Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gabriela Chagas's avatar

Couldn't agree more with you, great reflections. And the cartoon at the end was such a nice touch.

Expand full comment
John D. Westlake's avatar

"Why should we give so much credence to Marcus Aurelius when there are modern thinkers among us who can expand upon what we’ve learned since then? A lot of what we’ve come up with is so much better than those philosophers could even have imagined!"

This way of framing the value (or not) of past thinkers already begs the question against them. Right Now is better, therefore the past is worse. Now where is your wisdom, Plato? <smugface>

The value in reading thinkers like the Stoics, and Plato and Aristotle and Cicero et al, is precisely because they put *our* modern views, including our humanistic assumptions, our natural equation of technology and science with goodness, and the very idea that history has a meaningful trajectory, into relief.

The fact that you can even judge today as "progress" against a prior state of affairs is entirely due to ideas you've received, without realizing it and to be sure through indirect means, from Plato and Aristotle.

I'd ask why incremental progress (James Webb, for example) is now wowing us more than the genuine revolutions in thought marked by Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Neils Bohr. It's easy to slag them off because we don't really get what upsets these were.

The same can be said for philosophers. A major figure like Kant or Hegel (responsible for Marx, by the by) really did bring about lasting changes in how the world looks. That doesn't happen when a lab tech patents a new gene-editing technique or a telescope sees a little better than the last one.

I don't mean to be harsh, but reading your list drove home to me just how *little* techno-science or artistic progress we make these days and how little it takes to amaze us compared to true table-throwing innovations of past thinkers.

Expand full comment
30 more comments...

No posts