One of my favorite genres of contemporary philosophy is 'analytic reconstruction', where someone recreates the thought of an older/bolder thinker with clarity and humility. Robert Brandom's work on Hegel is top of mind for me here, taking the notoriously opaque Phenomenology and teasing out a social-pragmatic account of meaning, normativity, and recognition.
I find myself drawn to that sort of work for many reasons. To respond directly to your post, it's because I agree with you that clarity and rigor are estimable intellectual virtues. That said, I also find there to be *more* intellectual virtues beyond clarity and rigor - I also praise *charity* and *boldness*, in that order.
Here's why: Human finitude is the rock upon which I built my temple. Last time I checked, none of us are free of sin - everyone struggles, everyone suffers, everyone fails, everyone dies. I am no more infinite in my capacities than anyone else is. I stagger through life with blind spots and unknown unknowns, and - by definition - I could never see those blind spots without the help of other people.
So, *charity* is a critical virtue for me, since compassion for my fellow sufferers comes first and foremost. If I see someone scream and collapse in the street my first instinct would be to rush to their aid, rather than stand there and scratch my head until I can get clear on whether or not they have a mind, bear rights, etc. This isn't to say that there's no place for critical reflection, tempering of instincts, etc - it's to say that my first test for human activity is "does this help me live well with others?" Treating other thinkers as potentially-insightful fellow-sufferers who can help me see my blind spots is how I try to express that.
(Besides, people are much more likely to listen to you and change their minds when they feel like you understand them. People don't care what you think until they think that you care!)
*Boldness* is a corollary of this "help me see my blind spots" request that I make. This is where my interest in what-is-commonly-called-Continental philosophy begins. I really appreciate thinkers like Heidegger and Derrida for probing the limits of language and thought. I really appreciate Nietzsche's project of inspiring fellow free spirits. This, also, is where my charity kicks in - how can you expect someone to clearly and rigorously articulate a vision or assertion that goes beyond what we can clearly and rigorously express? How can you articulate the limits of articulation?
My charitability does have its limits. I don't like the vision of human activity as a giant Category War between the oppressors and oppressed, where all acts (including philosophical ones) affirm or challenge an exploitative and arbitrary hierarchy. I think the instinct to carve humanity into friends and enemies is a profoundly destructive one, no matter how highfalutin the language we leverage in its service.
Similarly, my praise of boldness has limits too. I'm fascinated by people who illuminate the deepest things that I take for granted, but there's something more to it beyond asserting "2+2=5!" and sitting there with a smirk.
All of this is to say: I find myself singing the praises of Rorty after all these years, who to me best embodies the intellectual virtues that I still praise. Nietzsche, surprisingly, helped me see the virtues of Jesus, who radiated love and emitted baffling parables and embodied an affirmation of life that is the best kind of confronting for me.
Thinking is a distinctly human joy, but I find it best when thought aligns with something that goes way beyond thinking. "Love", as best as I can manage, is what I strive to live by.
I agree with almost everything you say here! Clarity, rigor, etc, are intellectual virtues, but by no means ones that exclude or compete with love, humility, intellectual courage, etc (and as St Paul says, the greatest of these is love). I think the virtues embodied in analytic philosophy are in many ways necessary for a virtuous intellectual life, but they are in no way sufficient as you ably point out here.
One of my favorite genres of contemporary philosophy is 'analytic reconstruction', where someone recreates the thought of an older/bolder thinker with clarity and humility. Robert Brandom's work on Hegel is top of mind for me here, taking the notoriously opaque Phenomenology and teasing out a social-pragmatic account of meaning, normativity, and recognition.
I find myself drawn to that sort of work for many reasons. To respond directly to your post, it's because I agree with you that clarity and rigor are estimable intellectual virtues. That said, I also find there to be *more* intellectual virtues beyond clarity and rigor - I also praise *charity* and *boldness*, in that order.
Here's why: Human finitude is the rock upon which I built my temple. Last time I checked, none of us are free of sin - everyone struggles, everyone suffers, everyone fails, everyone dies. I am no more infinite in my capacities than anyone else is. I stagger through life with blind spots and unknown unknowns, and - by definition - I could never see those blind spots without the help of other people.
So, *charity* is a critical virtue for me, since compassion for my fellow sufferers comes first and foremost. If I see someone scream and collapse in the street my first instinct would be to rush to their aid, rather than stand there and scratch my head until I can get clear on whether or not they have a mind, bear rights, etc. This isn't to say that there's no place for critical reflection, tempering of instincts, etc - it's to say that my first test for human activity is "does this help me live well with others?" Treating other thinkers as potentially-insightful fellow-sufferers who can help me see my blind spots is how I try to express that.
(Besides, people are much more likely to listen to you and change their minds when they feel like you understand them. People don't care what you think until they think that you care!)
*Boldness* is a corollary of this "help me see my blind spots" request that I make. This is where my interest in what-is-commonly-called-Continental philosophy begins. I really appreciate thinkers like Heidegger and Derrida for probing the limits of language and thought. I really appreciate Nietzsche's project of inspiring fellow free spirits. This, also, is where my charity kicks in - how can you expect someone to clearly and rigorously articulate a vision or assertion that goes beyond what we can clearly and rigorously express? How can you articulate the limits of articulation?
My charitability does have its limits. I don't like the vision of human activity as a giant Category War between the oppressors and oppressed, where all acts (including philosophical ones) affirm or challenge an exploitative and arbitrary hierarchy. I think the instinct to carve humanity into friends and enemies is a profoundly destructive one, no matter how highfalutin the language we leverage in its service.
Similarly, my praise of boldness has limits too. I'm fascinated by people who illuminate the deepest things that I take for granted, but there's something more to it beyond asserting "2+2=5!" and sitting there with a smirk.
All of this is to say: I find myself singing the praises of Rorty after all these years, who to me best embodies the intellectual virtues that I still praise. Nietzsche, surprisingly, helped me see the virtues of Jesus, who radiated love and emitted baffling parables and embodied an affirmation of life that is the best kind of confronting for me.
Thinking is a distinctly human joy, but I find it best when thought aligns with something that goes way beyond thinking. "Love", as best as I can manage, is what I strive to live by.
I agree with almost everything you say here! Clarity, rigor, etc, are intellectual virtues, but by no means ones that exclude or compete with love, humility, intellectual courage, etc (and as St Paul says, the greatest of these is love). I think the virtues embodied in analytic philosophy are in many ways necessary for a virtuous intellectual life, but they are in no way sufficient as you ably point out here.