Conversation

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
I’ll take views informed by more data everytime, since political science/philosophy isn’t a field with prodigy/genius talents imo. Above basic competence/diligence, thinkers seem comparable in skill but not in data and perspective breadth they can enjoy
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