A few days ago, James posted an interesting question that I’ve been pondering. He asked “Is an interest in Marx, then, also an indication of an immature mind, a phase perhaps understandable in the young but unforgivable in adults?” He asked this question in response to similar critiques of Rand and in recollection of a former professor who referred to Nozick’s libertarianism as “a young man’s philosophy.”
I would broaden this question and ask “Is devotion to a particular philosopher, in general, a young man’s game?” Do those engaged in philosophical pursuits tend to become less doctrinaire as they get older?
A common — though by no means universal — feature of the intellectual maturation process seems to be increased awareness of the inherent difficulties and uncertainties associated with any particular point of view or direction of inquiry. As thinking people get older, they tend to become more aware of how little they know and about how hard it is to know anything. I contrast this with those people who tend to become intellectually hardened and incapable of considering any ideas that challenged their longstanding opinions. Indeed, I think the hallmark of an educated person is that he/she is a person of the first type mentioned, not the second.
In my observation, the young frequently develop a passion for a particular philosopher–be it Marx, Rand, Nozick, Rawls, Kant, Hayek, or whoever. The philosopher seems to be less of an issue in explaining the passion than the age of the follower. Those who don’t study philosophy can still get passionately involved in political causes in much the same fashion. So, do people “grow out of” certain philosophies or do they just grow out of philosophy? And, if one grows out of Nozick or Marx, what does one grow into? Some mixed or pragmatic approach perhaps?
This question reminds me of the bumper sticker that says “Hire a teenager while he still knows everything!”
i’m in nearly full agreement about this, i think it applies more to political philosophy than anything else (i find myself agreeing with derek parfit on a great many matters when it comes to personal identity or value theory).
i’d like to add locke to that list, and rousseau, possibly hobbes. noble savages, infinite resources, and war of all against all can be thrown away.
shockingly, we do not find many die-hard cartesians, gettiers, or hume fans. i suppose that metaphysics, epistemology, and even autonomy are not as sexy as politics.
misterx: you aren’t reading the right areas of English-language philosophy if you don’t think Hume goes on that list as well.
One distinction seems to me important, and that is between “devotion to a philosopher,” as Sven put it, and devotion to particular ideas. For example, I am devoted to the “philosophy” of neither Locke nor Kant, but I find their adumbrations of a principle of (what we might call) equality of authority (equality in capacity to obligate others) not only right, but important and rare. So I’m a Lockean and a Kantian on those points, will defend them vigorously, and so on. But that’s not because of devotion to them, but because of devotion to important questions I think they got right. And it’s hard for me to believe that you can be a “mature” thinker without such commitments. It would be like trying to understand the world, starting from scratch, on each question you consider.
I am 72. I have dispensed with all philosophers except one. I do not go to church or pray but I also cannot dispense with what Christ said as pure theology/philosophy. I dare anybody to give it a try. Bulletproof. “The truth will make you free” from ignorance and thus fear and thus pride and thus sin and thus spiritual death.