
“Time of the Magicians” – philosophy's great decade? - samclemens
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/13/time-of-the-magicians-by-wolfram-eilenberger-review-philosophys-great-decade
======
Kednicma
No, the _next_ decade, the 1930s, was the philosophical goldrush. Von Neumann,
Gödel, Turing, and Tarski published their collective destruction of the
formalist and structuralist programs; Bohr, Heisenberg, and Pauli laid down
the foundations of quantum mechanics. The former program destroyed any belief
that we might be able to use formal tactics to analyze truth or other
semantics; the latter program gave us positive evidence that reality is
contextual and non-concrete.

~~~
pmoriarty
None of the people you mention are philosophers, and their influence on
philosophy is indirect at best.

~~~
leephillips
They are not commonly classified as philosophers. However:

Logic is often classed as a branch of philosophy, and that covers the Gödel
work, and more, mentioned.

There is plenty of writing, much of it by real philosophers, about how
foundational work in QM, for example, did have profound philosophical
implications and did influence the development of philosophy.

The physicists who invented QM had many discussions about its philosophical
implications, and these discussions have been studied by philosophers and
influence philosophy.

The division separating “philosophy” from mathematics, physics, and even logic
is recent and arbitrary.

And finally, if an academic philosopher finds math too hard, that is not a
good reason to disqualify it from being considered “philosophy”.

------
Emma_Goldman
Odd to frame this as a story about the 1920s when one of the quartet,
Wittgenstein, spent the decade in philosophical exile. He finished the
Tractatus in 1919 and didn't return to Cambridge until 1929.

~~~
woodandsteel
He never stopped thinking about philosophical problems, and when he returned
to academia his views had changed radically.

~~~
hyperpape
He published Some Remarks on Logical Form in 1929. It's been 10 years since I
was reading Wittgenstein, but my recollection is that work was still
Tractarian. The blue and brown books came in the 30s.

~~~
woodandsteel
So it looks like I was mistaken.

------
mellosouls
There does seem to be something special about the 1920s, even ignoring the
claims for philosophical greatness here.

It also saw the flowering of both modern literature and modern physics
(perhaps only Einstein's great achievements are particularly notable by
omission for being slightly earlier).

I don't know enough about art to comment on that.

Certainly it's hard to think of a more obvious recent period of intellectual
brilliance than that of the time between the wars, the 20s in particular.

~~~
scottlocklin
I dunno, for philosophy, it seems to me most decades between 1800 and 1920
were more momentous than the 1920s. I have no idea what Walter Benjamin and
Cassirer are doing in there with Wittgenstein and Heidegger either. I mean, I
like me some Walter Benjamin ... but I never thought of him as a Philosopher.
Cassirer is just obscure; I can think of a half dozen better known
philosophers of that time.

Pretty good decade for physics though; haven't had one like that since then.

------
woodandsteel
Here's some historical background. In the 19th century the West enjoyed an
extraordinary period of peace, prosperity, and technological progress, all
under the guidance of Enlightenment philosophy, with its focus on the
supposedly unlimited powers of human reason, and Liberal political philosophy.

But then there was what we now call World War I, which was remarkably
destructive and killed of much of an entire generation of young men. And that
in turn lead to the Communist revolution in Russia, and great political
instability in Germany, which had been seen as the most civilized of nations,
which lead to the rise of the Nazis, and also the Fascist regime in Italy. In
addition modern developments such as radio and the automobile produced
considerably cultural disruption.

All this produced great confusion and despair among much of the intellectual
class, and a great many abandoned Liberalism and Enlightenment philosophy. The
book in question discusses three philosophers who searched for alternatives,
and one who stuck with the Enlightenment.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
> _the West enjoyed an extraordinary period of peace, prosperity, and
> technological progress, all under the guidance of Enlightenment [...] But
> then there was [...] great political instability [...] In addition modern
> developments such as radio and the automobile produced considerably cultural
> disruption. All this produced great confusion and despair among much of the
> intellectual class, and a great many abandoned Liberalism and Enlightenment
> philosophy._

What will happen in the 2020s-2030s? What will become the new replacement of
Neoliberalism? From time to time, I find myself considering this question. The
historical background now is remarkably similar. I bet some Hacker News
headlines (e.g. "UK votes to leave EU") we've seen has already appeared in a
2060 exam on the early 2010s-2030s, not unlike the our impression of early
1910s-1930s history.

~~~
sdfin
What's the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism? I'd like to read
something about that.

~~~
Kednicma
Wikipedia has a fine overview on all of this.

All liberals, from classical liberals to metaliberals, believe in basic tenets
of freedom which are required to have a consenting and aware government, like
free speech and freedom to keep private property. Neoliberals are right-of-
center liberals who focus on fiscal power, consumerist economy, and free
markets.

The main distinction worth highlighting is that neoliberalism does not view it
as a problem when large piles of money participate in politics. After all,
free markets imply that market leaders must know something about something and
aren't merely lucky; therefore they are worth putting in charge of government.
In Hong Kong, we see this taken to an extreme, with banks directly voting to
choose legislators, but we also see variants all over the world, like the
infamous Citizens United vs FEC decision in the USA which allows corporations
to directly steer political action committees.

Liberalism is the ACLU; neoliberalism is Disney. The ACLU works to defend
everybody's rights; Disney just wants to make money.

~~~
leephillips
Thank you for that rundown; I found it useful, because I’m also hazy about
this terminology.

I hesitate to take this into what might be an irrelevant and contentious side
road, but I just want to remark that the ACLU is not considered an
organization that defends “everybody’s“ rights by everybody. They’ve
historically done a fantastic job at defending freedom of speech, press, and
assembly, and also 4th amendment rights. Aside from that, it depends on the
cultural background of whatever lawyers happen to have influence in the
organization. I don’t think most gun owners would say the the ACLU is
interested in defending them against the government’s infringement of their
rights to keep and bear arms, for example. And, more recently, they’ve taken
stances that some people consider misogynistic, by telling women that they
have no right to women-only spaces, for example. Women have increasing reason
to feel that the ACLU is not defending their rights, in this sphere. So are
they a good example of Liberalism? I guess it’s complicated.

~~~
dalbasal
These things are never clean.

In the context of 20th century liberalism, some rights are more broadly
accepted than others. Freedom of speech, press, free assembly, political
association, rule of law, religion, property etc... these are the core
freedoms.. the liberties liberalism refers to. Gun rights are somewhat unique
to America so IDK how to treat them.

Other rights... these are not necessarily "liberal" rights. Socialism, for
example, always criticised liberals for leaving workers rights and economic
rights out of the equation. The ones that exist in law came about later, from
socialist (progressives in US terms) agitations that came from "left" of the
liberals.

Women only spaces, other such rights... I'm not sure how they relate to
liberalism. Feminism generally has not been a purely liberal movement. It
had/has many camps and influences.

Liberalism does not mean support for every right. In fact, early liberalism
opposed the "rights and privileges" of monarchs, clergy and the aristocracy.
Those rights, for example, are part of the UK constitution, but liberals are
against them.

~~~
leephillips
I think that clarifies something. Any right, even a basic human right, is in
conflict with something that someone else might consider an opposing right. So
Liberalism is more specific than recognition of rights of man, or something
like that. It is the elevation of a particular set of rights. It is a taking
of sides. Would you agree with that?

~~~
Kednicma
No, the entire conception of rights is tied to liberalism, and itself is not
the end of human moral ideology. Rights are good compromises: If we all
broadly agree that humans are entitled to some right R, then R will become a
social institution which we enshrine and protect, and that is good enough for
society to make progress and people to get on with their lives.

For a deeper look, try this Marxist approach, "The Problem With Human Rights"
[0]. As both they and I want to emphasize, the goal isn't to take away rights
or to disenfranchise people, but to explore exactly what we _mean_ when we say
that people are endowed with inalienable rights and what we want governments
to do about it.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q)

~~~
dalbasal
_the entire conception of rights is tied to liberalism_

Tied to, yes. But the liberals were using a framework that already existed.

The concept of rights was already used in a constitutional way referring to
the "divine and privileges" of the King, the "rights and privileges" of
Clergy, the Church, Aristocracy & such.

Rights were already seen as the basis of politcal systems.

Marxism is pretty vast, so almost anything can be marxist. That said, Marx
himself didn't speak about rights positively, and was critical of liberalism.
His premise was that rights don't matter. Material conditions matter.

~~~
Kednicma
You could stand to actually watch the video I linked. To quote its opening
line:

> Human rights today have the kind of status that the divine right of kings
> had in the Middle Ages. They are so deeply ingrained in our political
> thinking that imagining a society without them seems almost impossible.

And then:

> That human rights "simply follow from the definition of justice" [quoting
> John Rawls] is at the very least a strange claim, because the notion of
> "justice" has been theorized at least since the ancient Greeks, whereas the
> doctrine of human rights was not fully formulated until the 17th Century.

The Greeks?

> Ancient Greek philosophers commonly saw what is right, what is lawful, as
> being determined by the moral order of the world itself. What is right was
> not to be found in individuals but in the harmonious order of things.

Continuing on the Greeks and Romans (Hellenistic tradition):

> What was due to a person was determined not by the individual rights they
> possessed, but by their position in the larger community, and their
> relationship to the other members of the community. The point of such
> distributive justice was to aim at social harmony, something that can only
> be understood in light of the community as a whole; rather than in terms of
> isolated individual rights.

What changed? Christianity. Ensoulment and God crowded out the harmony of the
community.

> Because of [the arguments of Christians], gradually, the moral law came to
> be seen not as something inherent in the order of things, but something
> stemming from the Will of God. The importance of order is replaced by the
> importance of will. [...] The result is a morality built on universal
> abstract rights which emanate from the will of each individual by virtue of
> a shared human essence.

And that's just the first quarter of the video. Go watch; it's very
informative and lays out its sources and citations in a way that are easy to
examine for yourself.

------
pmoriarty
The four philosophers who the article claims made the 1920's great were
Heidegger, Benjamin, Cassirer, and Wittgenstein.

Of these, only Heidegger and Wittgenstein are really giants in the field.
Benjamin had influence in only a rather circumscribed subfield of philosophy:
critical theory. Cassirer is virtually unknown.

So I'm really not sure why this is supposed to make the 20's "philosophy's
great decade".

Arguably, Heidegger and Wittgenstein are enough.. but, really, you could
easily find many other decades in history when other giants of philosophy
lived.

How about the decades when Socrates and Plato lived? Or Plato and Aristotle?
There probably were no more influential Western philosophers in history than
these, and not only did they live at the same time and know each other, but
they were each other's teachers and students.

Or how about the decades of Sartre, Camus, Foucault, Russell, Chomsky, and
Popper?

Or those of Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume, and Kant? Or of Marx, Schopenhauer, and
Nietzsche?

If we expand our horizons to include non-Western philosophy, the choice of
"great decades" become even greater. For instance, Confucious was a
contemporary of Lao Tzu, and their influence is arguably as great as any of
the Western philosophers mentioned earlier.

We could go on and on and on. The 1920s weren't that special.

~~~
gumby
You are reading the title too literally: it’s the great decade of 20th century
European philosophy; we live in a world deeply shaped by both Heidegger and
Wittgenstein (and I would add Russel); other profoundly influential
philosophers like Quine, Church, and Kripke (just to pick three influential on
my work) would not have “existed” without those three priors.

Benjamin gets short shift in this essay which is unfair; outside the
philosophy departments he’s been more influential than he is here credited
with.

