Historical Philosophy & Contemporary Problems

Last night I attended a Plato & Aristotle class where we discussed (on a tangent) the apparent disregard of historical (read “ancient”) philosophy in contemporary consideration of philosophical problems.

This seems to me to be a rather striking phenomenon given that the early writers provide a refreshing analysis of legitimate problems that are highly appealing over and opposed to current submissions.

An excellent example of this is my response to D in the “Philosophy Is Dead” thread, where I argued that there are several areas of Philosophy yet to be ‘exploded’ and that much of historical philosophy has much to say on the subject. Yet, interestingly, no one has responded to my submissions, but rather have gone off debating rather modern approaches to the problem.

Now this is neither to (i) whine about other users ignoring my submissions or (ii) argue that contemporary philosophy is not at all illuminating, but rather to try to provoke an answer as to why so much historical philosophy (Greek, Medieval, Islamic, et cetera) goes unconsidered when they are of particularly high relevance.

TdB - “RE: Philosophy Is Dead”
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=138811
Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2003 12:13 pm

Personally, it’s you who aren’t willing to understand history.

Are you really wiling to question historical credentials here or would you rather believe that ‘history’ is what you say it is?

History is a dangerous, dangerous mistriss, young man.

[quote=“TdB”]
Last night I attended a Plato & Aristotle class where we discussed (on a tangent) the apparent disregard of historical (read “ancient”) philosophy in contemporary consideration of philosophical problems.

This seems to me to be a rather striking phenomenon given that the early writers provide a refreshing analysis of legitimate problems that are highly appealing over and opposed to current submissions.

An excellent example of this is my response to D in the “Philosophy Is Dead” thread, where I argued that there are several areas of Philosophy yet to be ‘exploded’ and that much of historical philosophy has much to say on the subject. Yet, interestingly, no one has responded to my submissions, but rather have gone off debating rather modern approaches to the problem.

Now this is neither to (i) whine about other users ignoring my submissions or (ii) argue that contemporary philosophy is not at all illuminating, but rather to try to provoke an answer as to why so much historical (Greek, Medieval, Islamic, et cetera) goes unconsidered when they are of particularly high relevance.

TdB - “RE: Philosophy Is Dead”
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=138811

Well, the obvious answer is that if people know the literature, and think it relevant, they will use it. Some of it is, no doubt relevant. Some of it is not. Some of what was discussed in ancient times reappears in a different form (perhaps better put) in modern and recent times. And, the scientific revolution has made a great difference to philosophy, and made it difficult to discuss philosophical issues in pre-scientific terms. One example is the argument to design for God, another is knowledge, and the importance of empirical knowledge, and a third is the question of freedom of the will after scientific determinism. But, as Newton said, “If we see further than they, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants.”

CONTRA BRAD:

“Personally, it’s you who aren’t willing to understand history.”

Why? Is it because I refuse to modify my views in accordance with contemporary philosophy? If so, when did I ever make such a refusal?

“Are you really wiling to question historical credentials here or would you rather believe that ‘history’ is what you say it is?”

I am not too sure what you mean here. Firstly, are you suggesting that I am relectuant to question the likes of Aristotle because I have such a high view of him? Secondly, I think you’ve misread what I wrote. I am not discussing the reliablity of historical reconstruction (which is what I assume you are getting at when you put history in quotation marks), but rather more ‘historical’ positions on various subjects. I think its readily conceeded that Aristotle and Plato were real historical figures, and that the Republic, the Ethics, De Anima, or whatever, are authentic works straight from the pens of these philosophers. I tried to make it clear when I wrote, “…disregard of historical (read “ancient”) philosophy…”

–

CONTRA Kennethamy:

“Well, the obvious answer is that if people know the literature, and think it relevant, they will use it.”

This only deals with the knowledgable individuals, who have read and digested the material (that’s not always the same thing, ). I am questioning why there seems to be an abundance of people who never encounter, much less appreciate, historical philosophy to begin with.

“Some of it is, no doubt relevant. Some of it is not. Some of what was discussed in ancient times reappears in a different form (perhaps better put) in modern and recent times. ff.”

I readily agree. This is precisely what I was referring to when I wrote, “…this is [not] to … argue that contemporary philosophy is not at all illuminating…” Yet, I still do not think that your response hits at the heart of the issue because it does not explain the deeper issue as to why so many people seem to be rather ignorant of such important philosophical texts.

Thus far, it seems that BRAD has missed my point, and Kennethamy did not fully tackle the issue, so my question still stands.

I think you’re right that I missed the point in this thread. If you read the D thread, you might have noticed that I agreed with you there (However, your points there were just as vague). If you look at this post, it privileges history in a general sense without any specific point. My complaint is that this use of the word history is almost always wrong, “History tells us that . . . .” History is far too complex to tell us anything except that things are/were different.

So what’s your point other than that we should read more?

I still think that you’re going to have to get more specific if this is going to mean anything.

Isn’t it fairly obvious that people ignore contemporary AND historical philosophers?

tdB – i think that your arguement for the introduction of ancient theories to discussed with contemporary theories is not a major one for two reasons.

As Kennethamy said: “Some of it is, no doubt relevant. Some of it is not. Some of what was discussed in ancient times reappears in a different form (perhaps better put) in modern and recent times.” I think that if this is the point that you agree with you will see how, for most issues, the good ideas introduced by the ancients have been incorporated and expanded on, as well as adjusted with the times.

since you agree, what i am left with is the impression that we should consult the ancients just because they are the ancients. which is an errousneous view to hold. if however, to expand on a theory that is applied to a situation by finding the history of the idea to better apply it, i think at these moments it is worthwhile to consult ancient ideas. i am not so sure, however, that failing to do so will be disasterous since most (good) philosophers are well conected to their roots.

I think there is some truth in what you have said, although I don’t think it is true.
The truth in what you said, I think is this:
As an historical matter, for a period of about 25 or 30 (say from the 40’s to the 70’s, but this is only a rough approximation) years in America, and, especially in England, but also in central Europethere was a kind of rejection of the history of philosophy. It began with the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists who were striving for a 'scientific philosophy" (Hans Reichenbach, one of the members of the Circle wrote a book by that title.) and thought, I guess, that history was no more relevant to philosophizing, than the history of science was relevant to contemporary scientific research. I think this attitude tended to carry over to England and to America where many of the Logical Positivists (and later, Logical Empiricists) fled before the Nazis.
Wittgenstein, who was very influential, of course, used to boast he had not read any history of philosophy, and he felt it was a good thing, so that he would not be dragged down by earlier philosophers used to say. This attitude infiltrated to the philosophers at Cambridge, and it was a kind of standing joke that G.E. Moore started his lectures on the philosophy of perception with the opener: “Now let’s go back to the very beginning of the subject. In 1931, C.D. Broad…” Later on, even in the 50s and in Oxford, J.L.Austin had a footnote in one of his papers saying something like: And let’s, shall we, forget about what Aristotle and Kant said on this subject?
So, as I said, you have some truth on your side, at least from the historical perspective. And, if you come to think of it, this avoidance of history is odd because in England most of the professional philosophers had studied what in Cambridge was called “Greats.” That is, Ancient philosophy, and were extremely well versed not on in ancient Greek and Latin, but knew the classical authors very well. They had to to get “firsts.”
And, in America, the Logical Positivists like Carnap and Hempel and Feigl never (almost) related their work to anything in the history of philosophy, since it was mostly logic applied to philosophy and the philosophy of science.

I think, though, this has completely changed. Philosophizing is inextricably connected to the history of philosophy unlike doing reseach in the sciences is connected to the history of science.

I hope this helps.

I think there is some truth in what you have said, although I don’t think it is true.
The truth in what you said, I think is this:
As an historical matter, for a period of about 25 or 30 (say from the 40’s to the 70’s, but this is only a rough approximation) years in America, and, especially in England, but also in central Europethere was a kind of rejection of the history of philosophy. It began with the Vienna Circle and the Logical Positivists who were striving for a 'scientific philosophy" (Hans Reichenbach, one of the members of the Circle wrote a book by that title.) and thought, I guess, that history was no more relevant to philosophizing, than the history of science was relevant to contemporary scientific research. I think this attitude tended to carry over to England and to America where many of the Logical Positivists (and later, Logical Empiricists) fled before the Nazis.
Wittgenstein, who was very influential, of course, used to boast he had not read any history of philosophy, and he felt it was a good thing, so that he would not be dragged down by earlier philosophers used to say. This attitude infiltrated to the philosophers at Cambridge, and it was a kind of standing joke that G.E. Moore started his lectures on the philosophy of perception with the opener: “Now let’s go back to the very beginning of the subject. In 1931, C.D. Broad…” Later on, even in the 50s and in Oxford, J.L.Austin had a footnote in one of his papers saying something like: And let’s, shall we, forget about what Aristotle and Kant said on this subject?
So, as I said, you have some truth on your side, at least from the historical perspective. And, if you come to think of it, this avoidance of history is odd because in England most of the professional philosophers had studied what in Cambridge was called “Greats.” That is, Ancient philosophy, and were extremely well versed not on in ancient Greek and Latin, but knew the classical authors very well. They had to to get “firsts.”
And, in America, the Logical Positivists like Carnap and Hempel and Feigl never (almost) related their work to anything in the history of philosophy, since it was mostly logic applied to philosophy and the philosophy of science.

I think, though, this has completely changed. Philosophizing is inextricably connected to the history of philosophy unlike doing reseach in the sciences is connected to the history of science.

I hope this helps.