I secretly giggle at the fact that much-loved figures such as John Locke upheld the institution of slavery or that John Stuart Mill upheld liberty except for the pesky barbarians in the colonies. However, I keep wondering if there’s someone who was totally ahead of their time without major exceptions, especially with regards to their own writing. I don’t care too much about them whoring around or drinking too much. Anyone have any ideas?
Also - if this is the wrong section for this, forgive me.
William Blake, maybe?
Bump?
I think just about everybody is–in one way or another–a product of their time, however, much they want to deny it. Even people who are “ahead of their time,” too.
I came to say William Blake.
I’m not sure whether it’s fair to decry Locke or, for example, Bartolomé de las Casas for their opinions of slavery. American slavery, as it developed over time, was a different beast than it had been historically (e.g., during Roman and ancient times) and had God’s clear blessing (based on the style that was prevalent during Roman and ancient times). It’s conceivable that, during those times, the negative aspects of American slavery either hadn’t developed yet or hadn’t become publicized in Europe. I’ve read, for example, about African Americans traveling through Europe in the 1800s, to spread word about what was happening there, and that lead to the UK and other nations putting pressure on the US to change. But I don’t know that this is the case.
Blake seems to be pretty indisputable though.
Hell, even Blake’s paintings would look at home on DeviantArt.
Nah. Strictly a rank amateur and dilettante.
They all wrestled with similar questions of what is knowable, what is freedom/free will and do we have it, etc. They just considered their circle of Humanity to be more limited that we do.
As we progress from God’s Chosen Beings to a scrappy species on a seemingly-random planet, how will that circle continue to change?
As we learn more about other animals’ ability to think, feel, bond, etc., will we expand our circle to include them? “Yes, that philosopher was talking lofty, but he didn’t include other mammals! How limited and ironic!”
In a What Goes Around, Comes Around way, how is this different from various Animist and Buddhist-type teachings?
I would nominate Spinoza.
The op seems to ask for examples of political philosophers who went beyond justifying the economic and political institutions of their time and place. There are lots of these, but they tend not to be as well studied and remembered, for obvious reasons. So we may look to the rebels of the day for examples, to those who said, hey! this slavery thing sorta puts a crimp in our notions of democracy here in Athens! List upon request.
Are we looking for moral/ethical views, or scientific? If the latter, then I’d nominate Gregor Mendel, who pretty much single-handedly founded the science of genetics, starting from no more knowledge than any farmer would have had for thousands of years.
This review of the autobiography of Malcolm Muggeridge is an interesting look at someone who was very much out of place with the time he was in.
I happen to be reading Bertrand Russell’s history of Western philosophy where he outs each philosopher in context not only among philosophers but also the culture of the time, making it quite clear what’s already in the air and what’s novel. You might find it as interesting as I do.
One point he makes is that most thinkers who are known for originating an idea generally were preceded by someone with that idea who expressed it before the culture was ready, so it fell on deaf ears. (This happened with many inventions as well, though of course that’s not covered by Russell.)
I wish Russell were here to answer your question, which I find interesting. It’d be right up his alley.
Ayn Rand contradicted just about every aspect of the time she lived in. Whether she was “ahead of her time” is of course debatable.
You know what, that is a really really accurate description.:eek:
Aren’t YOU a product of your time? I certainly am.
If so, why do you assume that our CURRENT morals MUST be more correct than those of our ancestors?
And why should you be more worried about how future generations will judge you than how past generations would have viewed you?
I was just reading through the page about Buffalo Bill, and he seems to have been a very admirable person.
Seconding Spinoza. He’s always struck me as the kind of person who would’ve lived a far happier life had he been born 300 years later.
But really, what you’re asking is impossible; everyone is shaped by their environment. Even a very progressive individual - say, someone who was an abolitionist in the 1400s - is still *reacting *to their time, and as such is a product of it.
Jeremy Bentham
From his Wiki page:
Henry George