Reader

Reader

The Depth(s) of the Twentieth Century — Galen Strawson

Starting question

The Depth(s) of the Twentieth Century

Strawson presents a compact indictment of a mid-to-late twentieth-century philosophical habit: reversing what he takes to be the natural explanatory order. Across desire, belief, meaning, emotion, consciousness, objects, powers, causation, and existence, he was taught that the outward, behavioural, dispositional, or experiential pattern explains the apparently prior inner or metaphysical fact. He thinks these reversals are the wrong way round. > It seemed to me that all these claims were the wrong way round. > I still think they’re all the wrong way round, but I feel a little less insecure.

Then Node

Philosophical atmosphere

Strawson frames the list autobiographically: he took up philosophy in 1972 and encountered a family of claims presented as the sophisticated view of central topics. The joke of the title is that these were supposed to be philosophical depths, but to him they often looked like inversions. > I took up philosophy in 1972, and this... is what I was given to understand.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Pro / Supporting Point

General form of inversion

The repeated structure is: not X explains Y, but Y explains X. Wanting is explained by trying; belief by behaviour; meaning by correct use; anger by expression; consciousness by observable dispositions. Strawson’s target is this broad explanatory style rather than one isolated doctrine.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

Insecurity before orthodoxy

Strawson says these views made him doubt his philosophical competence. The piece is partly comic because he reports a young philosopher feeling insecure precisely because he found the reigning sophistication obviously inverted. > This led me to feel very insecure about my ability to do philosophy.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

The wrong way round

The main judgment is blunt: across all these domains, Strawson thinks the explanatory order should not be reversed. Desire, belief, understanding, consciousness, objects, powers, causes, and existence are not made by their behavioural or experiential shadows. > I still think they’re all the wrong way round.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

Tentative improvement

The final sentence is dryly hopeful. Perhaps the twenty-first century is recovering somewhat from these reversals, but only slightly. The note ends with philosophical irony rather than a full argument. > Perhaps things are looking up a little—but only a little—in the 21st century.

Select text to highlight passages.

Continue this thread

This path ends here for now.

If you want to keep exploring this line of thought, open the editor and add the next question or answer from this endpoint.

Continue this thread in the editor on desktop.

Open editor to continue

Other paths you could read

Earlier, at General form of inversion, the conversation split. If this is not the thread you want, you can switch to one of the other paths below.

Desire reversed

Objects reversed

Highlights

0 saved passages and connected ideas

No highlights yet

Select text to save it here.