Constantin Brunner
You won't find many people who have so much as heard of Constantin Brunner, let alone have read anything by him. I was reminded of him today when Barrett Pashak applied to comment at this weblog. Mr. Pashak, with whom I corresponded briefly a year or so ago, operates a website devoted to Brunner. If you click on the link you can read how Pashak found his way to Brunner and what Brunner means to him. Follow the internal links and learn about Brunner and his work.
I did some serious study of Brunner in 2002 and 2004 but have yet to write any essays or posts on him. Now is perhaps the time. Just give me a moment, or an hour, to dig through my voluminous journals and notebooks.
Posted by William F. Vallicella on
Friday October 14, 2005 at 12:39pm
I am glad you checked in. I had been thinking about you and how I had an empty category, Constantin Brunner Notes, on my sidebar. Brunner is quite fascinating, though I must say that I strongly disagree with a lot of what he says.
But to ignore a philosopher as serious and systematic as Brunner is unconscionable. Of course, it has to do (in part) with the fact that he never had a teaching post. Another factor is his sometimes embittered style and his disrespectful attitude toward Kant. That won't make one many friends among German-language philosophers. Plus, he was out of step with the times, a philosophical Einzelgaenger.
I'll try to post something on Brunner, and you and others can respond. My knowledge of Brunner is limited, however, so what I will be posting will be tentative and exploratory.
By the way, what did you think of Ralph Dumain's Autodidact Project?
I have corresponded with Ralph Dumain and I like his project. He doesn't much fancy Brunner, though.
And talking about Brunner being bitter and out of step with his times, he called the Holocaust in 1921 (see Our Christ, p. 387-388).
Have you ever made remarks on "The Autodidact Project" or Mr. Dumain here at your blog? I would be interested in your opinion. Perhaps I missed it. It is a site I have stumbled into and perused with interest on several occasions over the past few years.
You have to give Mr. Dumain credit, if for nothing else, as being right at the top of the list on a "autodidact" Google search.
Is being at the top of the Google pile the best you can say about Dumain?
But to answer your question, no, I haven't commented here or elsewhere on Dumain's website. I'll take another look at it. But I hesitate to comment since the man's some kind of leftist and I am coming more and more to the conclusion that debates with people with radically different fundamental premises is a waste of time. Fruitful discussion presupposes a core of common assumptions against the backdrop of which one can perhaps make some progress toward resolving specific well-defined problems.
But people should form their own conclusion. Scroll up to find the link to Dumain's site.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.