Levi has more on naturalism, its opposite and the sociology of intellectual cohorts:
It is not unusual for people to respond to claims I make such as the thesis that Continental thought has tended to systematically ignore naturalistic and materialist orientations with rebuttals to the effect that “thinker x is a naturalist and materialist and works in the Continental tradition!” In other words, the idea seems to be that a few counter-examples are sufficient to rebut claims about what is dominant in a population.
I think that part of the general disagreements with regard
to whether or not the Continental tradition is 'anti-naturalist' or
'anti-materialist' may have to do with the difference between rejection and
ignorance. Does Derrida, for example, reject naturalism/materialism or does he simply ignore the issues that
these -isms are concerned with and focus on something else? As I understand it, Levi generally argues
that Derrida rejected them but others seem to assume that he simply ignored
them and, consequently, that his thought is, in principle, compatible with them
in some way shape or form. Of course the
problem with Derrida et al. is that they never really rejected much of
anything. To reject something is an
affirmation in reverse, after all.
Anyway, whether it's rejection or ignorance it surely must
be one of the two -- and, whichever it is, this is a problem for these
thinkers. In fact I think ignorance
may even be more of a problem than rejection.
If one genuinely believes that the things and forces of naturalism are
fallacious bunk then I can see how language- or phenomena-centered philosophies
can be justified. However, if you
secretly believe in these things but nevertheless place them beyond your
philosophical purview and limit yourself, your peers and your students to just
a small corner of the wider natural reality then, far worse than rejection or
ignorance, this constitutes abandonment -- abdication, indeed.
I might disagree with an anti-naturalist who genuinely
believes that speaking of anything beyond the socio-linguistic is absurd and
nonsensical but I would respect their opinion far more than someone who readily
accepts the existence of things and forces other than the human but who has
given up on them, refused to speak of them and done their best to prohibit
anyone else from doing so. The former
might be silly but the latter is intellectually unjustifiable, politically
malfeasant and morally reprehensible.
If there are 'true believers' in anti-naturalism or
anti-materialism out there (and I have my doubts about this) then their
cherished beliefs should not be so hastily 'consigned to the fire' as Levi put
it. We must avoid the very worst
historical tendencies of Naturalism towards self-righteousness and automatic entitlement
in defining what is -- at gunpoint if necessary. Let's not paper over how cruelly this has
worked out in the past or how necessary the philosophical reactions -- even
overreactions -- to this history were.
However, let us also call out the phonies for what they
are. If you find a place for nature,
science, medicine, technology and so on in every part of your life except your
philosophising then there is something seriously amiss. The real enemy is not idealism or
correlationism but ontological double standards and the philosophical ignorance
that they breed.
