There's an interesting argument here, and it has some merits, but it also has some blind spots that might be worth peering more deeply into. In particular, the whole concept of 'our philosophers' is limited by the assumption that the academic philosophers that are permitted media traction represent the entirety of a field. They do not.
For a philosopher inside academia but outside orthodoxy (and offering brilliant critiques of how 'analytic' philosophy has basically colonised the whole field), check out Babette Babich.
For a philosopher who has opted to cut all ties with academia, consider myself. Indeed, I think aspects of my philosophy are close to yours - your 'cyborg theocracy' is something I have reflected upon (I would call it an atheocracy, but this is a small point).
When you say "there is no politics, only technology" you are striking the bullseye. But blaming philosophy as a field for this failure misses the key point: the philosophers who have been permitted to thrive in the new academic space are those who are amenable to the technological and commercial influences upon academia as a whole. Blaming 'our philosophers' as if this referred to a homogenous collection of people is to entirely miss just how incredibly difficult it has been for those of us resisting to even be heard.
Great essay. And I finished “Human Forever” yesterday (read it in 24 hours, couldn’t put it down). I’ve come to philosophy from theology. Herman Bavinck (even as a HBP) regularly engages with the same topic (especially in volume one of his Dogmatics), pitting Christian theology against “sophists” and “mystics” and showing the cultural erosion of theology at the hands of both (he names names, including Strauss) and the need for retrieval.
Just a quick aside - If you haven't yet sampled Martin Heidegger's Essay "The Question Concerning The Essence of Technology" it might be well worth your time. For Heidegger, technology was not primarily an accretion of artifacts or of the theories required to produce artifacts, but was in fact a way of 'sighting' the natural world as nothing more than 'standing reserve', a sort of mute, uniform force which would be extracted and stored as the energy required to achieve technological transformation. As technology develops, it causes irreversible changes in the way that man orients in the natural world because it reveals or discloses nature as an instance of standing reserve.
"...and so BAP and others..." I have to ask: What does 'BAP' stand for in the second to last paragraph in this insightful piece? Granted, I may be setting myself up for some scorn but, if I can get through some "compound sentencing me to death" by reading James's material (loved Human, Forever even though it took me five times as long to read as I had hoped), I can withstand some further abuse.
Thanks for this. I will send it on to Prof Barzun, who is married to my niece. Of all the non believers in my family, he is open to discussion. Praying for him, and them.
It all comes down to not applying the injunction of Jesus to “pray to your Father” Matthew 6:6. The veil in the temple was rent to show that through Jesus we have real, tangible access to the Father by the Spirit.
There's an interesting argument here, and it has some merits, but it also has some blind spots that might be worth peering more deeply into. In particular, the whole concept of 'our philosophers' is limited by the assumption that the academic philosophers that are permitted media traction represent the entirety of a field. They do not.
For a philosopher inside academia but outside orthodoxy (and offering brilliant critiques of how 'analytic' philosophy has basically colonised the whole field), check out Babette Babich.
For a philosopher who has opted to cut all ties with academia, consider myself. Indeed, I think aspects of my philosophy are close to yours - your 'cyborg theocracy' is something I have reflected upon (I would call it an atheocracy, but this is a small point).
When you say "there is no politics, only technology" you are striking the bullseye. But blaming philosophy as a field for this failure misses the key point: the philosophers who have been permitted to thrive in the new academic space are those who are amenable to the technological and commercial influences upon academia as a whole. Blaming 'our philosophers' as if this referred to a homogenous collection of people is to entirely miss just how incredibly difficult it has been for those of us resisting to even be heard.
Great essay. And I finished “Human Forever” yesterday (read it in 24 hours, couldn’t put it down). I’ve come to philosophy from theology. Herman Bavinck (even as a HBP) regularly engages with the same topic (especially in volume one of his Dogmatics), pitting Christian theology against “sophists” and “mystics” and showing the cultural erosion of theology at the hands of both (he names names, including Strauss) and the need for retrieval.
Just a quick aside - If you haven't yet sampled Martin Heidegger's Essay "The Question Concerning The Essence of Technology" it might be well worth your time. For Heidegger, technology was not primarily an accretion of artifacts or of the theories required to produce artifacts, but was in fact a way of 'sighting' the natural world as nothing more than 'standing reserve', a sort of mute, uniform force which would be extracted and stored as the energy required to achieve technological transformation. As technology develops, it causes irreversible changes in the way that man orients in the natural world because it reveals or discloses nature as an instance of standing reserve.
"...and so BAP and others..." I have to ask: What does 'BAP' stand for in the second to last paragraph in this insightful piece? Granted, I may be setting myself up for some scorn but, if I can get through some "compound sentencing me to death" by reading James's material (loved Human, Forever even though it took me five times as long to read as I had hoped), I can withstand some further abuse.
Thanks for this. I will send it on to Prof Barzun, who is married to my niece. Of all the non believers in my family, he is open to discussion. Praying for him, and them.
It all comes down to not applying the injunction of Jesus to “pray to your Father” Matthew 6:6. The veil in the temple was rent to show that through Jesus we have real, tangible access to the Father by the Spirit.