HOW TO USE THE PROFILES
Philosophical
Connections contains 'Profiles' of 126 Western philosophers from
Thales to the present-day listed in order of date of birth. Each Profile contains:
- a short biographical introduction
- standardized reference scheme (where appropriate)
- survey of the subject's thought
- critical summary
- further reading
- key points and a list of "Connections"
Each survey is divided into numbered sections [1], [2], and so on. Within
each section key concepts, themes, or arguments are highlighted and followed by identification letters — [a], [b], [c], ... , which direct you to the lists
provided at the end of the Profile to enable you to identify the connections
that may be made between various philosophers. Note that when there is more
than one key section in a survey, the letters [a], [b], and so on denote different concepts, themes, or arguments in each section. Thus, for example, in Heraclitus 1 [a] relates to change and conflict, while 3 [a] concerns logos as universal law. It is also important to note that in some
instances an identification letter in the text may have multiple references in
the Connections list. In such cases the
letter is repeated so as to facilitate the several hyperlinks, for example (as
in the Profile for Parmenides), 1 [d] [d].
There are four kinds of
connections:
1. Where it is supposed that a philosopher has
expressed a similar idea or argument to that of another thinker and that there
is evidence of a positive influence, the reference appears in green print: for example, [1a].
2. Where
it is believed that the influence of one philosopher on another has been
generally negative that the latter has tended explicitly
or implicitly to reject the ideas or arguments of his
predecessor, the reference appears in red: [1a].
3. In some cases a given philosopher may be
regarded as having followed a predecessor's concept or approach but has
modified it substantially. This is
indicated by red
on green background: [1a].
In all the above cases an arrow [→] indicates an influence. Thus '→Heraclitus' represents an influence on Heraclitus, while 'Heraclitus→' indicates an influence by Heraclitus on the
thought of another. In some cases there
is evidence that two philosophers may have influenced each other (negatively or
positively). This is shown by a double
arrow: for example,
'→Russell→'.
4. If no particular connection is discernible between the uses of a particular
concept or thesis by the relevant philosophers (or where there is uncertainty
as to whether there is any direct or indirect influence) and yet it is felt
that your attention should be drawn to an interesting and relevant similarity
or contrast, references appear in pink, for example, [1a], and with no arrow.
The two following
examples will help you to understand how the system works.
Example A
In the list
of connections relevant to Parmenides you will find these entries:
[1a d] |
Thinking and
existing; Being as real
unchangeable unity the 'One' |
Heraclitus→
→Zeno
→Anaxagoras
.......... [others] |
[1a c i]
[1b 2a]
[1a b]
|
[1c] |
Being eternal no reason for
its coming into existence at
particular time |
→Anaxagoras
.......... |
[1a] |
[1d] |
Change, motion, time illusory |
Heraclitus→
→Anaxagoras
.......... |
[1a]
[1a] |
Correspondingly,
in Heraclitus's Profile you will find these entries:
|
|
..........
→Parmenides |
[1a d] |
And
Anaxagoras's includes these:
These
entries indicate (1) that Parmenides developed a view of change and unity in
opposition to that held by Heraclitus; (2) that Zeno's views on Being, change,
and unity were similar to and influenced by those of Parmenides; and (3) that
Anaxagoras was influenced by Parmenides (i) positively in his view concerning
the origin of Being, (ii) negatively in his account of the reality of change,
while (iii) in his account of Being he developed a view that in some respects
retains the Parmenidean emphasis on unity and yet posits that the world
consists of a plurality of things the manifestation of becoming from
Being. (Anaxagoras's thesis here
arguably represents a development of Empedocles's philosophy in relation to
Parmenides. You can check this for yourself from the Profiles.)
Example B
We
can consider the similarity between Parmenides and Leibniz in their respective
appeals to what the latter called 'the principle of sufficient reason' n
though there does not seem to be any
evidence of a direct influence. Thus in
Parmenides' profile we have:
[1c] |
Being
eternal no reason for
its coming into existence at
particular time |
..........
Leibniz |
[1c 2c 4c] |
Corresponding
references are to be found in Leibniz's Profile.
You should
note also that references are occasionally made to concepts mentioned in
Critical Summaries. These are listed as,
for example, [CS
a].
HOW TO USE THE HYPERLINKS
(1)
Click on a philosopher's name in the alphabetical list to be taken to that
Profile. (Alternatively you can use the contents page.) (2) If you want to find and follow a
connection, use the the hyperlinks associated with each connection reference,
for example, [2][a]. This will bring you to the relevant connection
reference in the list of Connections. (In the case of shorter Profiles you may find it as convenient to scroll
down to the list). (3) Click on a
philosopher's name corresponding to the
connection, and you will be taken to the list of Connections in his Profile. From there you can click on any blue reference number in the left-hand
column (again, for example, [2a], ) to be taken to the section [that is, 1, 2, 3, and so on] which contains the relevant information, where you
can locate the connection you are interested in. Some references of
the type '[see sec. 3]', for example, are also linked to the relevant sections. Note that a reference, e.g., [5a], may occur more than once in a
Connections list, so you will need to look through the list to ensure you have
the one you are interested in. (Where there are
multiple references such as [2] [a][a] each letter will have its own separate hyperlink.)
It should be emphasized
that not all the classifications are rigid; there is often some degree of
overlap. Moreover, identification of a
supposed connection in a particular respect between two thinkers should not be
taken to imply complete word for word agreement; one must always allow for
different nuances or degrees of interpretation, and for the
problems posed by different languages. The supposed 'influences' of one thinker
on another may also often be manifestations of a common Zeitgeist. Connections
should therefore be understood in broader rather than narrower terms. Moreover, in many instances only a general
identification of similarities between concepts and arguments employed by
different philosophers has been attempted. More precise comparisons are not easily achievable in a work of this
scope, and for a fuller understanding of a philosopher's views on a particular
concept or theme you will need to study the original texts as well as some of
the commentaries listed in the Reading sections. (These sections are linked directly to the
Bibliography, where you will find fuller details of primary sources.) Have a look also at the introductory books listed in the Introductions
to the several periods of Western philosophy Greek, Mediaeval, and so on.
Do not rely on highlighted
references alone, as many contain a number of connected points: you should always check the information in
the body of the text, and also read around or beyond markers for completeness
and understanding in the wider context of the paragraph or sections in which
they are located.
The
Profiles are listed in chronological order, but you may find it interesting and
helpful to start by reading the short introduction to 'Post-Modernism' and the Profiles on Derrida and Rorty. Both philosophers are in a sense iconoclasts
and are seriously critical of the whole western philosophical tradition. You can come back to these again in the light
of your studies of other philosophers' Profiles and examine the claims of
Derrida and Rorty with a more critical eye!