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

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

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…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …