Hello Friend,
Just recently I decided to go back and familiarize myself with some of the basics of Western thought. I decided to devote some time to David Hume...in order to wrap my mind around his salient points since so many sons of the enlightenment consider him to be the "god-father" of modern secular humanistic thought. Then, I stumbled across Paul Hazzard's survey of European thought of the 17th and 18th century. So, I took a break from the particular (DAvid) to steep myself in the general before returning. And, while doing so, I have read the first few pages of the Passion of the Western Mind.
Here's the question. When reading the surveys of the growing enlightenment of the 16th - 18th century and the development of Greek thought, the EXACT same words are used to describe the progression and the "seed" thoughts. When I read Richard Tarnas' description of the mind of the Sophists, it is described in the same terms used by other authors and editors to describe the mind, the thoughts, the goals of the modern enlightenment. Rational, secular, humanistic, anti old authority, unsure of substance of reality, relativistic, "man measure of all things", etc. So, in what ways and what NEW points of development can I look for in the later enlightenment as I study these periods. I am speaking in the "general".
I have often held to the idea that "there are no really new ideas" under the sun. All the categories have been fairly well defined and investigated and the broad approaches have been mapped. It is only the circumstancial and environmental factors which change challenging thinkers to apply/make relevant the same categories to their present reality.
And, while I'm at it...question 2.........
What one or two books would you suggest that I add to my list in order to get the best insight into 17 and 18th century thought.
I figured it might take me several months to finish what I am doing.....then I thought I would reread Kant on Critique of Pure Reason.
thanks

Thomas,

I can only respond to one of you requests, and that is what there is new under the sun.

If you like, there is the discussion and construction of what I call human hard theory- irrefutable concepts of the common self such as ‘love’ and ‘control’ and ‘laughter’. Greater understanding allows for deeper interpretation and appreciation- if your concerned that it is unromantic or at all dehumanising to do this.

Then there is the discussion and description of what I call sentient hard theory, such as ‘corporation’, ‘organised religion’ and ‘bureaucracy’. I think this one is of vital concern- to formally acknowledge corporate will is to create the means to domesticate these mammoth bulls into beasts of burden (and stop all the skape-goating and platinum hand-shakes after yet another collapse).

Then there is the discussion and formulation of dis-integral hard theory. This can be described in terms of ambient, circumstantial hard theory. Like air quality is dependant on weather. This is the most vague and yet is the only one that has been considered, imho, in any depth and then only enough to become dismissive of it as ‘too complex’. These are the theory that work as medium for interaction between human hard theory and sentient hard theory.

Can’t help you with the other.

You seam to be an interested fellow- I’d appreciate your comments on the above.

sean

strike sentient hard theory for animate hard theory. responsive entities rather than reasoning entities.

love to discuss meanings with you.

sean