Conversation

I was responding to your reactionary sympathy point, which suggested a 1700s vintage pre-liberal-democracy narrow Hobbes reading. Maybe current understand is expansive but I doubt in 1700s our 20th century forms were clearly foreseeable.
1
Replying to and
don't think they have to be clearly foreseeable as long as they're still iterated refinements of base ideas that were laid out in the 1700s. we have QM, relativity & mature non-euclidian geometry now but lots of problems are still solved in euclidian or newtonian domains
1
Replying to and
basically agree but that's not as relevant to how or what to read as it might seem, ime -- I don't think genius is much of a factor in how canonical a philosopher becomes anyway, actually, but European philosophy's tendency to operate on a tacit "great man" theory definitely is
1
1