- Am I dying, or is this my birthday?
- Who: Lady Nancy Astor
- Note: In her final illness, she awoke on her deathbed to see her family at her bedside.
- mè mou tous kuklous taratte (Μη μου τους κύκλους τάραττε)
- Translation: Don't disturb my circles!
- Alternate: Don't disturb my equation.
- Who: Archimedes
- Note: In response to a Roman soldier who was forcing him to report to the Roman general after the capture of Syracuse, while he was busy sitting on the ground proving geometry theorems. The soldier killed him, despite specific instructions not to.
- I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis.
- Who: Humphrey Bogart
- I haven't had champagne for a long time.
- Who: Anton Chekhov, playwright, 1904. A sanitarium nurse gave him champagne to ease his death from tuberculosis.
- I have tried so hard to do right.
- Who: Grover Cleveland, US President, died 1908.
- Suppose, suppose.
- Who: Wyatt Earp
- Note: Whispered to his wife.
- She is squeezing my hand!
- Who: Buckminster Fuller
- Note: In the period leading up to his death, his wife had been lying comatose in a Los Angeles hospital, dying of cancer. It was while visiting her there that he exclaimed, at a certain point: "She is squeezing my hand!" He then stood up, suffered a heart attack and died an hour later. His wife died 36 hours after he did.
- Only you have ever understood me. … And you got it wrong..
- Who: Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, to his favorite student.
- All is lost! Monks, Monks, Monks! So, now all is gone - Empire, Body, and Soul!.
- Who: Henry VIII
- Tvert imot!
- Translation: On the contrary!
- Who: Henrik Ibsen
- context: This was his response to a nurse who told a visitor he was a little better.
- I should have drunk more Champagne.
- Who: John-Maynard Keynes
- I have not told half of what I saw.
- Marco Polo, Venetian traveller and writer
- Dying is easy, comedy is hard
- Who: George Bernard Shaw
- Note: Said on his death bed.
- Moose … Indian.
- Who: Henry David Thoreau
- Note: These words he had said in a delirium before expiring. When urged earlier to make his peace with God his last coherent response was, "I did not know that we had ever quarreled."
- Who: Henry David Thoreau
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Last Words
You already know this - but I love some of the things famous people have said right before dying. Wanted to put down my fav's here for the record:
Monday, April 12, 2010
found this quote the other day -
"The following winter was spent on schemes of social betterment. Agricola had to deal with people living in isolation and ignorance, and therefore prone to fight; and his object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave private encouragement and official assistance to the building of temples, public squares, and good houses. He praised the energetic and scolded the slack; and competition for honour proved as effective as compulsion. Furthermore, he educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared with the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptations of arcades, baths, and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement."
- Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 - AD 117) from The Agricola and the Germania trans. Mattingly, Penguin. 72 - 73, emphasis mine.
thought provoking/scary on several levels:
1) In what ways, like the Britons, am I duped by the trappings of empire? and at what cost?
2) Tacitus wrote this. Cultural colonialism is apparantly not a new post-colonial-studies idea, nor are the strategies and effects of Imperialism.
3) All things considered, was there actually net loss for the peoples of Britain? As contra to all the impulses i was taught to have from my liberal education - I am somewhat open to the idea that empire isn't such a bad thing, as long as it lets its people live relatively freely. Tacitus on the other hand, seems to not be so hopeful:
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
trans: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
yikes.
- Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 - AD 117) from The Agricola and the Germania trans. Mattingly, Penguin. 72 - 73, emphasis mine.
thought provoking/scary on several levels:
1) In what ways, like the Britons, am I duped by the trappings of empire? and at what cost?
2) Tacitus wrote this. Cultural colonialism is apparantly not a new post-colonial-studies idea, nor are the strategies and effects of Imperialism.
3) All things considered, was there actually net loss for the peoples of Britain? As contra to all the impulses i was taught to have from my liberal education - I am somewhat open to the idea that empire isn't such a bad thing, as long as it lets its people live relatively freely. Tacitus on the other hand, seems to not be so hopeful:
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
trans: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
yikes.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
A Helpful Preface
So - I have conceptualized my time here (in Martinique) as a sort of luxury mini version of the Chateau D'If from the Count of Monte Cristo. Only with regards to the tutelage the protagonist receives from the elderly priest - transforming him in to an educated gentlemen, of course, not in regards to the sadistic prison warden.
What i mean is - I am taking the time to go back and get 'educated' by reading some classic texts I never actually ploughed through in college, but whose ideas i have supposedly been debating for a couple years now. Beginning with Plato, i have been working my way present-ward on the question of Metaphysics. Having taken a couple large leaps through history, I am now hacking my way through Heidegger.
Anyways, the reason for the post is this:
About half-way through a liberal-arts education these days, one inevitably comes up face to face with 20th century continental philosophy. Like most people, I have spent several years swinging back and forth between awe and disgust at the obtuse and bizarre nature of the texts that have emerged from this tradition. Is it the most genius ideas ever written? or, like the Emperor in his new clothes, does everyone praise them when in reality there is nothing there to be taken seriously? I have gone back and forth.
But regardless of however i may or may not weight the importance of the ideas throughout the seasons, one opinion has never changed, and that is the horror at the degree of obfuscation present in them.
Sometimes, like Chomsky, I am prone to dismiss such writings out of hand on this fact alone, but, I came across this passage in Heidegger (taken from Being and Time) the other day, that I think should be a prefatory note printed before any and all texts written in this continental tradition:
"With regard to the awkwardness and 'inelegance' of expression in the following analyses we may remark that it is one thing to report narratively about beings and another to grasp beings in their Being. For the latter task not only most of the words are lacking but above all the 'grammar'. If we may allude to earlier and in their own right altogether incomparable researches on the analysis of Being, then we should compare the ontological sections of Plato's Parmenides...with a narrative passage from Thucydides. Then we would see the stunning character of the formulations by which their philosophers challenged the Greeks. Since our powers are essentially inferior, and also since the area of Being to be disclosed ontologically is far more difficult than that presented to the Greeks, the complexity of our concept-formation and the severity of our expression will increase."
now, this does not entirely vindicate or ground this sort of writing, taken from the Introduction to 'Being and Time':
"Thus it is constitutive of this Being of Dasein [being-there] to have, in its very Being, a relation of Being to this Being."
But it does offer a valid reason for a possible necessity of such difficult language.
Now, that said, I also think there is a difference between a man like Heidegger muscling through the most fundamentally challenging questions of existence using language he fought to be able to wield for decades, and who possessed a rare brilliance of mind that was able to contain such magnitudes (I would also put Derrida, [Rorty is with me on this - 3rd paragraph. also, an awesome wiki article] and a very small handful of others in this category of greatness), and some Univeristy of Colorado professor who just slings bullshit po-mo terms around to make his thesis sound "cool". The latter I have no space for - if simple language can be used: Use it. If the topic is SO complex and nuanced, that massively difficult language is absolutlely necessary - well then, you better be brilliant. Which, I am finding out, Heidegger was.
So,Textbook editors for continental texts: please include this Heidegger quote as a preface in your books in the future.
also - the fact that no one pointed this out to me when i first started questioning such texts, affirms my suspicion that many of the people who throw such names and ideas around willy-nilly don't actually know what they are talking about. Otherwise, when I expressed my confusion, they could have given me this straight forward explanation that would have invariably helped me on my quest to try and understand what all this mess is about.
What i mean is - I am taking the time to go back and get 'educated' by reading some classic texts I never actually ploughed through in college, but whose ideas i have supposedly been debating for a couple years now. Beginning with Plato, i have been working my way present-ward on the question of Metaphysics. Having taken a couple large leaps through history, I am now hacking my way through Heidegger.
Anyways, the reason for the post is this:
About half-way through a liberal-arts education these days, one inevitably comes up face to face with 20th century continental philosophy. Like most people, I have spent several years swinging back and forth between awe and disgust at the obtuse and bizarre nature of the texts that have emerged from this tradition. Is it the most genius ideas ever written? or, like the Emperor in his new clothes, does everyone praise them when in reality there is nothing there to be taken seriously? I have gone back and forth.
But regardless of however i may or may not weight the importance of the ideas throughout the seasons, one opinion has never changed, and that is the horror at the degree of obfuscation present in them.
Sometimes, like Chomsky, I am prone to dismiss such writings out of hand on this fact alone, but, I came across this passage in Heidegger (taken from Being and Time) the other day, that I think should be a prefatory note printed before any and all texts written in this continental tradition:
"With regard to the awkwardness and 'inelegance' of expression in the following analyses we may remark that it is one thing to report narratively about beings and another to grasp beings in their Being. For the latter task not only most of the words are lacking but above all the 'grammar'. If we may allude to earlier and in their own right altogether incomparable researches on the analysis of Being, then we should compare the ontological sections of Plato's Parmenides...with a narrative passage from Thucydides. Then we would see the stunning character of the formulations by which their philosophers challenged the Greeks. Since our powers are essentially inferior, and also since the area of Being to be disclosed ontologically is far more difficult than that presented to the Greeks, the complexity of our concept-formation and the severity of our expression will increase."
now, this does not entirely vindicate or ground this sort of writing, taken from the Introduction to 'Being and Time':
"Thus it is constitutive of this Being of Dasein [being-there] to have, in its very Being, a relation of Being to this Being."
But it does offer a valid reason for a possible necessity of such difficult language.
Now, that said, I also think there is a difference between a man like Heidegger muscling through the most fundamentally challenging questions of existence using language he fought to be able to wield for decades, and who possessed a rare brilliance of mind that was able to contain such magnitudes (I would also put Derrida, [Rorty is with me on this - 3rd paragraph. also, an awesome wiki article] and a very small handful of others in this category of greatness), and some Univeristy of Colorado professor who just slings bullshit po-mo terms around to make his thesis sound "cool". The latter I have no space for - if simple language can be used: Use it. If the topic is SO complex and nuanced, that massively difficult language is absolutlely necessary - well then, you better be brilliant. Which, I am finding out, Heidegger was.
So,Textbook editors for continental texts: please include this Heidegger quote as a preface in your books in the future.
also - the fact that no one pointed this out to me when i first started questioning such texts, affirms my suspicion that many of the people who throw such names and ideas around willy-nilly don't actually know what they are talking about. Otherwise, when I expressed my confusion, they could have given me this straight forward explanation that would have invariably helped me on my quest to try and understand what all this mess is about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
