Sympathy For The Beast: Feyerabend’s Animal Becoming

Feyerabend’s animal becoming

(This photograph was taken by W.J. Broad and appeared in the article ‘Paul Feyerabend: Science and the Anarchist’, Science vol. 206, 2 Nov 1979).

Sometimes we are doing nothing special, living peacefully, cultivating and expressing our individuality – when suddenly we are picked up and subjected to the rules of some external authority. This happens not only in the practical world of everyday life in society, but also in the world of ideas, including philosophy.

Feyerabend remarks that this is what happened to him when he published AGAINST METHOD: he was picked up and examined by the “intellctuals”, and subjected to their rules of judgement. They explained all his errors and shortcomings, then put him down and went on with their business.

Feyerabend’s philosophy is a vital protest against the arrogance of specialists parading as intellectuals, against the hegemony of their system of judgement, and against all forms of universalism and essentialism. He prefers sympathy, which is a response to the concrete individual in his or her (or its, for he includes animals) context.

This privileging of kindness and sympathy over abstract motivations is the well-spring of Feyerabend’s insistence that he is not a philosopher. Paradoxically, this is part of makes him a great philosopher, one who breaks the rules not out of “provocation” but because he has not the slightest interest in allowing his conduct and thought to be governed by the abstract stipulations of lifeless thinkers. Sympathy and invention create their own rules.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sympathy For The Beast: Feyerabend’s Animal Becoming

  1. Pingback: Feyerabend’s Affective Portrait [at AGENT SWARM] | ~ S c h i z o s o p h y ~

  2. dmf says:

    it’s been my experience that one is more likely to bring about change in others “indirectly” as Kierkegaard tried (likewise with Wittgenstein’s as-if models and aspect-dawning, and Jung with active imagination) rather than thru being directly confrontational and even if folks don’t come around as it were better to have them be more attentive/imaginative, fleshed-out versions of themselves. I don’t think we can get/capture context as much as we are practicing collage and so seeing new possibilities/combinations, new contrast effects and such.
    Stengers has a wonderful essay along these lines on William James but unfortunately Radical Philosophy has now hidden it behind a pay-wall and I don’t have a copy anymore.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s