31.7.12

Thus Spake Santayana

Once upon a time I considered in all seriousness doing a dissertation on the work of George Santayana – specifically his epistemology and thoughts on “animal faith”.

In the past Santayana was often included in lists of American pragmatists, but more recently scholars have refined that view to include an appreciation for the uniqueness of his contributions. As a philosopher Santayana's literary elegance masked a rigorous commitment to clear and distinct thought; he was a humble materialist when it was not in fashion and a skeptic at a time when most of his contemporaries clamored to pronounce their claim on Truth. According to Santayana, “scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely” (1923: 69).

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Santayana's anti-foundationalism, non-reductive materialism, and pragmatic naturalism coupled with his emphasis on the spiritual life and his view of philosophy as literature anticipated many developments in philosophy and literary criticism that occurred in the latter half of the twentieth century, and these served as a challenge to the more humanistic naturalisms of John Dewey and other American naturalists.
In a few words: I believe Santayana’s time has not yet come.
“I have a great respect for orthodoxy; not for those orthodoxies which prevail in particular schools or nations, and which vary from age to age, but for a certain shrewd orthodoxy which the sentiment and practice of laymen maintain everywhere. I think that common sense, in a rough dogged way, is technically sounder than the special schools of philosophy, each of which squints and overlooks half the facts and half the difficulties in its eagerness to finding some detail the key to the whole. I am animated by distrust of all high guesses, and by sympathy with the old prejudices and workaday opinions of mankind: they are ill expressed, but they are well grounded. What novelty my version of things may possess is meant simply to obviate occasions for sophistry by giving to everyday beliefs a more accurate and circumspect form. I do not pretend to place myself at the heart of the universe nor at its origin, nor to draw its periphery. I would lay siege to the truth only as animal exploration and fancy may do so, first from one quarter and then from another, expecting the reality to be not simpler than my experience of it, but far more extensive and complex. I stand in philosophy exactly where I stand in daily life…” [Santayana 1923]
It seems to me those who quietly track the triumph of tangible realities over speculative fancy are not only the most practical of humans but also the wisest:
“[M]y materialism, for all that, is not metaphysical. I do not profess to know what matter is in itself, and feel no confidence in the divination of those esprits forts who, leading a life of vice, thought the universe must be composed of nothing but dice and billiard-balls. I wait for the men of science to tell me what matter is, in so far as they can discover it, and am not at all surprised or troubled at the abstractness and vagueness of their ultimate conceptions : how should our notions of things so remote from the scale and scope of our senses be anything but schematic ? But whatever matter may be, I call it matter boldly, as I call my acquaintances Smith and Jones without knowing their secrets : whatever it may be, it must present the aspects and undergo the motions of the gross objects that fill the world : and if belief in the existence of hidden parts and movements in nature be metaphysics, then the kitchen-maid is a metaphysician whenever she peels a potato.” [Santayana 1923]
Learn more about Santayana’s legacy: here, here and here

UPDATE: More Santayana Aphorisms
“A conception not reducible to the small change of daily experience is like a currency not exchangeable for articles of consumption; it is not a symbol, but a fraud.”

“All living souls welcome whatever they are ready to cope with; all else they ignore, or pronounce to be monstrous and wrong, or deny to be possible.”

“Let a man once overcome his selfish terror at his own infinitude, and his infinitude is, in one sense, overcome.”

“Chaos is a name for any order that produces confusion in our minds.”

“Fashion is something barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit.”

“My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests.”

“Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”
#santayana

25 comments:

cameron.keys said...

You're so right!

As an undergraduate in philosophy at an analytic-intensive school (Arizona State) I found started looking into Santayana after reading Wittgenstein's Red Notebook, which is full of ruminations on culture music and poetry.

Another philosopher whose time has not come is Pierre Bayle.

"By all means doubt. But then, doubt the reasons you have for doubting, for they themselves are doubtful."

Perhaps what seems like radical skepticism is more like a method of proceeding afresh as a matter of principle?

Anonymous said...

http://books.google.com/books/about/Thinking_in_the_Ruins.html?id=pi9-s3d6czIC

Unknown said...

Hey Cameron,

I will have to look into Bayle. I like the notion of a principled skepticism, because once we accept the limits of human language and signification humility and creative advance is the only recourse to truth we have.

Unknown said...

Dirk!! I ordered that book right away! Thanks guy!

(ps- still waiting for your guest post here on 'the practical aims of theory', or some such topic. someday maybe..?)

khadimir said...

Now-a-days in American scholarship, Santayana is often classified as an "Americanist" but not a "pragmatist." These are finer scholarly distinctions made long after the fact.

HermitOfCarmel said...

I don't understand from your post why you think Santayana's time has not come. How is his time to come if smart people shy away from engaging his work (e.g. by writing dissertations on it)? We're busily producing the critical editions of his works and are in touch with a large and supportive community of Santayana scholars. Join us here: http://iat.iupui.edu/santayana/ and for fun, on FB -- here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/George-Santayana/193323637445248?ref=hl . To join a low-traffic mailing list for news and conferences related to George Santayana, e-mail your contact info to: santedit@iupui.edu.

Anonymous said...

that's a helpful book, up there with Muhall's book on Heidegger/Wittgenstein and aspects.
I'm of more use as a commenter but if I ever find something to essay on I'll surely take up on your most generous offer.
http://books.google.com/books/about/On_Being_in_the_World.html?id=xOINAAAAQAAJ

Unknown said...

@Jason

It has been some time since I was interested in how he was considered within the tradition, so I thank you for that update. You would know. I'll make some changes to the post...

Glad to know you are still readining Jason and I hope your summer is treating you well..

Unknown said...

@Hermit

His work may have a bit of a niche somewhere within the academy, but not generally within the philosophical areas i'm interested in. Basically I think more people should read him...

I'll check out the links. Thanks for those.

Anonymous said...

http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/29/episode-128-gert-de-boer-brennen-mckenzie-doug-smith-scientific-skepticism-and-buddhism/

Bloggingbooks said...

Dear archivefire blog author,

I am hereby contacting you, following a visit of your blog, which I find very appropriate for a publication.

I am an employee of Bloggingbooks publishing house, which is the new publishing brand of the well-established scientific publishing house, known as SVH Verlag. We are currently actively looking for new authors.

Bloggingbooks would like to broaden its publication's portfolio and in this respect, comes my question: would you have any interest in publishing your blog posts into book format?

You will find information about bloggingbooks on our homepage bloggingbooks.net. The best way to get in touch with me will be per e-mail.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

contact email: m [dot] gorbulea [at] bloggingbooks [dot] de

Anonymous said...

books from blogs? sounds more like archive fever than fire but nice to be wanted/recognized.

Mark Crosby said...

Hi Michael, it's great to see someone mention Santayana in this corner of the blogosphere!

Given your focus, you might find his final book worthwhile: DOMINATIONS AND POWERS: REFLECTIONS ON LIBERTY, SOCIETY, AND GOVERNMENT. Originally published in 1950, many readers at that time scolded Santayana for failing to admire how the U.S. had saved the world and was going to bring democracy and capitalism to all!

In his book, GEORGE SANTAYANA: LITERARY PHILOSOPHER, Irving Singer contrasts visits with AN Whitehead (2 weeks before Whitehead died: "He was reluctant to talk about himself or his ideas... but he was eager to know what was going on in the world of philosophy in general") and Singer's subsequent visit with Whitehead in Rome (both Singer and his wife arriving by bicycle, "in scanty Ital;ian shorts". Santayana was in his pajamas. "For about three hours Santayana regaled us with reflections about everything that came to mind". Singer immediately adds: "When Gore Vidal [rest his soul] paid him a visit in 1948, Santayana told him: 'I shall talk and you shall listen ... I am VERY deaf'".

- Mark Crosby (here's to Gore Vidal, another great American Sceptic)

Ben said...

Thanks for this, have always been curious about Santayana esp as he was one of Lovecraft's favourite philosophers

Anonymous said...

rare recorded Bogost sighting:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11197048

Anonymous said...

alva noe and co@ CUNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOt4vcBV_fk&feature=relmfu

Unknown said...

@Mark

Very interesting. What is your favorite part of Santayana's work?

Unknown said...

@Ben

Santayana was a great writer, I think you might like him Ben. His 'realms of being' project was too much for me to bear but I woulbn't be the same guy without 'Scepticism and Animal Faith' (1923) and his earlier stuff. Check it out and let me know what you make of it...

Anonymous said...

any thoughts to share on the relationship between skepticism and speculation?

Anonymous said...

anyone have the key to this lockbox?
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608781003779818

Anonymous said...

Michael, my "favorite part" of Santayana has three parts:

1) Subjectively: His writing style (no philosopher I've read is as clear and full of joi de vivre). Until your post, I'd most recently read, a year ago, the unpublished essays in PHYSICAL ORDER & MORAL LIBERTY, which I enjoyed at the time for comparison with Harman & Bryant on substance & essence.

2) Objectively: DOMINATIONS & POWERS (a perfect sublation of Hegel ; ) encyclopedic yet so easy to drop into and toke up a few pages profitably.

3)Overall: My favorite trichotomy is also from D&P; Santayana's generative, militant, and rational orders of ecology (although he focused on human society, the ideas apply to all life). It's like aphorisms on steroids!

- Mark

Anonymous said...

the question of what is the animal-faith of human being has haunted me for decades now.
http://froese.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/froese-fuchs-12-the-extended-body-a-case-study-in-the-neurophenomenology-of-social-interaction.pdf
-dmf

Anonymous said...

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=844

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/charlottehigginsblog/audio/2012/aug/18/book-translation-english-metaphor-podcast

Anonymous said...

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/color-perception-the-brain

Related Posts with Thumbnails