Talk:19th-century philosophy

Untitled

Old Article:

Modern philosophy is philosophy done during the "modern" era of Europe and North America. It is not a specific doctrine or school, (and so should not be confused with Modernism) although there are certain assumptions common to much of it, which helps to distinguish it from earlier (and later?) philosophy.

The modern period runs roughly from the beginning of the seventeenth century until the present. How much if any of the Renaissance it should include is a matter for dispute; likewise modernity may or may not have ended in the twentieth century and been replaced by post-modernity. How one decides these questions will determine the scope of one's use of "modern philosophy"; the convention, however, is to refer to philosophy of the Renaissance prior to Descartes as "Early Modern Philosophy" (leaving open whether that puts it just inside or just outside the boundary) and to refer to twentieth-century philosophy, or sometimes just philosophy since Wittgenstein, as "Contemporary Philosophy" (again, leaving open whether or not it is still modern). This article will focus on the history of philosophy from Descartes through the early twentieth century.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HarryJL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

History of Modern Philosophy

The major figures in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and metaphysics during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are roughly divided into two main groups. The "Rationalists," mostly in France and Germany, assumed that all knowledge must begin from certain "innate ideas" in the mind. Major Rationalists were Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Nicolas Malebranche. The "Empiricists," by contrast, held that knowledge must begin with sensory experience. Major figures in this line of thought are Locke, George_Berkeley, and Hume. (These are retrospective categories, for which Kant is largely responsible; but they are not too inaccurate).

Ethics and political philosophey are usually not subsumed under these categories, though all these philosophers worked in ethics. In their own distinctive styles. Other important figures here are Hobbes and Rousseau.

In the late eigteenth century Immanuel Kant set forth a groudbreaking philosophical system which claimed to bring unity to rationalism and empiricism. Whether or not he was right, he did not entirely succeed in ending philosophical dispute. Kant sparked a storm of philosophical work in Germany in the early nineteenth century. This was German Idealism; its characteristic theme was that the world and the mind equally must be understood according to the same categories; it culminated in the work of Hegel, who among many other things said that "The real is rational; the rational is real."

Hegel's work was carried in many directions by his students; most notably, Karl Marx appropriated both Hegel's philosophy of history and the empirical ethics dominant in Britain, transforming Hegel's ideas into a strictly materialist form, to be used as a tool for revolution. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Kierkegaard turned philosophy into an internal and religious endeavour. Schopenhauer took Idealism to the conclusion that the world was nothing but the futile endless interplay of images and desires, and advocated atheism and pessimism. Kierkegaard's and Schopenhauer's ideas were taken up and transformed by Nietzsche, who seized upon their various dismissals of the world to proclaim "God is dead" and to reject all systematic philosophy and all striving for a fixed truth transcending the individual. Nietzsche, though, found in this not a grounds for pessimism, but the possibility of a new kind of freedom.

(Rationalism is sometimes extended to include Rousseau, Kant and post-Kantian Idealism, and Empiricism is sometimes extended back to cover Hobbes and forward to cover John Stuart Mill and the Utilitarians, and is sometimes even treated as contiuous with twentieth-century Analytic philosophy.)

During the nineteenth century British philosophy came increasigly to be dominated by strands of neo-Hegelisn thought; it was exasperation with these that led Russell and Moore in the direction that became analytic philosophy.

Discussions of these movements follow in more detail.

Rationalism

Modern Philosophy traditionally begins with Rene Descartes and his dictum "I think, therefore I am." In the early seventeenth century the bulk of philosophy was dominated by Scholasticism: written by theologians and drawing upon Plato, Aristotle, and early Church writings. Descartes argued that many predominant Scholastic metaphysical doctrines were meaningless or false. In short, he proposed to begin philosophy from scratch. In his most important work, Meditations on First Philosophy, he attempts just this, over six brief essays. He tries to set aside as much as he possibly can of all his beliefs, to determine what if anything he knows for certain. He finds that he can doubt nearly everything: the reality of physical objects, God, his memories, history, science, even math, buthe cannot doubt that he is, in fact, doubting. He knows what he is thinking about, even if it is not true, and he knows that he is there thinking about it. From this asis he builds his knowledge back up again. he finds that some of the ideas he has could not have originated from him alone, but only from God; he proves that God exists. He then demonstrates that God would not allow him to be systematically deceived about everything; in esence, he vindicates ordinary methods of science and reasoning, as fallible but not false.

Spinoza, Leibniz

Empiricism

• Locke, Berkeley
• Hume

Political Philosophy

• Rousseau
• Kant
• German Idealism
• Hegel
• Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham
• James Mill
• John Stuart Mill
• Marx
• Nietzsche
• Phenomenology
• Existentialism
• Analytic philosophy (Logical positivism)
• Analytic philosophy (Post-Positivism)

Major Themes in Modern Philosophy

The "history of philosophy" had conflicting and overlapping articles - Modern philosophy covers much of the same ground as two other articles, does not cover many philosophers called modern, and is a terminology that has "modern" philosophy end where "modernism" begins. This looks suspiciously like someone's essay organization on the topic, and not a description of the range of usages. The original "modern" bucket is duly noted in the history of Western philosophy page. Stirling Newberry 18:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can see why that might have been undesirable for the "history of philosophy" article, but having "Modern Philosophy" redirect here seems just plain wrong, since practically no philosophers use "modern philosophy" to refer exclusively to 19th century philosophy. I'm going to go ahead and put the "Modern Philosophy" article back up. If you really don't like it, I'd think a redirect to History of Western philosophy would be better.

Redirection to 19th Century Philosophy

Upon reading the older article above, I'm really wondering why Modern Philosophy is redirected to 19th century philosophy. As far as my understanding goes (as a philosophy major) modern philosophy is more 17th-18th century, including rationalism and empiricism, and ending with Kant. I'm going to go out on a limb here and redirect it to 17th-century philosophy. -Nate

Yes. This redirect seems a terrible mistake to me... although 17th-century philosophy isn't any better. Modern philosophy, in the way most philosophers talk about it, spans the 17th century through the 20th century. Can I put the old article back up?

blab school?

what is with that link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.237.69 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

cannot parse a sentence

" it validated strong emotion as an authentic not of aesthetic experience" -- is this supposedly English? "not of"? What does it mean? it validated strong emotion as an authentic (?authentic what?) (and) not (merely an) aesthetic experience perhaps? And what does THAT mean precisely? Or maybe that it validated it as an authentic and aesthetic experience? I'd attempt to correct it myself, if I had an idea of what it was attempting to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.61.228 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)