Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Welcome to the forum

Moderators: AMod, iMod

There should be a "History of Philosophy" forum on this website.

Good idea
12
80%
Bad idea
1
7%
Indifferent
2
13%
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun May 15, 2016 12:06 am

The History of Philosophy AND the Philosophy of History would be a good idea, but the latter would not be greatly subscribed to except by myself, probably.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun May 15, 2016 12:12 am

That's fine Gary. No issue then. I wish you luck in your quest.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Gary Childress » Sun May 15, 2016 12:21 am

Dalek Prime wrote:That's fine Gary. No issue then. I wish you luck in your quest.
Thanks, Dalek. :)

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Gary Childress » Sun May 15, 2016 12:29 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The History of Philosophy AND the Philosophy of History would be a good idea, but the latter would not be greatly subscribed to except by myself, probably.
You may be right. I don't even recall there being a "philosophy of history" class at the University I attended out of high school (though I could very well be wrong as it wasn't something I actively sought out at the time). However, I have since seen some writings on the topic and they do seem very intriguing, "what is history". "How do we think of it" and "how do our conceptions of history shape the present and vice versa" and all manner of interesting questions. It is very fascinating and I would absolutely LOVE to see discussion of such questions in the forum. I would definitely enjoy participating as a beginner in such discourse if someone started a forum. As far as not having much participation perhaps the axiom "build it and they will come" applies? :)

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun May 15, 2016 12:36 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:The History of Philosophy AND the Philosophy of History would be a good idea, but the latter would not be greatly subscribed to except by myself, probably.
You may be right. I don't even recall there being a "philosophy of history" class at the University I attended out of high school (though I could very well be wrong as it wasn't something I actively sought out at the time). However, I have since seen some writings on the topic and they do seem very intriguing, "what is history". "How do we think of it" and "how do our conceptions of history shape the present and vice versa" and all manner of interesting questions. It is very fascinating and I would absolutely LOVE to see discussion of such questions in the forum. I would definitely enjoy participating as a beginner in such discourse if someone started a forum. As far as not having much participation perhaps the axiom "build it and they will come" applies? :)
As I studied archaeology with some pretty radical guys, and also Classical history with some not so radical guys, then did an MA in Intellectual History, the idea that history might not be exactly what it appears to be is a great question.
Even the most banal "facts" such as the event in Rome on the Ides of March 44BC, is not as straightforward as you might think. What verb do you used to describe what his killers did; murder, assassination. Were they terrorists or liberators. What is the connotation of "BC", surely the participants did not know that 'christ' was going to be born, and yet we casually describe in it those anticipatory terms.
Why do we think it was important? Most people in the world were unaffected - even in the so-called "Roman world", and the vast majority would not have heard about it for months, even years. They carried on planting their seeds, and tilling the earth. Why are we mostly interested in celebrities, and aristocrats? Surely life went on and there were far more important things to think about than what the idle rich did?
Who got to write the history and set the agenda - what did that mean for the way history views Brutus, and Cassius?

mickthinks
Posts: 747
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by mickthinks » Sun May 15, 2016 12:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote:I'm merely saying that history of philosophy is interesting to some of us, however there really isn't a forum dedicated to it here.
You still haven't grasped the significance of the hidden premises implicit in the case you are trying to make.

I am sure football is interesting to some of us, but that doesn't mean that we want a sub-forum dedicated to the discussion of football here. You might respond "But football isn't a philosophical activity" and I would agree and reply "And neither is History".


I think the issue is not whether philosophers can discuss past philosophers from a historical perspective. Rather it is whether there are so many history of philosophy discussions taking place in the general forums that it is becoming hard to follow the other non-historical discussions in those threads, or whether there are would-be members coming to PhiNow and leaving in disappointment because they cannot find the History of Philosophy discussions they came for. I submit that this is not a problem now, nor is it likely ever to become one.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Gary Childress » Sun May 15, 2016 3:51 pm

mickthinks wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:I'm merely saying that history of philosophy is interesting to some of us, however there really isn't a forum dedicated to it here.
You still haven't grasped the significance of the hidden premises implicit in the case you are trying to make.

I am sure football is interesting to some of us, but that doesn't mean that we want a sub-forum dedicated to the discussion of football here. You might respond "But football isn't a philosophical activity" and I would agree and reply "And neither is History".


I think the issue is not whether philosophers can discuss past philosophers from a historical perspective. Rather it is whether there are so many history of philosophy discussions taking place in the general forums that it is becoming hard to follow the other non-historical discussions in those threads, or whether there are would-be members coming to PhiNow and leaving in disappointment because they cannot find the History of Philosophy discussions they came for. I submit that this is not a problem now, nor is it likely ever to become one.
I'm sure there is no dire need for a history of philosophy forum. It would just seem to compliment the forum well in my opinion. It seems apparent you believe otherwise. I'll leave it at that.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 949
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Gary Childress » Sun May 15, 2016 4:05 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:The History of Philosophy AND the Philosophy of History would be a good idea, but the latter would not be greatly subscribed to except by myself, probably.
You may be right. I don't even recall there being a "philosophy of history" class at the University I attended out of high school (though I could very well be wrong as it wasn't something I actively sought out at the time). However, I have since seen some writings on the topic and they do seem very intriguing, "what is history". "How do we think of it" and "how do our conceptions of history shape the present and vice versa" and all manner of interesting questions. It is very fascinating and I would absolutely LOVE to see discussion of such questions in the forum. I would definitely enjoy participating as a beginner in such discourse if someone started a forum. As far as not having much participation perhaps the axiom "build it and they will come" applies? :)
As I studied archaeology with some pretty radical guys, and also Classical history with some not so radical guys, then did an MA in Intellectual History, the idea that history might not be exactly what it appears to be is a great question.
Even the most banal "facts" such as the event in Rome on the Ides of March 44BC, is not as straightforward as you might think. What verb do you used to describe what his killers did; murder, assassination. Were they terrorists or liberators. What is the connotation of "BC", surely the participants did not know that 'christ' was going to be born, and yet we casually describe in it those anticipatory terms.
Why do we think it was important? Most people in the world were unaffected - even in the so-called "Roman world", and the vast majority would not have heard about it for months, even years. They carried on planting their seeds, and tilling the earth. Why are we mostly interested in celebrities, and aristocrats? Surely life went on and there were far more important things to think about than what the idle rich did?
Who got to write the history and set the agenda - what did that mean for the way history views Brutus, and Cassius?
I've heard it claimed that before Hegel's time the concept of history as "progress" or progression toward some better society of sorts was largely not the way most people viewed history. In fact, according to Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato tended to view history as a process of decay from some sort of idyllic or perfect past.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun May 15, 2016 4:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote:I was thinking about starting a thread to inquire about and discuss Socrates as a historical figure but such a topic doesn't seem to fit in very well in any forum except maybe the "general" forum. But in some senses it doesn't seem like it should really go there either. It sort of seems like there should be a "History of Philosophy" forum or some sort of forum dedicated specifically to discussing the thoughts and ideas of past philosophers or great thinkers. What do others think? Good idea or bad idea?

Thanks.
I've been following the discussion, and have been persuaded by you and Hobbes ( Phil of history ) that even if there is no great demand for yet another subforum, that this/these would be a quality addition. Perhaps any forthcoming overhaul of the PN forum could accommodate both ?

I think it would help understand and respond to significant figures, and also question the facts of history as presented. Particularly interested in what Hobbes was saying about Rome. That and Greece would make a great combo, just for starters.

The history of philosophy would also touch on and provide insight into other subfields. See historyofphilosophy.net
Also, given that we still have posters who can't or won't see the benefits of philosophy, the Introduction or Welcome mat could highlight and sticky the general uses of philosophy. Persuasive powers.

BTW,
I was one of those who pestered for a Phil OF language subforum before realising that I preferred language IN philosophy, hmm, or was it Philosophy IN Language...
That one could disappear without any great harm, I think.
Last edited by marjoram_blues on Sun May 15, 2016 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun May 15, 2016 5:26 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:I was thinking about starting a thread to inquire about and discuss Socrates as a historical figure but such a topic doesn't seem to fit in very well in any forum except maybe the "general" forum. But in some senses it doesn't seem like it should really go there either. It sort of seems like there should be a "History of Philosophy" forum or some sort of forum dedicated specifically to discussing the thoughts and ideas of past philosophers or great thinkers. What do others think? Good idea or bad idea?

Thanks.
I've been following the discussion, and have been persuaded by you and Hobbes ( Phil of history ) that even if there is no great demand for yet another subforum, that this/these would be a quality addition. Perhaps any forthcoming overhaul of the PN forum could accommodate both ?

I think it would help understand and respond to significant figures, and also question the facts of history as presented. Particularly interested in what Hobbes was saying about Rome. That and Greece would make a great combo, just for starters.

The history of philosophy would also touch on and provide insight into other subfields.
Also, given that we still have posters who can't or won't see the benefits of philosophy, the Introduction or Welcome mat could highlight and sticky the general uses of philosophy. Persuasive powers.

BTW,
I was one of those who pestered for a Phil OF language subforum before realising that I preferred language IN philosophy, hmm, or was it Philosophy IN Language...
That one could disappear without any great harm, I think.
Hmmm. Well, we could change the name of that forum, or just use it for the newer purpose, should the name not be changed. :?:

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun May 15, 2016 5:28 pm

What about the Aesthetics forum changing its name ?
Dalek, my head hurts from all the possible combos...
Help ?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun May 15, 2016 5:31 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:What about the Aesthetics forum changing its name ?
Dalek, my head hurts from all the possible combos...
Help ?
I think the aesthetics forum is more used, and won't work. I still think book club would fit the bill.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun May 15, 2016 5:38 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote:What about the Aesthetics forum changing its name ?
Dalek, my head hurts from all the possible combos...
Help ?
I think the aesthetics forum is more used, and won't work. I still think book club would fit the bill.
Yes, it is more used, but for what? Pages of art, music, poetry without any great discussion. Yes, the book club is a bit old hat now, given all other media types. All this 'entertainment' could be in the lounge ?

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Dalek Prime » Sun May 15, 2016 5:40 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Dalek Prime wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote:What about the Aesthetics forum changing its name ?
Dalek, my head hurts from all the possible combos...
Help ?
I think the aesthetics forum is more used, and won't work. I still think book club would fit the bill.
Yes, it is more used, but for what? Pages of music, poetry without any great discussion. Yes, the book club is a bit old hat now, given all other media types. All this 'entertainment' could be in the lounge ?
I wouldn't mind, but others might.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8385
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Shouldn't there be a "History of Philosophy" forum?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun May 15, 2016 11:02 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
I've heard it claimed that before Hegel's time the concept of history as "progress" or progression toward some better society of sorts was largely not the way most people viewed history. In fact, according to Karl Popper in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, Plato tended to view history as a process of decay from some sort of idyllic or perfect past.
There has always been that tension, between progress and decay. The Greeks, especially in Hesiod, had their ages: Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic, then Iron. It was all pretty much downhill from the end of the Golden age; Rome had Ovid's Four ages, omitting "Heroes". Plato did not originate this idea.
Archeology was pretty much influenced by the idea of these stages, but with the idea of progress following the "Enlightenment", and the discovery of Stone tools. Silver and Gold were replaces by "Stone Age".
But it only takes a moment's thought to see that the stadial view of history is absurd, and tends to lead to anachronistic thinking, as no one in the stone age could possibly think if themselves that way.
I once read a archaeology book that caricatured this idea by quoting a film; "Come, men of the Middle Ages, we are about to embark upon the 100 years war".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests