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

Desire reversed

The first example reverses the intuitive order between wanting and action. Instead of trying to get something because one wants it, the behaviour or disposition to pursue it is treated as what constitutes wanting. > I don’t try to get something because I want it. I want it because I try to get it.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

Belief reversed

Belief receives the same treatment. Instead of belief explaining action on information, acting or being disposed to act is treated as the basis for saying one believes. > I don’t act on some information because I believe it to be true. I believe it to be true because I act on it, or am disposed to.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

Meaning reversed

The account of meaning and understanding is similarly use-first. Strawson reports being told not that correct use follows from understanding, but that understanding is constituted by correct use. > I don’t use a word correctly because I know what it means. I know what it means because I use it correctly.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

Emotion reversed

Feelings and emotions are also treated outwardly or dispositionally: anger does not explain the expression of anger; expression or inclination to express is treated as what makes anger attribution correct. > I don’t show anger... because I’m angry... I’m angry because I show anger.

Select text to highlight passages.

Then Node

Consciousness reversed

For consciousness, the reversal is especially stark. Strawson contrasts the experiential idea that there is something it is like to be a subject with the behaviourist or dispositional criterion for consciousness attribution. > I’m not rightly said to be conscious because there is something it is like to be me... I’m rightly said to be conscious because I behave... in certain ways, or am disposed to.

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.

Objects reversed

Insecurity before orthodoxy

Highlights

0 saved passages and connected ideas

No highlights yet

Select text to save it here.