Larry Solum adds his thoughts to the philosophical immortality discussion. His has lots of interest to say, and some extra thoughts on which legal theorists will survive, but I feel a bit sceptical about this:
The twentieth-century was the first time in human history that literally tens of thousands of very smart people worked on philosophical problems for most of their waking hours—with all of the advantages of modern technology— try writing a really big book with a quill pen or traveling four hundred miles by horse to consult a library . In the twentieth century, there was a lot of low hanging philosophical fruit. Much of it was plucked. History will remember.
Does technology really help? Sure, there’s been some philosophical progress but I’m not convinced it has much to do with the availability of typewriters, computers and motor vehicles. Philosophy is a funny business, sort of stuck half way between scientific research and creative writing or music. To the extent to which it is like scientific research then the good thoughts are dissociable from the person having them. But we can also think of a style of writing and thinking as being characteristic of a creative individual and not easily pulled apart from them. Some philosophers are closer to one pole than the other. It is at least arguable that music and literature did a lot better with the horse and the quill pen than they have in the electronic age. Maybe in 100 years we’ll think philosophy did too. Technology might help, but it might just get in the way.
The twentieth-century was the first time in human history that literally tens of thousands of very smart people worked on philosophical problems for most of their waking hours
This would indeed tend to lead to fantastic progress, if only these people had been working on solving philosophical problems, rather than creating new ones.
At least for the more mathematical end of the analytic project, the invention of the computer has been a godsend. You can implement your models as a computer program and watch them crash and burn, one after another. This is really great, since it dramatically amplifies the pace of progress — in a hundred years it will be engineering, not science, and certainly not philosophy.
Heck, in twenty years this could well be true — the area of CS I work in (programming language semantics and type theory) could quite fairly be called applied analytic philosophy.
ooops, you haven’t been reading your McLuhan, now have you?
Technology and thought are intimately connected. Check out Plato and Aristotle if you’re not sure (writing came into use in between, Plato is oral, Aristotle is literate).
Then look at printing and the Enlightenment (circulation of books). Obviously the inter-connectedness of the modern world is going to have a masssssssssssive impact. For just a taster you could try looking at what ‘mad’ Ray Kurzweil does to Chinese Room specialist John Searle. Poor John, he’s reduced to falling back on that ‘causal powers of the mind stuff’. (Actually the Derrida debunk of searle thirty years ago was a lot funnier, but that wouldn’t serve my argument). What I mean is, you’ve got someone who basically doesn’t know s**t about philosophy taking apart someone who is considered to be one of America’s leading philosophers, just because he understands something about technology. Now, Daniel Dennett, he wouldn’t be such easy meat. But I’ve a feeling he just might agree with the point that’s being made here.
Not sure about McLuhan, but why take me to be denying that technology and thought are intimately connected? Maybe they are, and that’s worse for some forms of thought? Is a philosophy essay composed by a student with a pencil likely to be better or worse than one composed with Microsoft Word? Certainly the one composed in Word will be more legible …
During the European scholastic period quite a large number of people were writing abstruse books with quill pens. We don’t read many of them, but you had whole districts of Paris populated with budding theologians. The same is true in Tibet. The Tibetan Buddhist literature is enormous, and the dozens of translations only scratch the surface.
Does this mean that I think (as D2 seems to) that contemporary philosophers are scholastic dunces*? Yeah, but actually I think Tibetan scholasticism is quite interesting, so I have to qualify that.
*Google “dunce” + “Duns Scotus” to see what I mean.
Chris, try a slightly different question: is the soundness proof of some novel logical system constructed using the assistance of a computerized theorem prover qualititatively different from a proof constructed using pencil and paper?
You can make a case either way, but I’d be inclined towards the view that it is. A traditional proof gets its validity from an essentially social process: other mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers read the proof and decide whether it meets the proof standards of their discipline. A theorem prover adds a wholly new component to that process: there’s also a machine checking each of the steps. So now proof is a social and technical process.
That’s a pretty big change in the sociology of the philosophical enterprise.
My idea wasn’t that the technology made the thinker or the thoughts better. (That’s a very interesting question!) Rather, my idea was that technology allowed more time for the thinking, because it allows the mechanical aspects of scholarship to be accomplished in much less time. The assumption is that more time to think will translate into more good thoughts. This combines with the earlier point, about there simply being many more philosophers. The corresponding assumption is more people thinking translates into more good thinking. Of course, the ultimate point rests on a further assumption that more good thinking yields more truly great thinking about philosophical problems.
There is, of course, another way in which technology contributes to philosophic progress: medical technology has dramatically increased average life expectancy, thus making it less likely that great philosophers will die at an early age with much of their work incomplete. Come to think of it, it also probably increases the ease of the discovery process. Technology like the internet and modern communications/transportation makes it easier to find philosophical talent and cultivate it. Tyler Cowen makes some of these points regarding culture in general in the first of his latest trio of books.
“Rather, my idea was that technology allowed more time for the thinking, because it allows the mechanical aspects of scholarship to be accomplished in much less time.”
Now if only scholarly technology had been invented. No cell phones, pagers, fax machines, blogs . . .:-) My guess is that in the real world we all have less time to think, and more technology leads to more committee meetings, paper work and other forms of wheel-spinning.
Just to note that lots of people, including me, don’t recognise Edward’s characterisation of the Kurzweil/Searle affaire above. I came out of it thinking that Kurzweil had embarrassed himself, and Searle had shown once more that it’s a sight easier to mock him than understand him.
There is, of course, another way in which technology contributes to philosophic progress: medical technology has dramatically increased average life expectancy, thus making it less likely that great philosophers will die at an early age with much of their work incomplete.
Of course the counterpoint here is that that may also have a negative impact on philosophic progress. The whole issue of ageing giants long past their peak stagnating progress in their field through their huge influence, with their ideas only being fully challenged and, where flawed, overturned by the next generation after they’ve kicked the bucket.
On the other hand, if technological progress brings about intelligence augmentation and mind uploading, this becomes much less of an issue.
Robert: I have to disagree, at least in general. Comparing the average man’s “time to think” today with that of the “average man”, say, two centuries ago, I reckon today’s man has much more leisure time (and is less exhausted in it!), than ever before.
Now, modern man in general uses precious little of that for philosophical thought… but this was also true for every previous era. The “deep thinkers” have always been a tiny minority (and, well, considering how most of them seem to turn out, that might be just as well), and almost always of the leisure class anyway.
At any rate, I can’t imagine that increased communication and availability of information could be harmful to the production of good philosophy. It does, sadly, make for the easy dissemination of really bad philosophy as well, however. But, well, Sturgeon’s Law applies to Philosophy at least as well as anything else. We can be sure that bad philosophy is by no means a new phenomenon; if it seems so, recall that the most obvious stinkers of bygone days were most likely simply not copied and thus did not survive.
Sigivald: experiencing bad philosophy and bad science second-hand is one of the main pleasures in reading about the history of science. For example, I really enjoyed Douglas Irwin’s Against the Tide, in large measure because I enjoyed seeing how little sense 17th century economics (to the extent it existed at all) was.
(Though despite being nonsense it wasn’t at all incomprehensible, once you realized that these writings were attempts to influence the government’s trade policy, and were hence as unbiased as a political party’s position papers. In fact there’s a great deal of continuity between then and now; the miracle is that there’s any clear thinking at all about the subject, not that bad ideas persist.)
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review