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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

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…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…