-Hello-
The question I have for consideration is, do historical contingencies create philosophers, or do philosophers create historical contingencies? A rough list, as I understand it:
a) Plato, arguing against the Sophist (relativist) tradition, gave us rationalism.
b) Aristotle, arguing against Platonic thought, gave us empiricism.
c) Aquinas kept Christianity afloat with the re-insurgence of Greek (Aristotelean) thought.
d) Descartes kept Christianity afloat with the insurgence of scientific reason, indirectly giving us the scientific method. He also wagered that epistomology is more important than metaphysics, which is why he's considered the Father of Modern Philosophy.
e) Hobbes argued against Descartes, dismissing God, upholding scientific reason.
f) Locke was skeptical to both Descartes and Hobbes, giving us a can-never-get-to-the-world empiricism. [British empiricism]
g) Berkeley kept Christianity afloat in the midst of the atheist Hobbes, the agnostic Locke, and deists.
h) Hume responded to e), f), and g), by taking British empiricism to its limits, and arguing that reality doesn't exist.
i) Kant, responding to Hume, by attempting to unite rationalism and empiricism, stealthily kept Christianity afloat.
j) Schopenhauer, in a globalizing world, incorporated much of Eastern philosophy into Western, revising Kant at times.
k) Kierkegaard responded to Hume by saying that, yes, indeed, Christianity requires an irrational faculty, giving us fideism.
l) Nietzsche took the opposite view, saying that "God" is a stagnation of thought, in a sense, responding to all those wanting to keep Christianity, or any religion, afloat.
m) Wittgenstein added that all philosophical questions, not just God, come down to language. [Logical Postivism]
n) Pierce attempted to unite epistomology and metaphysics, maintaining that science is our best chance, as the mind is in the world. In other words, Darwinian thought lead to a Pragmatist approach to questions of both epistomology and metaphysics.
o) Quine, adding to Pierce, tells us that science is universal for humans, responding to Post-Modernists like Derrida.
I know that Hegel and Heidegger (and many others) fit in too, but I don't quite know where.
This leads me to ask two more questions:
1) What is beyond the Pragmatist approach? While philosophy is not dead, it seems stagnated.
2) Is there a relationship among all these age-old quarrels? Rationalism vs empiricism, realism vs nominalism, and so on? Can we move past them?
a) Plato, arguing against the Sophist (relativist) tradition, gave us rationalism.
b) Aristotle, arguing against Platonic thought, gave us empiricism.
c) Aquinas kept Christianity afloat with the re-insurgence of Greek (Aristotelean) thought.
d) Descartes kept Christianity afloat with the insurgence of scientific reason, indirectly giving us the scientific method. He also wagered that epistomology is more important than metaphysics, which is why he's considered the Father of Modern Philosophy.
e) Hobbes argued against Descartes, dismissing God, upholding scientific reason.
f) Locke was skeptical to both Descartes and Hobbes, giving us a can-never-get-to-the-world empiricism. [British empiricism]
g) Berkeley kept Christianity afloat in the midst of the atheist Hobbes, the agnostic Locke, and deists.
h) Hume responded to e), f), and g), by taking British empiricism to its limits, and arguing that reality doesn't exist.
i) Kant, responding to Hume, by attempting to unite rationalism and empiricism, stealthily kept Christianity afloat.
j) Schopenhauer, in a globalizing world, incorporated much of Eastern philosophy into Western, revising Kant at times.
k) Kierkegaard responded to Hume by saying that, yes, indeed, Christianity requires an irrational faculty, giving us fideism.
l) Nietzsche took the opposite view, saying that "God" is a stagnation of thought, in a sense, responding to all those wanting to keep Christianity, or any religion, afloat.
m) Wittgenstein added that all philosophical questions, not just God, come down to language. [Logical Postivism]
n) Pierce attempted to unite epistomology and metaphysics, maintaining that science is our best chance, as the mind is in the world. In other words, Darwinian thought lead to a Pragmatist approach to questions of both epistomology and metaphysics.
o) Quine, adding to Pierce, tells us that science is universal for humans, responding to Post-Modernists like Derrida.
I know that Hegel and Heidegger (and many others) fit in too, but I don't quite know where.
This leads me to ask two more questions:
1) What is beyond the Pragmatist approach? While philosophy is not dead, it seems stagnated.
2) Is there a relationship among all these age-old quarrels? Rationalism vs empiricism, realism vs nominalism, and so on? Can we move past them?