dialogues on forest paths

Gratton (like many) agrees with my remarks about Heidegger’s Contributions, and then goes on to say this about some of his late dialogues:

“I was just thinking about this, strangely, after reading some of Heidegger’s 44-5 ‘dialogue’ (published in German in 1995) among a scientist, a walker of wooded paths, and a philosopher. This ‘dialogue’ goes on for quite a long stretch of pages (some 150 if I remember), and I saw that it’s being translated into English. I just remember thinking, if there was one text I would swear was taking Heidegger’s greatest hits, putting them together, and then leading us to wonder after the profundity of the peasant walker just to make a few more bucks for the Gesamtausgabe, this would be it.”

There’s also the one between German POW’s in Russia. All of which have inspired me to plan, for the very near future, a “Dialogue on a Forest Path Between a Dragon, a Snake, and a Puppy.” (Though the snake just hisses, so it’s really the dragon and the puppy who do all the philosophizing.)

The point has often been made that, once someone perfects a certain genre or subject matter, then there’s little point trying it again. Anyone now attempting a long poem about hell, purgatory, and paradise would be in for a tough time, for instance. Nor would it make much sense to try yet another long novel about a whale hunt or a Mississippi River raft ride. All of these things have been done most adequately already.

Well, philosophy faces a similar challenge when it comes to the medium of dialogues. The first philosopher in the West to use dialogues was not only the best at it, but so exceedingly good that it’s usually not even worth trying to emulate him. Most other attempts at philosophy dialogues have been unspeakably wooden. The problem usually seems to be that people think it’s already a good dialogue if you just put together 2 or 3 characters who happen to have disagreements about philosophical issues and then have them talk about it. But you don’t really need a dialogue format for that. You can just write an essay of several sections, each exploring another possible point of view on your topic.

The only other philosophical author in the West whom I would call a genuine master of the dialogue form is Giordano Bruno. But this is the exception that proves the rule, since he is able to pull it off only by something like a comical undermining of the dialogue form itself.

Hume is a fine writer, but I’m not a great fan of his use of the dialogue format. And Heidegger really doesn’t do a good job with the medium at all.