The Future of the History of Philosophy

[Nearly Sane]

Hmmm... I think the intetesting part here is the coverage ov the past, and that the standard narrative that is most familiar has not always been the case.


https://www.thephilosopher1923.org/post/the-future-of-the-history-of-philosophy

[Nearly Sane]

Obviously the history of philosophy is the happening area where all the cool cats are.

The book does sound interesting.


https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/philosophy/46795/does-the-history-of-philosophy-matter

[Udayana]

The first article was interesting, if a bit longwinded in getting around to the point. The same point that Adamson has been making in his (lovely) podcasts over the last ten years - and presumably in his book now - though the review makes it sound dire.

Maybe another approach is needed? The purpose of history after all is to review what has passed to give us some insight as to what to do next.
 

[Nearly Sane]

The first article was interesting, if a bit longwinded in getting around to the point. The same point that Adamson has been making in his (lovely) podcasts over the last ten years - and presumably in his book now - though the review makes it sound dire.

Maybe another approach is needed? The purpose of history after all is to review what has passed to give us some insight as to what to do next.

Is it? I'm cynical about our ability to do that, and whether what's happened in the past is close enough to what we do now. Philosophy on this is an interesting one since novelty does not mean improvement.

I think we can learn from mistakes, say such as being better prepared for a pandemic, but the scope and scale of 'history' doesn't lend itself to that. I suppose this relates to my discomfort with the ideas of 'long termism' as I think that's based around the idea that we are much cleverer than we are, and that moral values are simple.