Starting with Bacon, the modern project began to develop. Post-renaissance natural science and philosophy (or natural philosophy, if you're Bacon) shifted to obtaining knowledge in a new way, i.e. with Descartes' skeptical idealism over Aristotle's objective realism (to speak broadly). Descartes' skepticism began a philosophical route that was never shaken, for even though Kant successfully overcame the Humean problem, he recognized that Descartes' fundamental doubt holds when experience is considered as a direct channel to reality. Soon, philosophy resulted in Nietzsche, and eventually resulted in Rorty. I am not one to claim that these two examples are necessary or inevitable--I am merely pointing out they did come along, and in all likelihood would not have if they lived during Aristotle's time. They were timely.
Was modern philosophy, then, just so timely? Did it come about merely because of historical influences? Or were the modern philosophers on to some aspect of Truth on which the ancients did not pick up? It seems as if we are left with few choices: (1) Admit of the necessity of a Kantian-based philosophy, (2) Reject the modern project and revert to ancient ideals, or (3) Become skeptics or nihilists or Rortians.
After now studying both modern and contemporary philosophy (albeit in meagre amounts compared to the whole), I continue to hold an ancient philosophical perspective. But I also maintain that it is ineluctably apropos for the philosophy student to not ignore the history of philosophy and admit of the advances that have been made in the history as a whole. If anything (and this a stretch in the conservative direction), modern philosophy sufficiently shows the shaky ground on which mere subjective experience leaves us, and calls either itself or the possibility of the knowledge of Truth into question altogether. It seems to be, at bottom, a necessary tenet of living the philosophical life in the modern world to be familiar with a broad range of (if not all) systems of thought and philosophical ideas, for not until we know how we got here will we honestly know where we stand.
What about sophists like Protagoras? Or cynics like Diogenes? Couldn't they offer something "dangerous" in the ways of Rorty and Nietzsche? If so, it may not be historically limited in the way I take you to present it. Now as to what ideas become popular or influential, that is another question.
ReplyDeleteIt seems an inevitable first step to grappling with the history of thought - recognizing the consequences of modern philosophy when read carefully and recognizing the alternative strengths of plato and aristotle when read carefully. But there are many modern writers who show such depth and interest that the history of thought begs to be freed from this schema. Shakespeare, Vico, Milton, Rousseau and Goethe all spring to mind. It is interesting to me that some of the best thinking from the 17th to the 19th century is done in a literary form. And this explains why the rather narrow view of most philosophers has excluded them from serious consideration.
I think Plato and Aristotle become interesting to read again when we do not treat them like dry systematizers. There are plenty of people in this world who think Aristotle has about as much depth as Descartes, while it is plain to me that Aristotle has a great deal more going on. In part this is because he is working with the world and letting it speak too, not just devising a consistent theory for addressing some one problem. Kant too, takes problem solving to a highly articulated form - it is amazing how much he generates in order to address Hume's objection to necessity in causation.
Philosophy too often becomes problem solving instead of open inquiry. This may well be a bequest of modern philosophy. Still, I think that if philosophy becomes too narrow we must approach thinking instead. And here, possibilities abound and not only ancient ones.