4 ms·

The reaction of given period’s academic culture to Hume speaks as much about the culture as it does about Hume. We now have an academic culture with very strong

The reaction of given period’s academic culture to Hume speaks as much about the culture as it does about Hume. We now have an academic culture with very strong social beliefs, minimally tolerant of those that don’t toe the line, and justifiably so in many ways. It may be many decades before the standards by which academics judge historical thinkers starts to soften, if ever. Because Kant and Hume may be left somewhat by the wayside for a while, there’s a grand opportunity for their replacements. I would pitch to a publisher that the old canon is appallingly ripe for disruption.

voidhorse 5y ago
On the other hand, I think this rampant ahistoricity is problematic. We currently have a notion of tolerance which does not extend past the present, if we don’t manage to engage with historical thought in a principled way, acknowledging the faults of our predecessors while retaining their virtues, I fear we’ll lose more than we’ll gain. Ironically, Descartes was responsible for such an ignorant, damaging ahistorical program, effectively jettisoning a whole swath of philosophical work that went on after Ockham and effectively launching a virus of egoism that’s still rampant, virulent, and probably at the worst its ever been in modern western thought.
- spookybones 5y ago
  What exactly are you referring to, analytic philosophy?
  - voidhorse 5y ago
    Yes, I’d think the formal fetishists of analytic philosophy are a symptom for sure (some of the projects of Russell, Frege, etc.), but I’m referring to a more general tendency after Descartes (of which Humean skepticism might be interpreted as an example) to take the cogito quite far, insofar as one falls into solipsism, forgetting that being and knowledge need objective grounds and are highly dependent on interaction with the so called “other” (a radical Descartean position would argue that the mind is able to “know” purely of its own accord and deemphasize the communicative and collaborative aspects of knowledge creation (an ahistoricity)). If you examine anglo-saxon philosophical practice post-Descartes you’ll find solipsistic tendencies are more then rule than the exception. (Continental philosophy is more exempt from this tendency, but also has instances of this)
- Der_Einzige 5y ago
  Descartes did the opposite of launching a "virus of egoism that's still rampant". Max stirner is the philosopher who tried and failed to launch a "virus of egoism". Stirner is not fond of descartes or the cogito and stirners entire philosophical project is a defense of egoism
N1H1L 5y ago
Maybe it's a great time to start reading non-Western philosophy too? Indian, Chinese, Japanese is fascinating, and reading them can be eye opening too

voidhorse 5y ago

On the other hand, I think this rampant ahistoricity is problematic. We currently have a notion of tolerance which does not extend past the present, if we don’t manage to engage with historical thought in a principled way, acknowledging the faults of our predecessors while retaining their virtues, I fear we’ll lose more than we’ll gain. Ironically, Descartes was responsible for such an ignorant, damaging ahistorical program, effectively jettisoning a whole swath of philosophical work that went on after Ockham and effectively launching a virus of egoism that’s still rampant, virulent, and probably at the worst its ever been in modern western thought.

spookybones 5y ago
What exactly are you referring to, analytic philosophy?
- voidhorse 5y ago
  Yes, I’d think the formal fetishists of analytic philosophy are a symptom for sure (some of the projects of Russell, Frege, etc.), but I’m referring to a more general tendency after Descartes (of which Humean skepticism might be interpreted as an example) to take the cogito quite far, insofar as one falls into solipsism, forgetting that being and knowledge need objective grounds and are highly dependent on interaction with the so called “other” (a radical Descartean position would argue that the mind is able to “know” purely of its own accord and deemphasize the communicative and collaborative aspects of knowledge creation (an ahistoricity)). If you examine anglo-saxon philosophical practice post-Descartes you’ll find solipsistic tendencies are more then rule than the exception. (Continental philosophy is more exempt from this tendency, but also has instances of this)
Der_Einzige 5y ago
Descartes did the opposite of launching a "virus of egoism that's still rampant". Max stirner is the philosopher who tried and failed to launch a "virus of egoism". Stirner is not fond of descartes or the cogito and stirners entire philosophical project is a defense of egoism

N1H1L 5y ago

Maybe it's a great time to start reading non-Western philosophy too? Indian, Chinese, Japanese is fascinating, and reading them can be eye opening too