he so rightly attacks, but this knowledge is needed to minimize self-deception. Also, how do we know what is our duty? What is right or even morally good in society? Morality is related to knowledge that changes over time. For example, people now rarely beat their children to educate them because this doesn’t cultivate caring and curious individuals. These norms are human artefacts that can be rejected. Similar, we might ask: How do we dwell on our past and write our story without at least a little self-reflection? Or, even more clearly, if we should avoid the cliché of being authentic, then how does this interact with Brinkmann’s ideas about creating a coherent character?
In most self-help books, we are often encouraged to locate a narrative thread in our life to develop a trustworthy character. These threads can be rather inventive ways to suit personal agendas. Personally, I doubt whether life isn’t more a zig-zag movement of becoming another, rather than staying predictable. In the end, this is a rather conservative book with elements of nostalgia, but perhaps this is needed.
I wonder, still, whether it’s sound advice to encourage people to be too polite to be honest if this violates their duty. I prefer to resist conformity by creating alternatives, whereas Brinkmann tends to come close to advocating passive nihilism. For instance, he writes, “People have to adapt to the world around them.” This sound like resignation, not acceptance. Furthermore, this advice sounds like the business consultant adage that, instead of following “best practices,” sell the “best fit.” This is also not without problems. Perhaps, the professor has written af selfmanagement book?
Is it a problem that this book is both against the wellness syndrome but also part of it? I’m not sure. What Brinkmann’s advice lacks in precision, might also gain it more popularity, and his message is needed. I fully support his critique of the self-help industry and the current “terror of positivity,” as Byung-Chul Han once called it.
Thus, despite these critical remarks, my questions actually show this book’s quality. Unlike other self-help books, this invites us to question and think. So, perhaps what it offers really is more anti-self-help than self-help. I do truly hope that this will be the last self-help book. I hope so because Brinkmann’s advice is far better than the majority in this genre.
Therefore, if you have a coach, then sack him or her. Do it, and do it now. Then, go to the library or local bookstore and get yourself a novel. Read. If you’re not convinced, then read Dr. Brinkmann’s book. Give it to a colleague and so forth. Then, perhaps one sunshiny day, the libraries and bookstores will be full of novels, essays, and poetry instead of . . . yet, another self-help book camouflaged as anti.
I recommend Stand Firm for those who are tempted by the self-improvement craze.
“I’m not much interested in ethics or morals. I’m interested in how we experience the world.” – Arne Næss.
As a student of philosophy, I read the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss’s books. He wrote in an engaging and clear style that demonstrated deep philosophical breadth and he invited the reader to think along with him.
One of his strengths as a philosopher was this inviting, almost conversational style, which was related to his intuitive approach to life. By “intuitive,” I refer to something necessary—an open approach in which you follow life wherever it takes you, because it leaves you no possibility of escape.
Read the rest of the essay at The Mindful Word.
Who is the most brilliant philosopher of all time?
It’s a question that forces us to try to answer what can’t be answered. This can be a healthy exercise if we look beyond the unhealthy part—ranking everything, which is so popular today. Still, we can begin with what makes a philosopher brilliant: his or her capacity to think. This is what makes me see, notice, and become aware of things that I can only perceive with their help. Their brilliance lies in the fact that the only true form of creation is the act of thinking. Those closest to my mind, I find, are Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, but, without doubt, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze is the one I have found to be the most brilliant. He is original in an extremely creative, yet compassionate and caring way. He is ethical without being normative—which I’ll get back to later.
Unlike most thinkers in the French post-World War II period, he didn’t return to Heidegger but, instead, dealt with Hume and Bergson, as well as Nietzsche and Spinoza. However, what makes him most interesting, among other things, is that he operates within a metaphysic of change or becoming, whereby he avoids the question of being that typically breaks the flow of our thoughts. Becoming is liberating since it resists the existing ideals and norms—or, at least, it doesn’t stop with them—and it is liberating because it dares to imagine another future. Deleuze resists this quagmire because he challenges how we tend to see thing, including challenging the history of philosophy. He even reads Nietzsche and the novelist Proust in a new way.
Deleuze is also ethical because of his utopian philosophy, in which utopia isn’t a good place that is inexistent but rather a now-here place. By paying attention to what happens now, he can decide what to actualize, that is, what to pass on to the next generation. He never settles, which to some can seem stressful and strenuous, but the point is that he can go on thinking. He frees what is kept imprisoned, for example, rigid identities or ideologies and ways of assuming how things are. In his book on Nietzsche, Deleuze writes, “The world is neither true nor real but living.” He then goes on to say that the living world is the will to power, which he translates into a will to create, that is, a will to evaluate, decipher, explicate, and, in short, to think.
The question was originally posed here.
See also Who Killed Gilles Deleuze?
Skoling i filosofi og kritisk tænkning bør ikke kun være universitetsstuderende forundt. Hvis vi skal sikre demokratisk engagement og væbne os mod fake news og manipulation skal vi i gang allerede i folkeskolen.
De falske nyheder er blevet en ustoppelig nyhed i sig selv. Lidt komisk kunne man spørge, hvorvidt nyhederne om de falske nyheder er sande. Det er som om, at jo mere der tales om falske nyheder, desto mere rigtigt må problemet være.
Ikke desto mindre er det svært at afgøre, hvilke nyheder, der er sande eller falske. Den objektive journalist findes ikke. Alt vinkles og drejes for at underbygge en tese, en ide, en påstand eller på grund af hensyn til ens egen karriere eller øvrige interesser.
Spørgsmålet om sandhed har altid været befængt? Der er noget frelst og totalitært over at hævde at have adgang til sandheden. Af samme grund synes mange at være villige til at deponere ansvaret for nyhedernes faktuelle sandhedsværdi hos Facebook eller medierne generelt. Enkelte hælder til en politisk beslutning. Kun ganske få synes at mene, at det er borgernes ansvar.
Jeg mener i høj grad, at det er borgernes ansvar. Men før borgerne kan tage ansvar, må de tilbydes nogle kvalificerede redskaber, der kan hjælpe dem med kritisk at analysere og reflektere over, hvorvidt det, der siges, er sandt. Eller om vedkommende, der siger det, mon ikke har en underliggende dagsorden.
Hvis man vil give borgerne de redskaber, er en mulighed at genintroducere det for længst begravede filosofikum. Dog ikke på universitetsniveau, som bl.a. Søren Pind foreslog for nylig, men fra første dag i folkeskolen. Et sådan kursus skal ikke kun fokusere på etik, som to etikere fra RUC sjovt nok foreslog i Politiken. Etik handler om hvad der er godt og ondt, hvilket ofte også er rigtigt og forkert. Det er forkert at slå sine børn, fordi det er ondt, og det er ondt, fordi de ikke fremmer læring eller kærlige individer. Tilsvarende vil en religiøs person mene, at noget er godt eller ondt, fordi det står i Koranen eller i Biblen. Men hverken Koranen eller Biblen er mere rigtig eller forkert end Søren Kierkegaards bøger. Det er blot to bøger, som for mange betyder enormt meget, men antallet af tilhængere gør stadigvæk ikke bøgerne rigtigere end så meget andet. Sagt anderledes: Der er flere, som køber bøger af Jussi Adler-Olsen end af Olga Ravn, men det betyder ikke partout, at hans bøger er bedre, mere rigtige og sande. Selvfølgelig ikke.
Et filosofikum bør præsentere filosofi. Ud over etik vil det sige, videnskabsteori, kritisk tænkning og æstetisk.
Det som filosofien tilbyder ud over indsigt i, hvad der er viden, hvad der er mere rigtigt end forkert, er en tilgang til verden. En tilgang, som er spørgende og undersøgende. En nysgerrig og åben tilgang, der løbende øger vores engagement. Eller fastholder engagementet. Og netop engagement er noget af det, som mangler.
Hvis folk er engageret i samfundet, vil de også helt naturligt sætte spørgsmålstegn ved noget af det, som bliver sagt. De vil undersøge argumenterne. Hænger logikken sammen? Stemmer dette billede overens med, hvad andre siger, ser, hører, beretter? Den engagerede vil kigge efter alternative kilder.
Vi skal lære at tænke
Den demokratiske proces begynder allerede i familien, dernæst i skolen. Måske ikke alle familier kan kultivere en kritisk tænkning. Jeg kommer selv fra et hjem, hvor der kun var få bøger, og hvor ingen kendte til forskellen mellem en klaver og et piano. Men skolen kan. Eller sagt mere moraliserende: Den skal.
Hvorfor skulle jeg betale skat og sende min børn i skole, hvis den ikke kan lære noget af det mest basale, men også det allermest vigtige: at tænke. Filosoffen Hannah Arendt påpegede at ondskabens største problem er, at folk ikke tænker. Hermed mener jeg, at de ikke stiller spørgsmål, undrer sig, reflektere, undersøger.
Filosofi burde være på skoleskemaet fra første klasse og ikke noget, der introduceres for de privilegerede få, der eventuelt skal læse videre. Filosofi skal ind med alfabetet, hvis ikke vi ønsker at skabe en akademisk elite, der måske nok er forfærdeligt klog, men som ikke besidder empati nok til at forestille sig, hvorfor andre kan stemme, gøre, sige, mene, føle noget andet, end den selv gør. Ignorance eller uvidenhed har altid været uacceptabelt i filosofien.
Filosoffen er den, der ønsker at forstå, fordi han eller hun ved, at der er meget, som vedkommende endnu ikke ved. I denne erkendelse ligger selvindsigten, som minimerer risikoen for selvbedrag. Sagt anderledes: Hvis du tror på alt, hvad du læser, så er det ikke Facebooks eller Informations skyld, men din egen. Tænk dig om.
Og hvis dette er svært, så bliver det at tænke et fælles anliggende.
Denne kommentar blev bragt i Information den 25. februar 2017.
FINN JANNING 