speaking of likes and dislikes

Speaking of likes and dislikes, I think that the best model of philosophical engagement would not be a neutrally distant critique, whether of the sneering or politely aloof variety.

What I really want to hear from a commentator is this: which aspects of the text commented upon do they most passionately enjoy and detest? This is one reason I’ve always loved Badiou’s book on Deleuze (in fact, it is my favorite Badiou text, and always has been). Badiou comes and lays his cards right on the table, telling us what he likes and dislikes about Deleuze, and how he thinks it differs from his own position. Nice job.

Preparing for this Maastricht lecture makes me think that I’ll soon be doing the same thing for Leibniz’s Monadology. What I’ve found while preparing this lecture is that there are 5 principles in the Monadology that I really love and also think are true– for us in 2009, not in a detached scholarly sense of “interesting.” And there are about 5 principles that I think are both false and damaging for philosophy in 2009. Then there are about 3 other principles toward which I am somewhat neutral as to outcome, though still fascinated by them.

Whenever writing a philosophy piece, it is always best to follow the waves of your likes and dislikes. Be sincere. Don’t try to adopt an artificial stance and behave in the manner that a philosophical writer should behave. Instead, if there is one paradox or thorny problem in a text on which you spend most of your time, then by God, that ought to be the center of your article or lecture. Don’t say or write things that you don’t really care about. Follow this simple directive, and your writing will breathe an air of impeccable authenticity that one too rarely finds in written work.

And speaking of authenticity, that’s one Heideggerian idea about which we need to hear more rather than less. (Ortega y Gasset does more with it than Heidegger does, however.)