Rule 5 for history of philosophy: take "minor" figures seriously

Posted on ..

Rule 5: Take "minor" figures seriously

I suppose no one is going to be surprised by this one, given the "without any gaps" slogan. One of the main points I'm trying to make with this podcast is that, if you want to understand the history of philosophy, you can't just hop from one great thinker to another, leaving out everything that happened in between. Of course the famous names are those who drew us all into the subject in the first place: I am not alone in having caught the philosophy bug by being exposed to Plato. But even if all you want to do is understand the famous figures, you have to remember that they are responding to less famous figures who came right before them or who were their contemporaries. We've seen plenty of examples in the podcast so far. Furthermore, as we've also seen, the so-called "minor" figures have made significant contributions themselves. Given the difficulty of transmitting texts for most of history, any philosopher whose works have survived is probably going to be worth reading!

Previously ignored authors are routinely "discovered" in scholarship and pushed into the front rank. In the coming series on medieval philosophy, for instance, we'll take a look at John Buridan who was previously relatively obscure but has gotten a lot of attention in recent secondary literature. Another point to consider here is that all the figures who leap to mind when you think of "great philosophers" have been men. So ignoring the "minor" figures means leaving out the contributions made by women authors throughout the history of philosophy. Historically, attitudes towards women have almost guaranteed that they would be evaluated as less important than their male counterparts; while some, for instance Wollstonecraft, are now taken seriously as major thinkers, we have a long way to go in terms of rescuing women thinkers from undeserved obscurity.

None of this is to say that it is illegitimate for a historian to spend much of their time reading, say, Plato, or Descartes. These are complex, deep and rewarding thinkers who seem to be almost inexhaustible in rewarding our attention. But as a discipline, the history of philosophy would benefit if more effort being devoted to the B team.

Gary Gabor on 21 September 2014

Dear Peter, Very well stated,

Dear Peter,

Very well stated, and couldn't agree more. One question - on the subject of "minor" figures - though the more I read her, the less I think this should be considered an apt description - is there a podcast planned on Christine de Pizan? Having written in French and not Latin, perhaps she is not a good fit for the Latin medieval philosophy series, but perhaps you are already making some other exceptions on the linguistic front, or perhaps she could be included in the early Renaissance period if have plans on covering that. The more I reflect on her, the more significant of a figure in the history of philosophy I think she is.

Beside what appear to be quite strong echoes of Boethian influence, as well as reference to her own reading and study of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and other philosophers and doctors of the Christian Church, she addresses, and provides a very philosophically substantial and interesting response to why "so many men, both clerks and others," including "all manners of philosophers, poets and orators too numerous to mention" have "said and continue say and write such awful...things about women and their ways." I believe her influence needs to be more greatly appreciated on a wider scale.

So please consider that my pitch for including Christine on a future installment of HoPWaG.

Many thanks for all the excellent work on the series so far! It has already come quite in handy on several classes that I teach, as I am sure it has for many others as well.

Gary Gabor on 21 September 2014

Dear Peter, Very well stated,

Dear Peter,

Very well stated, and couldn't agree more. One question - on the subject of "minor" figures - though the more I read her, the less I think this should be considered an apt description - is there a podcast planned on Christine de Pizan? Having written in French and not Latin, perhaps she is not a good fit for the Latin medieval philosophy series, but perhaps you are already making some other exceptions on the linguistic front, or perhaps she could be included in the early Renaissance period if have plans on covering that. The more I reflect on her, the more significant of a figure in the history of philosophy I think she is.

Beside what appear to be quite strong echoes of Boethian influence, as well as reference to her own reading and study of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and other philosophers and doctors of the Christian Church, she addresses, and provides a very philosophically substantial and interesting response to why "so many men, both clerks and others," including "all manners of philosophers, poets and orators too numerous to mention" have "said and continue say and write such awful...things about women and their ways." I believe her influence needs to be more greatly appreciated on a wider scale.

So please consider that my pitch for including Christine on a future installment of HoPWaG.

Many thanks for all the excellent work on the series so far! It has already come quite in handy on several classes that I teach, as I am sure it has for many others as well.

Peter Adamson on 23 September 2014

Thanks! She was already on my

Thanks! She was already on my list for later medieval, so you are pushing at an open door on this one! For the medieval period I actually have a number of episodes planned on women thinkers, which is exciting.

Gary Gabor on 14 October 2014

Excellent, that's wonderful

Excellent, that's wonderful to hear! Apologies for the double-post, and look forward to your coverage of her and later medieval female figures as well.

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
About text formats

Blog Archive