Influence
I could challenge the notion that common experience never changes. Surely the "common experience" of a medieval person was much different from that of someone from antiquity. Surely both were different again from someone in the Enlightenment. Surely that is what (partly) characterises the differences in those three families of philosophy, that the common experience on which they are based is just so different.
Different in some ways, and the same in others... but where does that leave my humble project?
Are you still interested in pursuing your theory of ethics?
I've forgotten now how the project started.
Well, I like to think of my work as progressing in peaks and troughs. The troughs represent where I ask a basic question, and then work out its ramifications from the ground up. The peaks constitute the highest point that I reach before I go back down to another trough. The trough behind my basic project in this blog, in my opinion, came on 10 March, when I asked, "What is an empirical theory of ethics"? The direction of the project, in turn, was set on 17 March when I asked, "Do social mores progress?" It seemed to me that you went a long way in answering that question. But you couldn't relate it properly to the opening chapters of your Masters thesis either. In particular, you couldn't justify basing a theory of ethics on nothing but social mores. A culture might reach a relative consensus for the sake of forming laws. This does not mean, however, that every individual within that culture must have the same moral opinions, even if they act on a default system of social mores. In particular, one cannot defend the notion that philosophy has to be based on social mores. There is nothing stopping philosophy from exerting an influence on social mores. This has happened at least twice in human history: once with the Renaissance, and once with the Enlightenment. Now, maybe philosophers in those days simply had their finger particularly squarely on the pulse of social change. Maybe they saw the way the wind was blowing and articulated the views of the masses. And in so doing, they formed a lens to quicken change ever further. But that they are sometimes capable of exerting a great influence on society in the process seems hard to deny.
Well, all influence requires at least some common ground between the influencer and the influenced. Even a leader requires common ground with his subjects. No one has so much power over everyone else that he can get away with mandating just anything he wants. A group of conspirators might kill him, as happened to Julius Caesar. A whole colony of chimpanzees might chase the alpha male up a tree, as happened to Nikkie in Chimpanzee Politics1. Even the Nazis couldn't get away with attempting to euthanise the disabled and retarded in their sanitariums. A public outcry, headed by both clergy and prominent and respected Germans prompted the decision to end the program in August, 1941. Similarly, some philosophers might express some ideas that simply never catch on in their contemporary societies. But if copies of their work survive, they may yet exert an influence centuries later, when popular sentiment changes.
Can you give me an example of this? It's not that I don't believe you, but I can't think of one example of that happening. It seems to me that you need to have exerted an influence in your day, or else who will even know about you to look you up centuries after you are dead? There are so many philosophers out there that it is ludicrous to expect that you could read them all. More philosophers emerge every year, and obviously the most recent ones will command the most attention. The more you recede into the rear view mirror, the larger you will have to have already been. Otherwise people just won't see you in the first place. Even Aristotle, whose work languished during most of the Middle Ages, was revived in part because he already had been great. He "influenced the first generation of Hellenistic philosophers, including Epicurus and Zeno the Stoic". Then "his writings suffered a long period of neglect" until the first century B.C. when he was picked up again. After that, he had a strong influence over ancient thinking until the rise of the Roman Empire2. These days, if we ever revived ancient ideas, Aristotle would be one of the first people you pick up. Most of the other minor philosophers' ideas would simply be lost. The more great you already are, the more great you are likely to be--greatness begets itself.
Well, you do just have to network, don't you? And that means going to the philosophy blogs that are already the highest-ranking and hob-nobbing with them. Philosophy progresses through discussion and debate, and this is something of which you need to do more.
Well, your supervisor did say that you were good in discussion. I certainly think you were always good at working with people's existing ideas and mixing them with your own. That was how you could produce a view and argument both in which you could believe and that they could at least respect. Hence, my Masters thesis has to be understood as emerging from a dialectic with my supervisors. The work would no doubt have turned out quite differently if I had been working under someone else. Likewise, I expect to see your work evolve when you start discussing these issues with real people online. I expect that in many ways, this will be your most interesting period yet.
1Frans de Waal, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989, cited in The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, London: Abacus, 1994, p.258.
2The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner ed., London: Penguin Books, 2000, pp.43-4.
Different in some ways, and the same in others... but where does that leave my humble project?
Are you still interested in pursuing your theory of ethics?
I've forgotten now how the project started.
Well, I like to think of my work as progressing in peaks and troughs. The troughs represent where I ask a basic question, and then work out its ramifications from the ground up. The peaks constitute the highest point that I reach before I go back down to another trough. The trough behind my basic project in this blog, in my opinion, came on 10 March, when I asked, "What is an empirical theory of ethics"? The direction of the project, in turn, was set on 17 March when I asked, "Do social mores progress?" It seemed to me that you went a long way in answering that question. But you couldn't relate it properly to the opening chapters of your Masters thesis either. In particular, you couldn't justify basing a theory of ethics on nothing but social mores. A culture might reach a relative consensus for the sake of forming laws. This does not mean, however, that every individual within that culture must have the same moral opinions, even if they act on a default system of social mores. In particular, one cannot defend the notion that philosophy has to be based on social mores. There is nothing stopping philosophy from exerting an influence on social mores. This has happened at least twice in human history: once with the Renaissance, and once with the Enlightenment. Now, maybe philosophers in those days simply had their finger particularly squarely on the pulse of social change. Maybe they saw the way the wind was blowing and articulated the views of the masses. And in so doing, they formed a lens to quicken change ever further. But that they are sometimes capable of exerting a great influence on society in the process seems hard to deny.
Well, all influence requires at least some common ground between the influencer and the influenced. Even a leader requires common ground with his subjects. No one has so much power over everyone else that he can get away with mandating just anything he wants. A group of conspirators might kill him, as happened to Julius Caesar. A whole colony of chimpanzees might chase the alpha male up a tree, as happened to Nikkie in Chimpanzee Politics1. Even the Nazis couldn't get away with attempting to euthanise the disabled and retarded in their sanitariums. A public outcry, headed by both clergy and prominent and respected Germans prompted the decision to end the program in August, 1941. Similarly, some philosophers might express some ideas that simply never catch on in their contemporary societies. But if copies of their work survive, they may yet exert an influence centuries later, when popular sentiment changes.
Can you give me an example of this? It's not that I don't believe you, but I can't think of one example of that happening. It seems to me that you need to have exerted an influence in your day, or else who will even know about you to look you up centuries after you are dead? There are so many philosophers out there that it is ludicrous to expect that you could read them all. More philosophers emerge every year, and obviously the most recent ones will command the most attention. The more you recede into the rear view mirror, the larger you will have to have already been. Otherwise people just won't see you in the first place. Even Aristotle, whose work languished during most of the Middle Ages, was revived in part because he already had been great. He "influenced the first generation of Hellenistic philosophers, including Epicurus and Zeno the Stoic". Then "his writings suffered a long period of neglect" until the first century B.C. when he was picked up again. After that, he had a strong influence over ancient thinking until the rise of the Roman Empire2. These days, if we ever revived ancient ideas, Aristotle would be one of the first people you pick up. Most of the other minor philosophers' ideas would simply be lost. The more great you already are, the more great you are likely to be--greatness begets itself.
Well, you do just have to network, don't you? And that means going to the philosophy blogs that are already the highest-ranking and hob-nobbing with them. Philosophy progresses through discussion and debate, and this is something of which you need to do more.
Well, your supervisor did say that you were good in discussion. I certainly think you were always good at working with people's existing ideas and mixing them with your own. That was how you could produce a view and argument both in which you could believe and that they could at least respect. Hence, my Masters thesis has to be understood as emerging from a dialectic with my supervisors. The work would no doubt have turned out quite differently if I had been working under someone else. Likewise, I expect to see your work evolve when you start discussing these issues with real people online. I expect that in many ways, this will be your most interesting period yet.
1Frans de Waal, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989, cited in The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, London: Abacus, 1994, p.258.
2The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner ed., London: Penguin Books, 2000, pp.43-4.
Comments