Skip to main content

U.S. Midcentury Philosophy, Part II

Image result for arthur koestler

Restating yesterday's list:

The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt, 1951.
Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis, 1952.
Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953.
The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley, 1954
Eros and Civilization, Herbert Marcuse, 1955 
The White Negro, Norman Mailer, 1956
Anatomy of Criticism, Northrop Frye, 1957
Verbal Behavior, BF Skinner, 1958
Some Notes on H.P. Lovecraft, August Derleth, 1959
The Lotus and the Robot, Arthur Koestler, 1960.
A Study of History, Arnold Toynbee; 1961; 
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, 1962

Can we break these down at all in thematic classification? There are three that don't help much with classification. They don't fit with each other or any of the other nine: that is, they constitute a natural "other" group. The "other" is usually listed last,. Here, in a transgressive spirit, I list it first. These three are: a work of Christian apologetics, one of idiosyncratic though brilliant literary theory with aesthetic implications, and one offering a behavioral theory of language, with consequences for the mind-body problem and much else. That is: Lewis, Frye, Skinner.

Two others that we can readily join together are epistemological -- we may so categorize both Wittgenstein's anti-foundationalism and Kuhn's philosophizing on pregnant moments in the history of science.

The list also includes three self-conscious efforts to build or reinforce a counter-culture, against what in this period was considered the stifling conformity of the "gray flannel suit." I have in mind specifically here the works by Huxley, Mailer, and Derleth.  

The remainder, four books, a healthy one third of the whole, indicative surely on my own biases but also perhaps of something in the air at the time, falls easily into the category, "philosophy of history" or, more specifically, meta-history.  I refer to the works by Arendt, Marcuse, Koestler, and of course Toynbee.

The term "philosophy of history" is ambiguous, since "history" in English has two distinct meanings. We might understand "history" generally as the human past, stretching from the first ape-like creatures who attempted bipedal locomotion, to the bumbling of the day before yesterday. Or we can understand "history" as the organized inquiry into the human past. So that the "philosophy of history" in one sense is akin to the "philosophy of nature" whereas the "philosophy of history" in the other sense is akin to the "philosophy of science."

Koestler, Arendt, Marcuse, and Toynbee in these books were all attempting the first of those, a look at the human past, taking a Big Picture view.  The philosophy of the human past. At some point, a historian's canvas becomes large enough that he or she ceases to be a historian and becomes a Philosopher of History, or a meta-historian, and each of these three thinkers goes to or beyond that point. I salute them all.  

The illustration is of Koestler, just for the heck of it.


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

Philippa Gregory

My recent reading includes large helpings of Philippa Gregory's latest, THREE SISTERS, THREE QUEENS (2016), another of her fictionalized takes on love and betrayal among the royals of Renaissance Europe.

In this book, the focus is on the early Tudor dynasty, and especially on Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII, founder thereof, and the older sister of the future Henry VIII. Margaret became Queen of Scotland with an arranged marriage to James IV. She reigned and ruled under the title of Dowager Queen after James' death at the Battle of Flodden in 1513.

So who, you ask, were the other two sisters of the novel's title? One is Margaret's blood sister, Mary Tudor, who was known as one of the great beauties of the age. Mary was the inspiration for the name her brother Henry gave to his older daughter. More important for Gregory's story, she wed the King of France (Louis XII) in 1514, and Anne Boleyn served as her maid of honor at that ceremony.

The third &…