Here are the fundamentals of P. F. Strawson and the selections chosen for inclusion in the collection titled Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays. It appears that the two philosophers who wield the most influence over the composition of these entries and who are held in perhaps the highest esteem by Strawson are Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Do the research by all means, but here is an assertion that can be trusted: if Strawson had tried to pick two philosopher whose writings are more abstruse, who theories are delivered in a more complex to the point of impenetrable manner, and whose theories explained in that dense quagmire of prose are less difficult to translate into easily digestible concepts for the layman, he probably could not have done it. Kant and Wittgenstein hold reputations almost as high for the difficult quotient of figuring out just what the heck they are getting at as they are for the ideas they are getting at. And so, it doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together here.
Friedrich Nietzsche. Now there is a philosopher whose text is generally accessible to readers that have at least made it through high school. Nietzsche’s ideas are more complex than they seem, but that is because his presentation is simplified. His sentences are short, his paragraphs are short and the point is gotten to rather quickly. Here are the opening lines of “Freedom and Resentment” and it is worth remembering that this is just the introductory paragraph. The actual complex outlining of theory is still to come:
“Some philosophers say they do not know what the thesis of determinism is. Others say, or imply, that they do know what it is. Of these, some – the pessimists perhaps – hold that if the thesis is true, then the concepts of moral obligation and responsibility really have no application, and the practices of punishing and blaming, of expressing moral condemnation and approval, are really unjustified. Others – the optimists perhaps – hold that these concepts and practices in no way lose their raison d’être if the thesis of determinism is true.”
Now, it is true that in comparison to the writing style of Kant and Wittgenstein, excerpt by Strawson almost looks like the writing of Nietzsche by comparison. The point being made here is that while almost no philosophical texts worth reading are easy reads, there are some which are notorious more difficult to penetrate than others. One of the aspects of Strawson’s approach which does make his writing a relatively easier path to follow than that of Kant and Wittgenstein is that he offers examples which are more readily accessible. For instance, when describing his theories on resentment, he carefully delineates the difference between certain types of behavior that could produce feelings of resentment toward another. These are relatively easy enough to understand, though ultimately the examples themselves get mired down in the quagmire of more sophisticated explication of philosophical terminology. By the time one gets to the chapters on perception, however—"Imagination and Perception,” “Causation in Perception,””Perception and Identification”—any delusions of feeling like they are in safe territory can be thrown out the window for any but the more advanced readers. At this point, the reader is treading into philosophy as mathematical equations even those who did well in college algebra might feel a little out of their league:
“Here is one familiar entailment. If you are having a certain M-perception, then a corresponding M-array exists or corresponding or appropriate M-facts obtain. (If you see a book on a desk in front of you, then there is a book on a desk in front of you.) I shall write this as:
I (1) → appropriate M-facts.”
If one has no problem at all following that line of reasoning, the rest of the book may present as little problem as the its title section. Just be forewarned: this is not cutesy pop culture philosophy. This is the serious stuff intended for serious analysis and requiring the full scope of one’s intellect and attention. Anything less is likely to provide profound feelings of resentment toward the author.
