Two Philosophers
- Posted by Andrew Bailey on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 11:41 AM
| 
2 Comments |
I'm no historian; my philosophical research is entirely contemporary. But I am studying this summer for comprehensive exams in the history of philosophy.
Two thinkers who have stood out to me (that is, thinkers I've ending up liking) are Leibniz and Locke. Leibniz reminds me of David Lewis: he's a system-builder and unafraid of doing metaphysics in the grand old style. He says fantastic things and defends them with interesting and original arguments. I like that. But there's also something quite attractive about Locke's much more modest, moderate approach. Copleston has this to say in his history of philosophy:
Locke, as is evident from his writings, we very much a man of moderation... He was a rationalist in the sense that he believed in bringing all opinions and beliefs before the tribunal of reason and disliked the substitution of expressions of emotion and feeling for rationally grounded arguments... He disliked authoritarianism, whether in the intellectual or in the political field. And he was one of the earlier exponents of the principle of toleration... He was a religious man; but he had no sympathy for fanaticism or with intemperate zeal. One does not look to him for brilliant extravaganzas or flashes of genius. One finds in him an absence of two extremes and the presence of common sense...
To those who expect from a philosopher startling paradoxes or novel 'discoveries' he inevitable appears as pedestrian and unexciting. But he gives throughout the impression of being an honest thinker. In reading him, one is not forced to ask oneself constantly whether he can possibly have believed what he was saying.
2 Comments:
Noumena at 9:11 PM said... Copleston was a crappy historian. You're much better off with the SEPh, and Cambridge Companions for when you want to go deeper. By his definition, everyone is a rationalist, even Hume. And the author of the Monadology is described as having `common sense'? Gak.
The reason you feel like Leibniz is an old-fashioned metaphysician, I think, is because Anglophone metaphysics is a throwback to pre-Kantian philosophy. He's not doing things old school; he IS the old school. And, I think, the dialectical endpoint towards which metaphysics trends: you push reason far enough and you end up in Leibniz; push a little more and you end up in Kantian non-metaphysics.
(Sorry, I've spent most of the past two weeks reading post-Marxian theory for my SYP.)
Glad you're at least somewhat enjoying the studying. How do you like the office?
Andrew Bailey at 8:44 AM said... The office rocks, Dan. Thanks. =)
