David Koepsell has an interesting piece at the CFI blog titled Ideas, not Idols.
A danger, of course, to making idols of intellectuals or anyone else is that once we learn more about them as persons, their very real and valuable contributions to their fields may become tinged, just like Heidegger’s work now seems iredeemably blighted by his antisemitism. How shall we confront this danger? As Arendt urged, there are incredibly valuable elements of Heidegger’s work that have changed the nature and path of modern continental philosophy. We would be foolish to ignore his contributions, and we should remain compelled by those ideas within his work that seem devoid of hateful ideology. But we would be equally foolish, in my opinion, to view the fact of these contributions apart from his personal failings, and unwise in any case to idolize anyone, be they layman, genius, or god.
It is ultimately the ideas that matter, the principles not the personas. Our heroes will always disappoint us if we dig deeply enough, because like most humans, their lives falls short of even the most modest ideals.
I don’t know. I don’t think disappointment is inevitable, if we don’t expect superhuman perfection. People can be normally human and flawed and imperfect without being Nazis or rape apologists or indeed rapists, after all. Being selfish, greedy, vain, irritable is one thing, and being sadistic, ruthless, predatory, exploitative is another. In other words some people are worse shits than others. They really are.
As students of philosophy, as members of movements, as communities sharing worldviews, we must be wary of elevating ideas by attaching them to specific personalities, no matter how strong, attractive, compelling, or even valuable to the projection of a message. When these people fall, they risk setting back the valuable ideas we explore and they espouse, undermining the progress of our philosophies in the short term.
True, but I’m always a little ambivalent about this, because I think a little bit of hero-having can be motivating and even inspiring. I don’t want to pour cold water on the whole idea. Maybe the solution is to act like the CIA or similar, and do thorough background checks on prospective heroes before giving them the job.
So, just less heroic heroes? Ok, it’s a fair cop.
Even the ideas may come under scrutiny. Just this evening I found a post by Athena Andreadis about her dissatisfaction with Dawkins’ scientific claims. She also covers how those idea expanded to a social realm for which they were even less fit. http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/?p=8998
Well I agree with you far more than I don’t. I think the hero-worship has been disastrous for much of the secular movement, plus I despise the very idea of “thought leaders.” But if we can proceed v e r y c a r e f u l l y maybe we can still have people we admire without being slavish or sycophantic about it.
Some ideas are specifically attached to specific personalities: it wouldn’t matter whether we called adaptation with modification through descent Darwinian evolution or Wallacean evolution. If Darwin had died as an infant or never existed someone else would have put forward the idea. On the other hand, would Heidegger’s ideas exist without Heidegger to have them? Is Heidegger’s antisemitism of a piece with his valuable philosophical ideas because both are products of his personal thought?
There are ideas which are between these extremes: would an idea like that of the open society exist without Karl Popper? How far is the “selfish gene”- a metaphor turned into a meme- only a product of Richard Dawkins’ thoughts?
The problem is that heroes become heroes before we check on them so we tend to be exculpatory or realise they aren’t really heroes after all and overstate the faults they have when we examine them. The country or movement or person that needs a hero is likely to appoint someone to the job and then look at their qualifications.
What makes you “think a little bit of hero-having can be motivating and even inspiring”? Surely people aren’t going to examine a hero’s work carefully and so what is wrong is likely to be swallowed unthinkingly when the work needs cool examination.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a fundamental part of growing up is
(a) having idols
(b) realising they have feet of clay
(c) realising that it matters.
The atheist/skeptic movement has some growing up to do.
Letting go of my idols (and among these I count Feynman, Dawkins and Randi) has been a rough process. I’m the better for it. Reading at FTB has been a large part of realising why it’s necessary, and also realising that on another level it doesn’t matter that these people have feet of clay. Their achievements stand. That they turn out not to be perfect (or in Dawkins’ case especially, turn out to be unapologetic douches) doesn’t affect that, and any kneejerk defensiveness I feel about their reputation unnecessary. It happens because I identified myself with those people. When I hear “Feynman was sexist” what that parses as is “You are sexist”… because of my aspiration to be just like him. That’s what hero-having is, isn’t it? And obviously one reacts reflexively and defensively to that. Until one realises that being JUST like someone else, someone you don’t know everything about, is a fool’s errand. Having heroes is a mug’s game, because sooner or later, your hero will disappoint. They’ll turn out to be a sexist, or a racist, or a self-serving hypocrite. It’s generally only a matter of time.
So no – no to heroes. Inspiring stories, yes. Hero-making, no thanks.
Ophelia Benson wrote:
This raises an interesting (to me) question: who gave them the job in the first place? Was it some part of a movement (which part, what movement), or did they simply assume the role?
It seems to me that the situation is analogous to the isolation of the U.S. flag in the USA. It has always seemed to (and Carl Sagan made this point too) that it’s the ideas that should be admired, not the flag. Similarly it’s the ideas of these people which should be made heroes (or however you’d put that) not the person. Still leaves you able to admire the person insofar as they thought up or articulated the ideas, but elevates the idea above the person.
In some ways, well you could say there is grandeur in this view of life, where you can appreciate how even a flawed human came up with a terrific idea.
I just never, ever understand ‘Idols and heros’ as a kid. I never had a sports idol or looked up to someone as ‘my hero’ as a kid even though everyone else seemed to have a sports-idol to look up too. My friends were all about their ‘hero-de-jour’. If pressed, I would say that I went into track & field (because I loved to run and push my body) and the decathlon because of Bruce Jenner but I never considered him an idol or worshiped him or followed his career and barely remembered him as a kid – the one fleeting moment in the Olympics. He just showed me what is possible with my own life – a target to achieve (note: I failed to make the Olympics in the Decathlon )
Why have idols / heroes? Look at those who have good ideas, pull them together, and make your own idol/hero to emulate from a composite of the good ideas that are compounded with your personal morals and ethics. You would have to think, and make your own judgments without someone telling you what to believe? Or, does that defeat the purpose of having ‘idols/heroes’?
It isn’t a mistake to feel some special honor or glory around an individual’s actions. Just not ALL their actions. Babe Ruth on the mound, or at the plate is one thing. The drunken wretch he was in the rest of his life is another.
Heidegger? The anti-rationalism, the ‘blood and soil’ volkishness? Exposing his Nazism and anti-semitism SHOULD call these into question. Sometimes the clay feet go all the way up. I think this is the case with Shermer. At the moment, I still don’t think Dawkins is subject to the same judgment. He is certainly capable of damnfool behavior, but that seems more naivete and self-centered emotional reaction than actual personal or ideological malice.
To be human is to fail.
You try to do something new … and you fail. You try a different way to do it … and you fail. You keep failing until you get it more or less right. Then you either decide to be bored and stop while you are ahead, and do the same thing fairly well over and over again, or you move on and fail at something new. Wash, rinse, repeat … and then you die.
If you fail more than you succeed you might be advancing. If you succeed more than you fail you are not.
Yeah, this.
Maybe “hero” is the wrong word. If it implies “flawless, ideal person,” or “someone I want to think of as flawless and if you criticize them nah nah nah I can’t HEAR you,” then that’s a childish notion we do need to let go of. But there’s nothing wrong with admiring and appreciating people who’ve inspired you.