3 ms·
You should definitely check out Mach if you want to understand Einstein better (but also the previous Newtonian debates in philosophy of physics.) There were o
by guerrilla 3y ago
You should definitely check out Mach if you want to understand Einstein better (but also the previous Newtonian debates in philosophy of physics.)
There were others who Russell missed but I just can't remember off the top of my head right now. In the end, you can't cover everyone in one course but it does seem like some people are completely ignored sometimes. Like maybe Occam will get a line (often misrepresentative) but the majority of time will go to Aquinas, but if you look at the SEP articles on Aristotelian topics (the scholastic debates) for example then you get a different picture of what the context for these things was. It's fine if people don't know, but the problem I have is that people think they know because of how the gaps are kind of paved over if you will. It's nice to tell a story but it would also be good to admit and clarify that the story isn't literally true.
- justin66 3y agoIt's been a really long time but I remember History of Philosophy courses at my university being rather specific to a given historical context, down to the whim and expertise of the professor teaching the course that quarter, with the goals of the course listed in the course description. Which is perhaps not engendering in undergrads the global view you'd hope for, but it's maybe a little more realistic and honest. Possibly they weren't all like that (like I said, it's been a long time) but I imagine the global view was meant to be explored during the intro courses - and as I said, probably not including much outside of Western philosophy, which is a problem. But there's really only so much you can cram into a semester. I'm stretching here but I remember History of Philosophy being a 300 or 400 level course, unlikely to draw any grad students, but a bit further along. I certainly will check out the podcast, which sounds interesting.