post 1

Rob Hoffman

(a) When looking at European philosophy, it is difficult to select individuals or schools of thought that are not related at least indirectly to American philosophy. The American philosophers owed their way of thinking, the structure of how they pursued philosophy, to the Europeans, and even as they tried to pave new ground, they were doing it with the tools and methods of the Enlightenment. It is, however, possible to identify to which modern philosophers they were more indebted and to which they were opposed.

The trend for post-Enlightenment thinkers in Europe was one beginning in rationalism and moving toward empiricism. The American thinkers seem to have observed this shift and emulated it. There is little of Descartes or Spinoza or Leibniz in their writings and thoughts. From what we have read, however, empiricism does seem to be one of pragmatism’s central tenets (it is the fourth characteristic listed by Stuhr). While they as a rule seem to try to distance themselves from the abstract, counterintuitive-type work that Hume was doing, they seem strongly connected to Berkeley and even more so to Locke. Locke’s views on empiricism, education, and social values are echoed strongly in the work of the classic American philosophers.

Their acceptance of Kant seems more cautious. Their emphasis on the phenomenological world (and use of that term itself) implies a certain loyalty to the concepts expressed by Kant. Their disavowal of his speculations of the noumenal world is a sign of the passage of time; these sections of Kant’s work are logically unsupported and counterproductive, and the rejections of them does not require a rejection of Kant’s other work.

Other than these mainstream European philosophers, the Americans are also greatly indebted to certain British thinkers. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Stuart Mill seem to hold special interest for the American philosophers. The first two enjoy an elevated status due to their work (or attempts at work) in the area of philosophy of science. Although Newton was more interested in science itself and Bacon’s writings are a rather poor example of philosophy, the interest that American philosophy apparently displays in grasping the philosophy of science helped to lionize the two figures. Mill, on the other hand, represented the kind of ethical and social thinker that supplied much of the material with which the American philosophers concerned themselves. According to our readings in The Metaphysical Club, Chauncey Wright was himself a committed utilitarian.

As part of the discourse, the American philosophers are naturally indebted to everyone who has taken part in the project of philosophy that has come before them. Even the rejection of certain doctrines is only possible because of the prior work of others (to establish those doctrines). While the rationalist and scientific thinkers listed above where the ones whose ideas appeared most in the school of American thought, it is important to keep in mind that it took the entire history of philosophy to create American philosophy.

(b) Choosing the date of 1776 might seem obvious, but with even a small amount of reflection it becomes clear that this is an inappropriate date for the beginning of American philosophy. 1776 might mark the Declaration of Independence, but that seems irrelevant. The Declaration, written by Jefferson and others, is primarily a continuation of European thought. There is little to nothing in the document that is groundbreaking enough to constitute a new philosophy. True, the writers lived in America, but they did not even consider themselves as “Americans” at this time.

If the criteria for American philosophy is philosophy produced by individuals who consider themselves as American, then does it begin with the Native Americans? This is a more difficult issue. While individuals in Native American societies clearly viewed themselves as inhabitants of the continent, there is some question about whether or not they produced philosophy. I personally think it would be appropriate to say that they were, even if their philosophical systems did not resemble the kinds of systems that Greeks or Europeans were constructing. Native American philosophy seems to have more in common with African or Eastern philosophy.

Does this mean that we ought to begin our study of American philosophy with Native American writers and thinkers? My answer to that is yes and no. We ought to have some general exposure to the ways in which they thought and the types of philosophies they created, but the purpose of this exposure should primarily be contrast. The classical period of American philosophy, the pragmatists and others that we will be studying throughout the course of the semester, owe their lineage to the European schools of thought, rather than the Native American ones; as such it would not make sense to begin a serious study with them (the Native Americans) and attempt to transition it into a drastically different type of movement. The two represent entirely different kinds and systems of philosophy.

So if American philosophy is a descendent of European philosophy and many Americans considered themselves Europeans even up until the Revolution, at what point did their philosophy cease to be European and become American? Clues can be found in what have been considered America’s formative elements. The first is the concept of America as a “city on a hill” as expressed by John Winthrop in 1630. The struggles back and forth with religion are of great importance in the development of the American identity. The second formative element was highlighted by Frederick Jackson Turner in the Frontier Thesis (often called Turner’s Thesis) in 1893. Claiming that the border between “civilization” and “the wilderness” had begun to disappear, Turner reflected upon how, in his opinion, the frontier had been a defining element of America’s development. It helped to breed our attitudes of independence, ingenuity, and many of our values.

In finding the genesis of American philosophy, I would try to find the earliest times when inhabitants of America (who had lived in the country their whole lives, been educated there, and considered themselves Americans) were simultaneously greatly affected by the religious legacy left behind by the Puritans and by the expansion of the frontier. The first few decades of the nineteenth century seem to be the best candidates for meeting all of these criteria. The Second Great Awakening was spreading, new states had already been colonized and established, and the first and second generation of individuals who had been born after the Revolution (that is to say, they were born into an independent America) were becoming active. They began pushing for women’s rights and fueling the controversy over slavery. They were, for the first time, creating their own systems of thought. Yes, the philosophies they constructed were indebted to European systems, but they were original to some extent (just as much of what the Europeans created was indebted to the Greeks). It was from these humbled beginnings that the classical age of America got its fuel.