May 2011 Archives

Introduction
Originally uploaded by cplong11

This meant first listening attentively and with patience, particularly in the face of strong and provocative criticism. Second, in considering a response, I tried to be generous in drawing on the work of those who were generous enough to take the time to read my work so carefully. Finally, I tried to defend the position for which I argued as strongly as possible, recognizing when appropriate, the limits of the things I said and the need to be willing to reconsider my position in the face of new insights.

To hear the other comments and my responses, click on the links below:

• Christopher Long's Introduction
• Will McNeill
• Drew Hyland
• John Lysaker

Here are images from the APS Book Panel:

Lysaker Animated
Originally uploaded by cplong11

John's comments invited me to consider more fully my ethos as an author and challenged me to articulate more fully what animates the legomenological approach.  His concern, in part, is how it is determined what of the things said by one's predecessors are deserving of response and amplification. This is an important issue, particularly if legomenology is not to become a echo chamber legitimizing one's own previously held opinions.  "How," John asks, "does legomenology welcome interlocutors?"

I tried to perform an answer to that in my response to him, but for now, listen to John's commentary, and particularly to the way he calls into question the propriety of my embracing Woodbridge's language of "cooperation." This, indeed, is a central issue; one that we discuss in more detail on episode 48 of the Digital Dialogue, which will be posted in a week or so.

Drew Hyland
Originally uploaded by cplong11

Drew's comments focused largely on the question of my interpretation of Aristotle's approach to the thinking of his predecessors. I argue in the book that the practice of "legomenology" involves attending to the things said by one's predecessors as the place where philosophy must begin.  Further, I suggest that Aristotle's engagement with his predecessors was not designed simply to legitimize Aristotle's own position, but was a genuine attempt to think with and against those who in the past had sought to speak the truth of nature.

Drew recognizes this as precisely the way philosophy ought to be practiced, but he questions what he calls my generous reading of Aristotle, suggesting that Aristotle in fact is interested in his predecessors only insofar as they lead up to his own thinking. Drew also calls into question the degree to which I read a Heraclitean understanding of logos into Aristotle. He argues further that I bring Aristotle too close to Plato who made aporia a stance toward the world as opposed to focusing on aporiai which point to a series of problems to solve.  Finally, at the end, Drew calls attention to my interpretation of God in Aristotle.

In his commentary, Drew touched upon two of the most difficult sentences to write in the book. Give a listen to his commentary, and to my response (to be posted in the days to come).

Drew Hyland responds to Aristotle on the Nature of Truth

• Christopher Long's Introduction
• Will McNeill
• John Lysaker
• Christopher Long's responses and the Q and A 

Here are images from the APS Book Panel: