{"id":2189,"date":"2013-05-24T12:35:17","date_gmt":"2013-05-24T12:35:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=2189"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:55","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:55","slug":"review-of-discovering-the-mind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2013\/05\/review-of-discovering-the-mind\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ‘Discovering the Mind’"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here at the site we are engaged in a very special kind of research, which could perhaps be called psycho-biography, i.e. trying to find some unity between a person\u2019s cognition and a person\u2019s life. The genre is by no means a new one, but what distinguishes it is that there is so much bad material out there and only a select few titles that really stand out (a good one being, for example, Personality, Character, and Leadership in the White House<\/i><\/a>).<\/p>\n

As so much of the material in this genre is of rather poor quality, we were thrilled to discover that the Princeton professor of philosophy Walter Kaufmann, who is widely known for his Nietzsche translations, had crafted a three-volume work in this genre called Discovering the Mind<\/em>. We devoured the 1,100-something pages, and integrated a great deal of Kaufmann\u2019s research into our site, but the work was not without problems, as detailed below where we dig into all three volumes of Discovering the Mind<\/em>: Volume 1: Goethe, Kant, and Hegel, Volume 2: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Buber, <\/i>and Volume 3: Freud, Adler, and Jung.<\/i><\/p>\n

Volume 1: Goethe, Kant, and Hegel<\/b><\/p>\n

What immediately strikes the reader is that this work is not so much about Kaufmann\u2019s interpretations of the philosophy of Goethe, Kant, or Hegel, but more of a gossipy biography. This is somewhat unexpected, as Kaufmann was a professor of philosophy<\/i> at Princeton University. Kaufmann also states in Volume 3 of this series that he is against gossip-as-method. But is he really?<\/p>\n

\"k2avcwce\"<\/a>From the outline of the work it would appear that Kaufmann thinks Discovering the Mind<\/i> is going to elucidate a sort of applied philosophy that will show us how we humans discovered ourselves in modern times. However, the work can at best be read as a biography or a study in lifestyle, as it contains little criticism of the actual thoughts and doctrines of the thinkers that are examined.<\/p>\n

In volume 1, Goethe is cast as a super genius, but the reader isn\u2019t really treated to any substantial things that Goethe actually contributed which might merit the high praise. And Goethe\u2019s completely clueless theory of colors is glossed over with a dash of the hand: \u201cGoethe or Newton \u2013 it doesn\u2019t matter who was right about colors,\u201d we are told.<\/p>\n

At the same time, we get from Kaufmann a mild resistance to the use of mathematics in natural philosophy. Newton is cast as a villain who separated the living (nature) from the lived (human understanding). This may be a fair point, but Kaufmann never has the guts to spell out his disagreement in full force \u2013 he just hints at it here and there. And of course Kaufmann doesn\u2019t answer the question of how humanity was ever going to get to the moon if we had stayed with Goethe\u2019s literary-aesthetic conception of science rather than adopting the Newtonian approach as we did.<\/p>\n

Kaufmann appears to feel that the way Goethe lived his life was a contribution in itself \u2013 a contribution that exceeded the actual, factual contributions of Newton. Well, okay \u2013 but how are we going to cure polio or eradicate malaria with Goethe\u2019s poetry-science?<\/p>\n

As Goethe is the hero, it follows with some predictability that Kant is the villain. Kant-the-man is psychologized (rather than Kant\u2019s thoughts being analyzed) and Kant is diagnosed as a compulsive personality that is unable to enjoy life. It is hinted by Kaufmann that Kant would be Freud\u2019s overcompensating anal type. As such, Kant is repeatedly faulted by Kaufmann for his lack of spontaneity and vitality in his own life and for his lack of eloquence in writing.<\/p>\n

By now it will probably be obvious that Kaufmann is using his own personal sentiments, rather than any impartial standard, to evaluate the thinkers that he examines in these volumes. It will come as little surprise, then, to see that while Hegel is shown to have had the exact same faults of style that Kant had, Hegel is nonchalantly excused from the heap of blame that befalls Kant. Hegel was a genius<\/i>, we are told, and the fact that he was a bad writer is not enough for us to dismiss him. So we see that what is an unforgivable crime in the case of someone that Kaufmann doesn\u2019t like (Kant) is but an excusable occurrence when Kaufmann happens to like the thinker (Hegel).<\/p>\n

So we arrive at a major weakness of this work: What governs the judgment of a thinker is not so much what that thinker said or wrote, but Kaufmann\u2019s personal feelings <\/i>with regards to that thinker. Naturally, this gets more than a little irritating in the course of the 1,100-something pages that constitute the three volumes of Discovering the Mind<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Doubly ironic, Kaufmann says in volume 3 that he does not like to base his inquiries into certain thinkers on gossip (he is speaking specifically of Paul Roazen\u2019s attempts to capture and document anecdotes about Freud from the people who knew him while such first-hand testimonies were still available \u2013 Freud is Kaufmann\u2019s hero, and he doesn\u2019t want Freud soiled by such gossip, we are to understand). Yet in the case of Hegel, Kaufmann readily indulges in psychologizing interpretations about what Hegel wrote on the relation between brother and sister in his philosophy. In Hegel\u2019s philosophy the relation between brother and sister is not merely an example of opposites being secretly part of each other<\/a>, as would be the normal understanding of his work. Oh no, in Kaufmann\u2019s view, Hegel\u2019s thought on the relation between brother and sister has to do with the fact that Hegel was secretly attracted to his own sister and Kaufmann jumps to enforce his interpretation with anecdotal evidence about Hegel liking his sister. Now this interpretation may well be true<\/i>, but with regards to Kaufmann\u2019s stated methodology there is only to say: So much for not liking gossip!<\/p>\n

Finally, some nitpicking with regards to the first volume:<\/p>\n