Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Towards a Polemical Ethics: Between Heidegger and Plato

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - Philosophy

View more figures from Boston College

View the page of Gregory Fried

Read the Study

Gregory Fried provides a novel way of understanding politics and ethical life he calls a polemical ethics, which mediates between finitude and transcendence by engaging in constructive confrontation with both traditions and other persons.

Image courtesy of interviewee. August 26, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video outlines a philosophical exploration by the author, who introduces a new book intended to serve as a precursor to future in-depth discussions about politics and ethics. It emphasizes the relationship between Plato and Heidegger. The author critiques Heidegger's view that Plato set Western philosophy on a misguided path, arguing instead that Plato's dialogues, which are inherently social and historical, illustrate a profound understanding of the human condition. The author believes that the essence of being human involves a dialectic between our rootedness in a historical context and our ability to transcend it.

This video then shifts to the author's intent for future research, which focuses on examining the inherent contradictions of American ideals, notably the notion of equality amid historical realities like racism and slavery. The author plans to engage in dialogue with figures such as Frederick Douglass, highlighting the cyclical process of interpretation and reinterpretation that enriches understanding and embodies what the author describes as a "polemical ethic." This video approach invites ongoing discourse about human existence, societal values, and the pursuit of ideals in the face of historical challenges.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.075 --> 00:04.085
This book is meant to be a prelude to a more detailed

00:05.485 --> 00:08.325
examination of the politics that I'm interested

00:08.945 --> 00:09.965
in developing

00:10.945 --> 00:15.125
and as well as the ethical stance that I want to defend.

00:15.625 --> 00:19.485
Uh, so this is really at

00:19.565 --> 00:22.445
what I've called in this book at the meta ethical level.

00:22.595 --> 00:26.805
It's a, it's a deeper justification from the perspective

00:27.465 --> 00:30.805
of the history of philosophy and broad fields

00:30.825 --> 00:35.445
and philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, as well

00:35.445 --> 00:40.365
as ethics and political philosophy to set the stage for

00:40.365 --> 00:42.085
what I would like to be doing next.

00:42.815 --> 00:44.525
These are questions

00:44.625 --> 00:46.605
and figures that I've been working on

00:46.985 --> 00:48.965
for well over 30 years.

00:49.705 --> 00:53.325
Uh, the first book I read in philosophy when I was a

00:53.645 --> 00:56.205
teenager was Plato's Republic, so

00:56.205 --> 00:58.045
that's even more than 30 years.

00:58.785 --> 01:03.285
And Plato's Republic is a major focus of this book.

01:04.305 --> 01:08.045
And I started working on Heiddeger,

01:08.105 --> 01:12.085
35 years ago as a figure

01:12.265 --> 01:17.045
who presents to my mind one of the most important

01:17.685 --> 01:21.925
critiques of the Western tradition that I want to confront.

01:22.505 --> 01:25.565
And so in this book, I'm bringing two

01:25.565 --> 01:28.165
of my longstanding interests, Plato

01:28.185 --> 01:32.045
and Heiddeger into confrontation with one another

01:33.215 --> 01:34.915
for Heiddeger.

01:35.205 --> 01:39.595
Plato is a figure who set western philosophy

01:40.695 --> 01:43.115
as well as the attendant politics

01:43.135 --> 01:47.235
and ethics off on the wrong track in Western history.

01:48.095 --> 01:52.835
And I am interested in both taking that critique,

01:53.335 --> 01:54.435
not only of Plato,

01:54.455 --> 01:58.875
but the whole subsequent history of philosophy and politics

01:58.875 --> 02:03.035
and ethics, seriously taking that seriously,

02:03.095 --> 02:05.875
but also defending my interpretation

02:06.375 --> 02:08.315
of Plato against Heidinger

02:08.855 --> 02:13.395
and doing what the hegelians would call an abo of Heidinger

02:13.425 --> 02:16.035
that is taking his critique

02:17.535 --> 02:19.635
philosophically seriously,

02:21.135 --> 02:26.125
but also not simply,

02:26.365 --> 02:27.645
capitulating to it,

02:28.105 --> 02:32.165
but rather drawing from it to enlarge the conversation.

02:33.145 --> 02:36.525
So really this is a confrontation of Plato

02:36.665 --> 02:40.365
and Heider that resolves in Plato's favor.

02:41.145 --> 02:45.485
But by drawing upon the kind of questions

02:45.485 --> 02:49.325
that Heider is asking Plato to answer as I see it,

02:49.555 --> 02:52.885
that is one that I draw from Heiddeger

02:53.345 --> 02:55.845
and want to put into play with Plato.

02:56.595 --> 03:00.825
Heiddeger doesn't explicitly use the term in the way I'm

03:00.825 --> 03:05.745
doing now, but what I mean by it is that to be human

03:06.285 --> 03:09.185
is to be situated in a body

03:09.455 --> 03:12.265
that is one's own in a historical time

03:12.405 --> 03:14.225
and culture and language.

03:14.845 --> 03:18.385
We don't exist as disembodied

03:18.935 --> 03:19.945
thought beings.

03:20.125 --> 03:24.545
We exist as the individuals who we are as

03:25.095 --> 03:28.185
part of a rich community

03:28.415 --> 03:31.185
that has a deep history in all circumstances.

03:31.365 --> 03:34.225
So in that sense, we are all situated.

03:34.455 --> 03:38.625
That is where we begin with our understanding of the world.

03:39.955 --> 03:42.695
We can examine it, we can transcend it,

03:43.235 --> 03:45.175
but we always have to come back to it

03:45.485 --> 03:49.415
because we are tied to our embodiment

03:50.035 --> 03:52.495
and to the world that our embodiment brings with it.

03:53.155 --> 03:57.935
For me, the that is really the core

03:58.235 --> 04:02.175
of the confrontation between Plato and Heiddeger.

04:03.455 --> 04:08.295
Heider's argument against Plato is that he effectively

04:08.815 --> 04:12.535
abandons the understanding of what it means to be human

04:13.275 --> 04:15.575
as a situated historical being.

04:16.555 --> 04:20.495
For Heiddeger, all that we are is our situatedness.

04:21.075 --> 04:24.775
Our way of understanding the world is entirely grounded

04:25.755 --> 04:29.175
in the historicity into which to use his language.

04:29.175 --> 04:33.695
We are thrown and Plato, according

04:33.695 --> 04:38.255
to Heiddeger constructs, this world of eternal ideas

04:39.005 --> 04:42.935
that exist in a timeless zone

04:43.405 --> 04:46.825
that we can find access to

04:46.825 --> 04:48.785
through philosophical reflection.

04:49.245 --> 04:51.585
And that that's what truly exists.

04:52.165 --> 04:56.225
What's truest about us is our ability to leave

04:56.365 --> 05:00.865
behind everything that is situated by a, situated in us

05:01.445 --> 05:05.425
and achieve this kind of pure abstraction in the realm

05:05.425 --> 05:08.745
of the ideas that are eternal changeless,

05:09.525 --> 05:10.945
and transcendent.

05:12.165 --> 05:15.185
And for heiddeger that entirely destroys

05:15.185 --> 05:16.625
what it means to be human.

05:17.815 --> 05:21.315
But my argument is that Plato, in fact,

05:21.875 --> 05:23.715
entirely understands this point,

05:24.375 --> 05:28.035
and that is why all of his dialogues are dialogues.

05:28.035 --> 05:31.435
They're dialogues between human beings.

05:31.825 --> 05:36.075
They are dramatic literary productions that show

05:36.845 --> 05:40.755
human beings in their context struggling with

05:41.345 --> 05:44.155
very important questions about what it means to be human.

05:45.395 --> 05:48.495
And my argument is that yes,

05:49.585 --> 05:52.605
we always begin as human as situated.

05:53.555 --> 05:55.685
That is the human condition.

05:56.465 --> 06:00.045
But if we cannot transcend our situatedness,

06:00.735 --> 06:04.125
there is no way to break free from

06:05.395 --> 06:09.095
the limitations and confines of our present understanding.

06:09.875 --> 06:13.535
But we all have experienced that breaking free

06:14.275 --> 06:18.175
at some time in our lives, and we break free.

06:19.155 --> 06:20.885
We turn around

06:21.065 --> 06:24.205
and examine the world that we have been in hither to,

06:24.985 --> 06:28.725
and we reconstitute it in the light of something

06:28.875 --> 06:32.245
that broke us out of it, and we return to it

06:33.065 --> 06:34.445
and make new sense of it.

06:35.025 --> 06:38.645
And that process of being situated,

06:39.085 --> 06:42.365
embedded in a living world, having occasion

06:42.905 --> 06:46.485
to break away from it and then return to it

06:46.505 --> 06:48.685
and reconstitute it, is

06:48.875 --> 06:52.885
what I think Plato understood about the human condition.

06:53.785 --> 06:57.525
And what heidinger misses is that the capacity

06:57.585 --> 07:01.525
for transcendence as well as the reality

07:01.545 --> 07:05.805
of our embeddedness, our situatedness, the confrontation

07:05.805 --> 07:09.005
between those two is what most properly makes us human.

07:10.225 --> 07:14.325
And in my argument, Plato in fact

07:14.935 --> 07:18.845
gives us an access to that way of being human

07:19.475 --> 07:21.165
that is deeper

07:22.265 --> 07:25.565
and capable of responding to heider's radical critique.

07:26.065 --> 07:30.125
We are rooted in a, a world that we are born into.

07:30.265 --> 07:33.765
We did not choose to have the world that we have.

07:33.905 --> 07:37.565
We do not choose to have the understandings

07:37.565 --> 07:41.965
that we grow up in as children and so on.

07:42.585 --> 07:46.165
To be human is to be enmeshed in a world

07:46.305 --> 07:50.365
of meanings about everything that is meaningful

07:50.425 --> 07:54.925
to us from the most trivial things to the most grand

07:55.225 --> 07:56.525
or grandiose ones.

07:57.305 --> 07:59.125
We do not choose that.

08:00.705 --> 08:04.405
So we are always rooted in a historicity

08:05.105 --> 08:06.345
of our being human.

08:07.485 --> 08:10.225
But my argument is that

08:10.745 --> 08:13.585
although that rootedness is profound

08:14.965 --> 08:19.655
and often blinds us

08:19.955 --> 08:23.535
to what might be beyond the world as we see it,

08:23.875 --> 08:27.375
we are capable of breaking free.

08:29.095 --> 08:32.515
But if you entirely destroy our rootedness, you,

08:32.735 --> 08:35.715
you destroy also what it means to be human so

08:35.715 --> 08:38.835
that there's a dialectic between our rootedness

08:38.975 --> 08:42.395
and our departures from our rootedness that

08:43.055 --> 08:47.065
if done correctly, ever expands the horizons

08:47.285 --> 08:48.625
of our understandings

08:48.645 --> 08:52.385
and makes us open to fresher questions

08:52.895 --> 08:56.405
that go on to challenge what it means to be human

08:56.945 --> 08:58.605
in our rooted existence.

08:58.915 --> 09:01.645
Well, it is what I call the polemical ethics

09:01.985 --> 09:05.885
or polemical ethic, as what it means to be human,

09:06.065 --> 09:10.925
to engage in this cycle of interpretation

09:11.185 --> 09:14.045
and reinterpretation being open

09:14.585 --> 09:17.325
to the inconsistencies of the meaning

09:17.345 --> 09:19.645
of the world in which we are embedded.

09:20.465 --> 09:22.245
And not to see those as a threat,

09:22.505 --> 09:26.325
but as an invitation to a broader

09:26.505 --> 09:29.765
and deeper understanding of the world so that we

09:30.695 --> 09:34.645
force ourselves to reintegrate those things

09:34.715 --> 09:35.925
that stand out

09:35.985 --> 09:40.765
and don't make sense into a larger understanding with

09:41.465 --> 09:44.045
the understanding also that that is a process

09:44.635 --> 09:46.405
that never should end.

09:47.225 --> 09:50.845
We should welcome it rather than being afraid of it

09:50.845 --> 09:53.685
because it's what enriches the experience

09:54.265 --> 09:57.885
of a thoughtful life, as well as an engaged life

09:58.035 --> 10:00.325
with the community in which we belong.

10:01.165 --> 10:04.565
However, we construe that to be my future.

10:04.965 --> 10:08.835
Research takes a, a bold departure from the book

10:08.835 --> 10:10.555
that I've written on Heidinger

10:10.935 --> 10:14.235
and Plato to examine my own

10:15.195 --> 10:16.875
situatedness as an American.

10:18.955 --> 10:22.925
America itself is grounded in a profound

10:23.315 --> 10:27.445
contradiction between the stated ideals

10:27.445 --> 10:30.245
of its founding, that all men are created equal,

10:30.665 --> 10:34.805
and the historical reality of slavery, racism,

10:35.925 --> 10:37.605
colonialism, genocide.

10:38.785 --> 10:43.015
And if I'm to be true to the polemical ethic

10:43.245 --> 10:47.735
that I've advocated, I as an American need

10:47.995 --> 10:50.375
to confront that and try to make sense of it.

10:51.795 --> 10:55.955
And I am doing that in a philosophical conversation

10:56.105 --> 11:00.315
with a figure, who I think is a,

11:00.955 --> 11:03.235
a profound thinker in the American tradition.

11:03.235 --> 11:04.795
And that's the abolitionist

11:04.795 --> 11:09.475
and civil rights, actor Frederick Douglass.

11:09.935 --> 11:11.075
And if I can just read

11:11.095 --> 11:13.915
to you one quote from Frederick Douglass,

11:14.405 --> 11:17.075
which is in the conclusion to this book

11:17.095 --> 11:18.595
and leads into the next one.

11:18.635 --> 11:21.515
Douglass. Douglass gave a lecture

11:22.855 --> 11:27.475
in the 1860s during the American Civil War called Pictures

11:27.615 --> 11:31.995
and Progress on Photography and the Human Condition.

11:33.015 --> 11:35.355
And it's an extraordinary talk.

11:35.735 --> 11:39.235
And in that talk, he says, poets, prophets

11:39.295 --> 11:42.395
and reformers are all picture makers.

11:43.055 --> 11:45.435
And this ability is the secret

11:45.575 --> 11:47.795
of their power and achievement.

11:48.745 --> 11:52.875
They see what ought to be by the reflection of

11:52.965 --> 11:56.725
What is and endeavor to remove the difference.

11:58.115 --> 12:00.055
And to me, that is a kind

12:00.055 --> 12:04.655
of archetypical platonic statement to

12:05.395 --> 12:08.815
see in the idea or the ideal what ought to be,

12:09.395 --> 12:13.175
but also not to be blind to one's embedded,

12:13.855 --> 12:17.735
situated reality, but to have the courage

12:17.795 --> 12:21.735
and the commitment to try to, as he says,

12:22.035 --> 12:24.535
remove the difference in the contradiction

12:25.125 --> 12:27.215
between the real and the ideal.

12:28.525 --> 12:32.825
And so I am looking at not only his own

12:33.365 --> 12:37.865
career, but placing him into philosophical dialogue

12:38.495 --> 12:42.945
with other figures in the philosophical tradition, both past

12:43.085 --> 12:43.625
and present.

00:00 - This book is meant to be a prelude to a more detailed examination of the politics that I'm interested in developing and as well as the ethical stance that I want to defend. so this is really at what I've called in this book at the meta ethical level.

00:22 - It's a, it's a deeper justification from the perspective of the history of philosophy and broad fields and philosophy, metaphysics, ontology, as well as ethics and political philosophy to set the stage for what I would like to be doing next. These are questions and figures that I've been working on for well over 30 years. the first book I read in philosophy when I was a teenager was Plato's Republic, so

00:56 - that's even more than 30 years. And Plato's Republic is a major focus of this book. And I started working on Heiddeger, 35 years ago as a figure who presents to my mind one of the most important critiques of the Western tradition that I want to confront. And so in this book, I'm bringing two of my longstanding interests, Plato and Heiddeger into confrontation with one another for Heiddeger.

01:35 - Plato is a figure who set western philosophy as well as the attendant politics and ethics off on the wrong track in Western history. And I am interested in both taking that critique, not only of Plato, but the whole subsequent history of philosophy and politics and ethics, seriously taking that seriously, but also defending my interpretation of Plato against Heidinger and doing what the hegelians would call an abo of Heidinger

02:13 - that is taking his critique philosophically seriously, but also not simply, capitulating to it, but rather drawing from it to enlarge the conversation. So really this is a confrontation of Plato and Heider that resolves in Plato's favor. But by drawing upon the kind of questions that Heider is asking Plato to answer as I see it, that is one that I draw from Heiddeger

02:53 - and want to put into play with Plato. Heiddeger doesn't explicitly use the term in the way I'm doing now, but what I mean by it is that to be human is to be situated in a body that is one's own in a historical time and culture and language. We don't exist as disembodied thought beings. We exist as the individuals who we are as part of a rich community

03:28 - that has a deep history in all circumstances. So in that sense, we are all situated. That is where we begin with our understanding of the world. We can examine it, we can transcend it, but we always have to come back to it because we are tied to our embodiment and to the world that our embodiment brings with it. For me, the that is really the core of the confrontation between Plato and Heiddeger. Heider's argument against Plato is that he effectively

04:08 - abandons the understanding of what it means to be human as a situated historical being. For Heiddeger, all that we are is our situatedness. Our way of understanding the world is entirely grounded in the historicity into which to use his language. We are thrown and Plato, according to Heiddeger constructs, this world of eternal ideas that exist in a timeless zone that we can find access to through philosophical reflection.

04:49 - And that that's what truly exists. What's truest about us is our ability to leave behind everything that is situated by a, situated in us and achieve this kind of pure abstraction in the realm of the ideas that are eternal changeless, and transcendent. And for heiddeger that entirely destroys what it means to be human. But my argument is that Plato, in fact, entirely understands this point,

05:24 - and that is why all of his dialogues are dialogues. They're dialogues between human beings. They are dramatic literary productions that show human beings in their context struggling with very important questions about what it means to be human. And my argument is that yes, we always begin as human as situated. That is the human condition. But if we cannot transcend our situatedness, there is no way to break free from

06:05 - the limitations and confines of our present understanding. But we all have experienced that breaking free at some time in our lives, and we break free. We turn around and examine the world that we have been in hither to, and we reconstitute it in the light of something that broke us out of it, and we return to it and make new sense of it. And that process of being situated, embedded in a living world, having occasion

06:42 - to break away from it and then return to it and reconstitute it, is what I think Plato understood about the human condition. And what heidinger misses is that the capacity for transcendence as well as the reality of our embeddedness, our situatedness, the confrontation between those two is what most properly makes us human. And in my argument, Plato in fact gives us an access to that way of being human that is deeper

07:22 - and capable of responding to heider's radical critique. We are rooted in a, a world that we are born into. We did not choose to have the world that we have. We do not choose to have the understandings that we grow up in as children and so on. To be human is to be enmeshed in a world of meanings about everything that is meaningful to us from the most trivial things to the most grand or grandiose ones. We do not choose that.

08:00 - So we are always rooted in a historicity of our being human. But my argument is that although that rootedness is profound and often blinds us to what might be beyond the world as we see it, we are capable of breaking free. But if you entirely destroy our rootedness, you, you destroy also what it means to be human so that there's a dialectic between our rootedness

08:38 - and our departures from our rootedness that if done correctly, ever expands the horizons of our understandings and makes us open to fresher questions that go on to challenge what it means to be human in our rooted existence. Well, it is what I call the polemical ethics or polemical ethic, as what it means to be human, to engage in this cycle of interpretation and reinterpretation being open

09:14 - to the inconsistencies of the meaning of the world in which we are embedded. And not to see those as a threat, but as an invitation to a broader and deeper understanding of the world so that we force ourselves to reintegrate those things that stand out and don't make sense into a larger understanding with the understanding also that that is a process that never should end.

09:47 - We should welcome it rather than being afraid of it because it's what enriches the experience of a thoughtful life, as well as an engaged life with the community in which we belong. However, we construe that to be my future. Research takes a, a bold departure from the book that I've written on Heidinger and Plato to examine my own situatedness as an American. America itself is grounded in a profound

10:23 - contradiction between the stated ideals of its founding, that all men are created equal, and the historical reality of slavery, racism, colonialism, genocide. And if I'm to be true to the polemical ethic that I've advocated, I as an American need to confront that and try to make sense of it. And I am doing that in a philosophical conversation with a figure, who I think is a, a profound thinker in the American tradition.

11:03 - And that's the abolitionist and civil rights, actor Frederick Douglass. And if I can just read to you one quote from Frederick Douglass, which is in the conclusion to this book and leads into the next one. Douglass. Douglass gave a lecture in the 1860s during the American Civil War called Pictures and Progress on Photography and the Human Condition. And it's an extraordinary talk.

11:35 - And in that talk, he says, poets, prophets and reformers are all picture makers. And this ability is the secret of their power and achievement. They see what ought to be by the reflection of What is and endeavor to remove the difference. And to me, that is a kind of archetypical platonic statement to see in the idea or the ideal what ought to be, but also not to be blind to one's embedded,

12:13 - situated reality, but to have the courage and the commitment to try to, as he says, remove the difference in the contradiction between the real and the ideal. And so I am looking at not only his own career, but placing him into philosophical dialogue with other figures in the philosophical tradition, both past and present.

Faculti AI can make mistakes