As much as I love philosophy, I’ve never been an entirely comfortable fit with academic philosophy or religion departments. But until recently they were more or less the only game in town, the only way to get philosophical ideas heard by the world – unless one tried to be a freelance philosophy writer like Ken Wilber, an even more excruciating path to follow. Randall Collins in The Sociology of Philosophies argued that the great periods of philosophical creativity in the past have come with particular institutional settings – the monastery, the Greek agora – and that in the recent past it has come above all with the research university and the popular-press book, two institutions with whom philosophy’s future may now be in is in some doubt.
Blogs, however, excite me as a new way to do philosophy, one not available to previous generations. What might it mean to do philosophy primarily in this new format? It’s probably too early to tell. But there’s one towering figure in the history of philosophy who gives us a clue as to what it might look like, and his name is Baruch (or Benedictus de) Spinoza.
Spinoza should be an inspiration for philosophy bloggers in two different respects. First of all, he didn’t make money off his philosophy; he stands out (like Leibniz and John Stuart Mill) as a modern philosopher who did philosophy in his “spare” time. His paid career was grinding optical lenses; since Spinoza’s philosophy was deeply inspired by physics, the career certainly had a connection to his philosophical work. But nobody today cares about the lenses Spinoza ground – or at least, if they do, it’s only because they already cared about his philosophy. Spinoza’s paid contribution to the world was insignificant. His name will live on because of his avocation, his philosophical work that is neither career nor hobby. As humanities faculty jobs vanish at an ever quicker rate, it’s vital to remind ourselves of this man who enriched contemporary thought enormously without getting paid for it.
Second, and more fundamentally, Spinoza wrote in hypertext before the concept even existed. Spinoza’s master work, the Ethics, may be the most extensively cross-referenced work in the (pre-20th-century) history of philosophy. Spinoza takes his stylistic cues from geometry, establishing each proposition based on a numbered prior premise, and using the new proposition in turn as the premise for a new conclusion, explicitly referring back and forth in the text to the other places where the proposition is used. Effectively, he was trying to use an extensive network of hyperlinks and pingbacks – on the printed page. Which is a medium poorly suited to what Spinoza was trying to do; I’m told that a young Jacques Lacan, trying to decipher the Ethics, cut his copy up with scissors in order to be able to study the cross-references side by side. I do not doubt that if Spinoza were alive today, he would have written the Ethics online.
Online publication allows further possibilities that Spinoza was even less able to follow up. One no longer needs the start-to-finish progression that a book or article provides. That option is there if one wishes; but it is also possible to write in a different way, branching to different conclusions from the same starting point, allowing a different work to be absorbed by readers with different interests. Will the philosophy done in such new ways necessarily be better? Of course not. But it’s nevertheless exciting to be part of an entirely new venue for philosophical reflection, opening at least the potential for thinking in new and different ways.
I share some of your enthusiasm– online writing opens up a number of real possibilities for philosophy. I am most excited by the re-kindling of epistolary culture, which I think could do a great deal to foster real exchange of ideas about the deepest things. Above all, the cross-referencing, the sense of interconnectedness-of-issues, is potentially just the sort of thing that can jump-start insight. The danger is that it fosters the illusion that enlightenment is just a click away. In this sense it can easily turn into mere erudition, or even plain old posing. But every new medium has posed challenges that philosophy had to navigate. Plato already warns us that technology will undo our memory, and he was right– I no longer know any of my friends’ phone numbers. But Plato turned writing to the service of philosophy by exploiting the very things he warned about– e.g. the fact that it just ‘says the same thing over and over’. Even failing to attain Plato’s stature, the same accomplishment is possible in our day. There will be a Spinoza coming along eventually, assuming we survive long enough.
I’m just starting to try and figure out Speculative Realism, as I noted over at your blog; one of the big reasons the Speculative Realists intrigue me is that they seem to be the first philosophical network whose primary institutional basis is the Web. Well, maybe not primary, since they do still mostly seem to be academics and still write books, but I get the impression SR would not be what it is without the Web.
When are you going to do a post on the best philosopher of all time- Homer Simpson.
Homer’s philosophy transgresses the bounds of linguistic conceptuality, and therefore commentary on it cannot be put into words.
Very interesting post. I agree about the fact that the medium does not enhance the result, but that it also does not necessarily damage it. We lost Pico’s and Cicero’s ars mnemonica, but we are probably more flexible and inquisitive. We do not know about our own cultural past, but we do know something about many more different cultures, and so on.
I also agree that the loss of academic positions is a pity, but that it does not mean that there will be no more critical thinking whatsoever.
Finally, blogging is not just an interesting new medium for people who already feel the need to write about philosophy. It also *makes* people interested in philosophy. As far as I am concerned, at least, it works like that: I am fascinated by team-work. Hence, I am happy to start inquiring on subjects my friends and colleagues find interesting. On the contrary, I feel frustrated since, after many years of efforts, I could hardly persuade anyone about the importance of studying the pattern of quotations in Indian philosophical texts, or M?m??s? hermeneutics!
It has been very gratifying to blog and find people out there who are interested in the kind of wide-ranging inquiry I aim at here. I get to have conversations I could never have any other way. (Imagine how much it would have cost to have our comments in phone calls between the US and Italy, let alone face to face!)
Pingback: Do Speculative Realists want us to be Chinese? | Love of All Wisdom