Capacity for Philosophy

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

In a book I'm reading on Charles de Brosses (enlightenment-era thinker, coined fetish in the anthropological context as regards the origins of religious belief), he is described, in part, this way:

"Finally, influenced, by materialist tendencies, he investigates how concrete circumstances, the limits of technology, and bodily capacities condition human nature and thought."

My first instinct was to oppose this approach to research, but on further thought, I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about here. I'm thinking in particular of Piekoff's quoting of Rand when she said that she believed she wouldn't have been able to formulate the philosophy of Objectivism prior to the industrial revolution. I believe the reason was that the industrial revolution produced such a degree of cultural and material diversity that it gave her the opportunity to collect a vast amount of data about human nature. I also have a vague memory of something being said by either Rand or Piekoff about the fact that primitive humans could not be blamed for their beliefs given the state of human knowledge early in the history of mankind. This makes sense since reason had to develop gradually as humans evolved from monkeys.

Now, all that said, would de Brosses's approach to thinking about early religious thought be, in fact, correct? If so, at what point in history does it stop being true that man's environment places limits on his capacity for objectivity (or am I equivocating objectivity with philosophy? or reason?). In other words, how do we evaluate the philosophical judgments of people in different eras of human history? Is part of the reason that Kant is, according to Rand, the most evil the fact that he lived as recently as he did? Does the proliferation of certain truths change the standards for one's grasp of correct philosophy?

[necrovore]

Knowledge is hierarchical: you have to crawl before you can walk, algebra comes before calculus, and you can't invent the transistor until after you have discovered electricity.

The hierarchical nature of knowledge would also affect philosophy. Sometimes philosophers have to learn from their predecessors, including from the mistakes of their predecessors.

Because the human lifespan is limited and the amount of thinking a human can do is limited, there is a limit to how far one human can go intellectually. It's easier to reach any point if, due to the work of previous intellectuals, you get to start out halfway there. (You still have to verify their work, but that is much easier than having to invent it from scratch.)

Environment and society also make a difference; someone who comes up with a new idea will fare better in a free society than in a dictatorship, for example.

[Boydstun]

Howard,

I’m with the character who said “There is no such thing as an honest revolt against reason.” People do not have to wait for Aristotle to articulate for them the principle of non-contradiction to begin conforming to it. They knew the possible penalties of contradicting certain persons, and they knew to appear without self-contradiction for advantages of appearing honest with their fellows.

Writing helps one in seeing more subtle contradictions. I don’t think any serious systematic philosophy gets going in pre-literate societies.

Offhand, I don’t think any systematic philosophizing gets going in a society that has no religions and no sacred texts. The vision of rationality being a good and running to every issue seems to comes after written religious stories have taken hold. With the advent of comprehensive rationality come into view, it becomes the case full-weight that “there is no such thing as an honest revolt against reason.” The advent of money and advances in agriculture seem also to be prerequisites to the flowering of philosophy (full-weight rationality). 

The Epicureans did not accede to alleged sanctions of the gods. They had a sort of natural, biological basis for morals. Having articulated morals, arguments about alternative views, and having reading and writings, I think it is fair to say they had a philosophy, even a purely secular one. They would argue with Ayn Rand in her mature philosophy. They would defend lack of interest in new scientific discovery and technological innovation. They would defend not pursuing great wealth or great anything. They have a philosophy. Some of the reason it is not the Objectivist philosophy is due to the stage of science and useful invention at the time and lack of a correct concept of individual rights and those rights being the prime value properly protected by a state.

At the centuries of the Epicureans, philosophy was happening, and there were ones more affirming of realism and life than others. 

Epicurus and Rand