Excellent issue. I think the two are twin aspects of the same drive. Is the desire for recognition the desire for the perfect self-consciousness of the wise-man in an erroneous but developing-evolving form? Is the philosopher an error who is seeking to recognize himself as truth? (Thought inspired generally by K on H, of course...)

In the didactic mindset, teachers are recognized, students can only learn. In the dialectic mindset all involved are recognized and all involved can learn. The dichotomy between recognition and learning dissolves into something else at the same moment that the dichotomy between the "I" of the teacher and the "You" of the student dissolves into an all inclusive "We".

Do you know of Martin Buber's "I and Thou" as contrasted to "I and it"? Two modes of being. One that recognizes the divine and one that does not. The ideal teacher sees his self in the student and the student in himself? Is ideal teaching a conceptual/numinous orgy? Maybe Socrates wrote no books because he knew that books lacked the erotic/divine element?

I think the two desires can be reconciled. If we are all parts of something greater, then one can wish for recognition of some part of that part of the greater Being whom one is. (Was that sentence readable? Unambiguous? At least it wasn't Heidegger!) Still, one should try to wait to see if some other person, who is also a part of the greater Being, has already expressed that same part of it, which is also part of him or her (because we all overlap in our being, in complex ways), and has perhaps expressed it better. What isn't justifiable is rushing to express something one believes to be exclusively one's own. If there is an intention to share, it's OK; otherwise, not.

Socrates wrote no books, Plato wrote dialogues, Aristotle went full on didactic. Conclusion Aristotle messed it all up. Aristotle as "the Philosopher" as the accepted authority of the late medieval philosophers. Dialectic is what Socrates achieved and Plato tried to preserve and Aristotle (at least in his writing) abandoned entirely.

"Erotic" is a loaded and misleading term on the exoteric level but it can be understood at the esoteric as referring to the desire to know the divine.

The divine Logos presiding over all discussants none of whom can be recognized as Teachers with a capital "T" just as the Hebrews had no King before Saul.

Thinking of Buber and personality again - logos, truth (call it what you will) does seem to loose it's personality along the way and this is Contra-Buber by my reading of Buber.

Reminds me of Blake. In Heaven there are no women, for women symbolize immanation, or Time in relation to Eternity, (which would translate to Space in relation to Time for both Joyce and Hegel.) Man as an a error who seeks to become the truth. Man is a concept that wants to mirror being, but his Concept (system of concepts) is riddled with error. This reminds me of T. S. Eliot: "Only those who have personality know what it's like to want to get rid of it..." Do winding contingent paths (love-for-wisdom/error) converge on the One(wisdom/concept and being unified)?

I'm a bit of a cad sometimes. For example: I don't always have the discipline to read through all the posts on a thread because the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away. I think this is my desire for recognition surfacing and trumping my desire to...well um...it is what it is...my desire learn. Now when a thread is extremely long then this is excusable but with shorter threads I don't think it is. So I'm calling myself out on this.

Anyway, this does bring up an interesting conflict...the conflict between the desire to learn and the desire for recognition. I think that the desire to learn is a desire of the higher order and the desire for recognition is of a relatively lower order. I think this conflict arises quite often especially in an environment such as a forum and also the environment of the classroom and edifying conversations in general.

Thoughts?

the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away.

Rather than a desire for recognition, doesn't your original explanation make more sense? I hope so, because I think a lot of Members do the same thing for the same reason, renewing the conversation immediately.

I think the applying of a gender to Wisdom; Wisdom as Sophia, wisdom as the Goddess is a mistake or perhaps a lower rung on the ladder of understanding. In any case I like to shake up that metaphor. Wisdom isn't a woman nor is it a man. Neither the 0 nor the 1. Neither first nor second. Wisdom is not a lover to be courted or seduced nor is Wisdom a mother or father to be obeyed. Wisdom is something to be protected and nurtured. Wisdom is a child.

I'm a bit of a cad sometimes. For example: I don't always have the discipline to read through all the posts on a thread because the original post inspires some response that I want to voice right away. I think this is my desire for recognition surfacing and trumping my desire to...well um...it is what it is...my desire learn. Now when a thread is extremely long then this is excusable but with shorter threads I don't think it is. So I'm calling myself out on this.

Anyway, this does bring up an interesting conflict...the conflict between the desire to learn and the desire for recognition. I think that the desire to learn is a desire of the higher order and the desire for recognition is of a relatively lower order. I think this conflict arises quite often especially in an environment such as a forum and also the environment of the classroom and edifying conversations in general.

Thoughts?

You could also look at it as not wanting your initial inspiration responce interpretation to be clouded or go to waste because of the responces of others.
Besides sometimes i am only interested in answering replying to what you expressed, the art work critiqued not the critics.

You are trying to teach reach something with your responce not just learn earn.
Is 'to teach' the recognition you speak of?

I have just doen what you described, so some might have already said what i have put down here, but i just wanted YOU to know MY thoughts even if someone else has had them, i want you to know that i can come to my own conclusion.
If what i say has been said by soemone else it still has not been said by or as me.
Is this recognition? Yes becuase i would not have answered if i did not want you to see me.
Inspiration come sinto this somewhere surly? And the need to not let it go to waste or forget it.
That is a big thing for me when i do what you have described, inspired and just cant wait, the need to be see so as to let you know i have seen you.

Recogintion all depends on what you need to be recognised for, not just asked for your autograph with out them having watched the film having been inspired by your performance,

You are not the model you are the artist.
The model has little to do with the peice.
You changed the information into art.
Sometimes you dont need the critics comentary to have your own appreciation of a work, just as sometimes you do, just as sometimes you should avoid them altogether, and if you really like a piece you will like later to go back and critique the critics.
All depends on what inspires you.
Your understanding or others.
I want you to know what you inspired.

You point out that there are two sides to recognition. I was overly focused on the desire for recognition - Tthere is also the ability to recognize. There is recognizing and there is being recognized. This can be reciprocal. I recognize you, you recognize me. Other times this doesn't happen. Sometimes one side withholds recognition. Sometimes one side doesn't care whether or not s/he is recognized.

Mutual recognition is a sort of confirmation. It's a yes, that is the case. And sometimes it is a Yes, I or we learned something there. We have some bit of knowledge in common.

Mutual recognition also seems to be a step towards a more objective understanding. The purely subjective understanding can recognize no other subjects. I recognize you and you recognize me and also we can both recognize the same truth and recognize each other as having recognized it. The objective understanding arises out of these mutual recognitions between thinking subjects.

We all need confirmation, it is hard to confirm the self.
I wonder if it is impossible to baptise your self? My minister confirmed that i could.
(each time i just wrote confirmed i wrote conformed, and had to correct my self, i wonder if that means anything?)

Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Which i suppose is why i have never attempted it or recognised myself as a Christian, even if i need to believe i can still be one.