I previously made the criticism that history has been unable to offer a truly transcendent philosophy. I may have been remiss in doing so. It occurs to me that part of the charm of philosophy comes from its ability to embody the spirit or – forgive me for being shamefully enticed by this term – zeitgeist of the era in which it was devised. One of the things that separates philosophy from religion is the fact that philosophy moves in time. It is a protean entity, molding itself into whatever form it deems appropriate for a given age.
In this regard, it’s not strange that I’ve been really attracted to the field of philosophy lately. In fact, it makes sense, given that I study history. Philosophy must be taken hand-in-hand with history. Considering the historic facts of a given era along with its contemporary philosophy gives one a much more rounded sense of that time.
In fact, I by no means expect most people to take an active interest in philosophy. It often ends up being a group of incredibly effete, lonely people sitting around thinking really hard and expounding upon whatever unnecessarily complex kernel of "truth" they give birth to. It’s almost the ideological equivalent of Latin.
Almost. Unlike Latin, philosophy is not dead. It is a living, breathing thing that speaks for the era in which it is devised. Furthermore, it can constantly be remolded while also retaining a certain amount of intransigent truth. Topics such as ethics, beauty and meaning are never dead, but serve as bedrock upon which contemporary history takes place.
The next, and most obvious, question is: What of our modern age? Where are our philosophers?
Again, the easiest way to consider this question is within an historical context. It seems we have not had a truly influential philosopher since the middle of the 20th century. The name John Dewey always sounded familiar to me, but I never knew why he was important. He is one of the last noteworthy philosophers. Among other things, he was a proponent of hands-on education and if you’ve ever gone to school, you were probably, in a small way, unknowingly affected by his ideals.
He died in 1952. Since then, I think most people would be hard-pressed to name someone they may have heard being referred to as an important philosopher. This is not to say that important philosophers do not exist but, if they do, one does not hear much about them. They are probably the victims of an uninterested media or their own impossible jargon. If the latter reason is the case, it is probably because the importance of such writings are only felt within the academic circles populated by today’s students of philosophy.
So what makes the middle of the 20th century a high water mark in the history of philosophy? I would argue that it had a lot to do with the end of WWII and the implementation of the Marshall Plan. It was at this moment that Europe had been brought to its knees by a truly devastating war and the American initiative to reconstruct Europe placed us comfortably in the position of becoming the sole super-power. There was still the Soviet Union, but from day one they were so dogged by infrastructure problems that it was really only a matter of time before they tapped out (though I concede the perspective history has given).
The United State is a place of action. We are inextricably caught up in, and unforgivably party to, the exponentially increasing pace of technological, social and political development. We are based in a strongly Calvinist work ethic and, as a culture, spend little time on reflection. This drive has its good and bad aspects, but one must admit that it is by no means a situation that is conducive to philosophizing.
I would count this among the bad aspects. Who do we have to give a cohesive and coherent voice to the insights and subtler aspects of our current era? In a way, the 21st century is analogous to the Middle Ages. Meaning seems to be given to people’s lives only by either the systematic hand of labor or the dogmatic hand of religion. As far as government is concerned, we merely tolerate its ignorance.
Science, of course, unlocks the secrets of how the world works. But, in its adherence to empiricism, it offers little perspective on the knowledge it lays down. (However, many scientists do try to put their work into a meaningful context, thereby putting into print some of the great populariztions of science*).
Following this medieval analogy, we seem to be left with minstrels to give us perspective on our world. This finds very literal realization in the various bands and musical performers we idolize. Since the sixties – close to the middle of the 20th century – there has been a seriously concerted effort to look towards these people to put our lives into perspective. Musicians, in response, either suffer from monstrously inflated egos (how many rock n’ roll Jesuses can you list?) or lament the fact that everyone looks toward them to be a role model.
But there are other minstrels. Indeed, we seem to be a culture addicted to opinion – not philosophy, opinion. Media is rife with talking heads, each one of them constructing their own little systems of what today’s events mean. None of them are able to see any farther than the front page of the morning paper. (Hopefully, someone will follow Jon Stewart’s lead in criticizing this movement. If you haven’t seen it, check out his Crossfire appearance on www.ifilm.com.)
Even truly objective journalism doesn’t do the job. Like science, it gives us the information – which is a commendable job, in itself – but it rarely gives us a more general perspective on our current era.
What is needed is some voice to give perspective to the time in which we live, as a whole. It must be someone who is sufficiently devoid of bias, staunchly skeptical of most things and not at all interested in lining his or her wallet.
This person need not necessarily be right in all things – indeed, what philosopher has been – but must give a lasting picture of what today’s world is about while also tying it to some higher truth. Maybe then we will have produced a system of thought that will make future historians say, "See…this is what this era was about, and this is what it has given to us."
*See such authors as Carl Sagan, Oliver Sacks, Steven Pinker and Michael Pollen. If you have any other recommendations, please leave a comment.
