Philosophy Professor@SDSU; deferential, glad to be of use, politic, cautious & meticulous; full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse; at times, almost ridiculous—
Seriously, how do the eyes reveal "a great imagination"? What does that even mean? Paul Edwards notes that "Karl Lowith who was close to Heidegger for a number of years left us a somewhat different description. 'Heidegger could never look at anyone openly for an extended period of time.'" That may or may not be true, but at least it is possible (or would have been possible) to verify it.
Two strikingly opinionated pronouncements by Wittgenstein reveal much about his intellectual self-assurance, dogmatic streak, and narrow conception of philosophy.
“If it is true, as I believe, that Mahler’s music is worthless, then the question is what I think he ought to have done with his talent.”
“The Darwinian theory has no more to do with philosophy than has any other hypothesis of natural science.” (Tractatus 4.1122)
I don’t think it is puzzling at all.
Indeed, if the operation were routine or simple, many people might be quick to blame the surgeon for any mishaps. Conversely, if the surgery were particularly difficult, we would (or should) express our gratitude to the surgeon—profusely.
Consider a scenario where both engines of an aircraft have failed, yet through exceptional skill, the pilot manages to land the plane safely. In such a case, we would not blame the pilot if the plane were to crash. If someone asked, "Why did the plane crash?" we would not say, "The pilot lacked the requisite skill." Instead, we would respond, "The engines failed."
However, if a pilot crashes the plane during what should have been a straightforward landing, the pilot would certainly be blamed.
@readswithravi Books do not enter your system by osmosis. You have actually to read them to get anything from them. If you are not going to read them, then what is the point of owning them? To own them with no intention of reading them is just fetishism.
@jonathanbfine It is non-representational art and therefore does not have a "meaning." Compare it to a rose. As the mystic Angelus Silesius put it: "The rose is without 'why'; it blooms simply because it blooms. It pays no attention to itself, nor does it ask whether anyone sees it."
@eoin_price The S*o*n*u* L*d*. The eleven-year-old Prince Charles (later II) saw it but not his parents ("but the kinge and queene were not there; and it was the only play acted at courte in the whole Christmas").
@roddysteves Don't forget Odysseus' encounter with his mother, Anticlea, upon his visit to the Underworld (Book XI). He is "moved to tears" when he sees her and attempts to hug her three times.