I was going to specifically ask about Bergson, who seems to be having a resurgence -- along with AN Whitehead -- following the recent studies of process philosophy by people including Steven Shaviro. Very insightful methodology for fast looks at relative interest!
It's something I can get so obsessed about. Going through the libraries of elderly professors I become slightly to severely manic. I am a hoarder of books and ideas as a result but some other methods are qualitative--TALK to the old professors. Find out their theories on what dampened enthusiasm or created it. Old textbooks are also helpful in figuring out the 'why.' The qualitative method explains the situation better as the knowledge you refer to comes in a narrative form and is collectively bound so the audience it is being transmitted to will be relevant. What might they think is happening and how does it reflect their reception of the ideas?
For example, you could consider the fading of Dewey. Was it due to politics? Was it the cold war? Was it his failure to create a school of thought with lots of students?
I guess you don’t have to care about the ‘why’ but it’s an interesting question.
and yes ofc talking to people is a great tool, I'm not suggesting the present quantitative approach as the only game in town, but one point of view of many.
Dewey is another great example and yeah it's hard to say! I think it doesn't help that his prose is pretty dense...
As I recall things, BF Skinner, and radical behaviourism more generally, came to prominence by shooting holes in Freud, a pretty easy target. But they rapidly suffered the same fate at the hands of Chomsky and others
I was going to specifically ask about Bergson, who seems to be having a resurgence -- along with AN Whitehead -- following the recent studies of process philosophy by people including Steven Shaviro. Very insightful methodology for fast looks at relative interest!
This is fun but I don't necessarily see how 'writing is one dimensional' but the data is 'multi dimensional.'
Does it not depend now what you're doing with these ways of conveying information?
So if Thoreau influences Gandhi (which it appeared he did) and MLK can you 'measure' this in data?
Can the data explain what happened? Sometimes? Doesn't it take the written word sometimes?
Right…dimensionality depends on your point of view. A 3d world looks 2D from above. But for historiography, I think these data are useful
It's something I can get so obsessed about. Going through the libraries of elderly professors I become slightly to severely manic. I am a hoarder of books and ideas as a result but some other methods are qualitative--TALK to the old professors. Find out their theories on what dampened enthusiasm or created it. Old textbooks are also helpful in figuring out the 'why.' The qualitative method explains the situation better as the knowledge you refer to comes in a narrative form and is collectively bound so the audience it is being transmitted to will be relevant. What might they think is happening and how does it reflect their reception of the ideas?
For example, you could consider the fading of Dewey. Was it due to politics? Was it the cold war? Was it his failure to create a school of thought with lots of students?
I guess you don’t have to care about the ‘why’ but it’s an interesting question.
I know just the mania you're describing...
and yes ofc talking to people is a great tool, I'm not suggesting the present quantitative approach as the only game in town, but one point of view of many.
Dewey is another great example and yeah it's hard to say! I think it doesn't help that his prose is pretty dense...
A good thing to know is there is so much GREAT shit to read!!!
And if somebody has faded in popularity their writing might still be some primo shit.
As I recall things, BF Skinner, and radical behaviourism more generally, came to prominence by shooting holes in Freud, a pretty easy target. But they rapidly suffered the same fate at the hands of Chomsky and others