I tend to think the "of their time" argument unduly flatters our present time. Plenty of people are very sexist and very racist today, just as many people in the past rejected sexism and racism. How those opinions are phrased varies according to time and place perhaps, but the "of their time" argument suggests an inevitable progress which doesn't seem warranted. Especially not given the current US slide towards greater bigotry on many fronts.
Yes, that's right. One thing I found disturbing, as I'm getting more into early modern philosophy, is of paths not taken. There was such a diversity of opinion. For every Hume (on race) there's a Beattie and for every Rousseau (who didn't think women ought to be educated for themselves) there was a Fontenelle. It's disconcerting to see how the more bigoted views often won out, esp about colonization and settlement. It speaks against this notion of progress being inevitable. If we want things to change, we can't sit around waiting for history to bend toward the Good.
yep. you can see the same thing now, in a lot of ways in, for example, who the NYT gives op ed real estate to. for every jbouie there's like five Pamela Paul's, who have obviously been chosen specifically because the Times finds their bigotry congenial.
What exactly is the "of their time" argument? Is it just the claim that "most people" thought X, or "most philosophers" thought X? Is it that "X was unthinkable at that time?" That doesn't cut any ice at all; I hope there is more to it than this. For what it's worth, Locke was a vigorous defender of equal education for girls, he defended the right of women to preach (e.g., Quaker preacher Rebecca Collier), and he rejects the idea that women are naturally subject to men. These were all unpopular views in the 17th century, and yet Locke held them--although, to be fair, defended these views pseudonymously in his lifetime.
I tend to think the "of their time" argument unduly flatters our present time. Plenty of people are very sexist and very racist today, just as many people in the past rejected sexism and racism. How those opinions are phrased varies according to time and place perhaps, but the "of their time" argument suggests an inevitable progress which doesn't seem warranted. Especially not given the current US slide towards greater bigotry on many fronts.
Yes, that's right. One thing I found disturbing, as I'm getting more into early modern philosophy, is of paths not taken. There was such a diversity of opinion. For every Hume (on race) there's a Beattie and for every Rousseau (who didn't think women ought to be educated for themselves) there was a Fontenelle. It's disconcerting to see how the more bigoted views often won out, esp about colonization and settlement. It speaks against this notion of progress being inevitable. If we want things to change, we can't sit around waiting for history to bend toward the Good.
yep. you can see the same thing now, in a lot of ways in, for example, who the NYT gives op ed real estate to. for every jbouie there's like five Pamela Paul's, who have obviously been chosen specifically because the Times finds their bigotry congenial.
What exactly is the "of their time" argument? Is it just the claim that "most people" thought X, or "most philosophers" thought X? Is it that "X was unthinkable at that time?" That doesn't cut any ice at all; I hope there is more to it than this. For what it's worth, Locke was a vigorous defender of equal education for girls, he defended the right of women to preach (e.g., Quaker preacher Rebecca Collier), and he rejects the idea that women are naturally subject to men. These were all unpopular views in the 17th century, and yet Locke held them--although, to be fair, defended these views pseudonymously in his lifetime.