Abstract
Forecasting the future of anything whatever is heady business — all the more so, if the subject in question is philosophy. If we need reminding of that, we might just consider for a moment how the future of philosophy looked to Hegel in 1806, to Marx and Feuerbach in the early 1840s, to Russell and Moore at the turn of the century or to Ebner and Jaspers just after World War One. Perhaps the best way to approach this difficult subject is to consider the attitudes of some prominent thinkers to the future generally.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See my “Ebner und Popper als Denker” Akten des internationalen Ferdinand Ebner Symposium, ed. Walter Methlagl (Salzburg, 1985), and “Wittgenstein: An Austrian Enigma”, Austrian Philosophy, ed. J. C. Nyíri (Munich, 1981), pp. 75–89.
For the details of my critique of Rorty’s views about the future of philosophy see above, pp. 80–92. My criticisms are directed at the views he expresses in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, 1979) not those in The Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis, 1982), whose Introduction and Conclusion compliment the views I have developed here, xiii-xlvii; pp. 211–30.
Stephen Toulmin, “Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 39–48.
Jacques Bouvresse, Le philosophe chez les autophages, (Paris, 1984).
John Passmore has brilliantly developed the spectrum of opinion concerning the relations between philosophy and history in his contribution to Scientific Explanation and Understanding, ed. Nicholas Rescher, (London and Boston, 1983), 83–105;
cf. Pass more’s “Why Philosophy of Science”, Science Under Scrutiny, ed. R. W. Home (Dordrecht, 1983), pp. 5–30.
I have discussed the concept of spiritual practice in “Discussing Technology: Breaking the Ground”, Is the Computer a Tool?, below and “Style and Idea in the Later Heidegger”, above.
Marvin Farber, “Descriptive Philosophy and Human Existence”, Philosophic Thought in France and the United States, ed. Marvin Farber (Buffalo, 1950), p. 430.
John Dewey, German Politics and Philosophy (New York, 1915);
Max Scheler, Der Genius des Krieges und der deutsche Krieg, Gesammelte Werke IV: Politische-pedagogische Schriften (Bern & Munich, 1982).
On Haecker see my, “The Philosophy of Inwardness: Haecker, Kierkegaard and the Brenner”, International Kierkegaard Commentary, Vol. I: The Two Ages, ed. Robert Perkins (Mobile: forthcoming).
John Passmore, 100 Years of Philosophy, (London, 1957), p. 471 et passim.
G. K. Chesterton, G. F. Watts (New York, 1902), pp. 10–2.
For important studies of the relationship between socio-economic problems and intellectual life in Wilhelmine Germany see Arthur Mitzman, The Iron Cage (New York, 1970) and
Kenneth Barkin, The Controversy Over German Industrialization (Chicago, 1969).
William Gallie, “Essentially Contested Concepts”, The Importance of Language, ed. Max Black (Engelwood Cliffs, 1962), p. 121- 46.
William Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse (Lexington, Mass., 1974), p. 181.
Jean Cavaillès, Philosophie mathématique (Paris, 1969). I am indebted to Professor Santiago Ramirez for information about Cavaillès; Ramirez is currently preparing a definitive study of Cavaillès. He presented a preliminary report of his research to the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy and History of Science in October 1984 under the title “An Alternative for the Philosophy of Mathematics”, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.
Barry Smith, Parts and Moments (Munich, 1982). For a partial list of the proceedings of the Austro-German Seminar see Structure and Gestalt, ed. Barry Smith (Amsterdam, 1981), p. iv-vii.
On praxeology see Gunnar Skirbekk (ed.) Praxeology (Oslo, 1983).
Kjell S. Johannessen, “Language, Art and Aesthetic Practice”, Wittgenstein, Aesthetics and Transcendental Philosophy, eds. Johannessen & Nordenstam (Vienna, 1981).
See Gunnar Danbolt’s contribution to Den estetiske praksis (Aesthetic Practices) (Oslo, 1979), pp. 64–96.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janik, A. (1989). The Politics of Conciliation. In: Style, Politics and the Future of Philosophy. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 114. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2251-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2251-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7508-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2251-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive