The Philosophers' Cocoon

The other day, a reader approached me by email suggesting a new series, one where more advanced members of the profession share things they have learned about doing work in their AOS that they wish their earlier self might have known. I thought it is a great idea, and want to invite readers interested in contributing to the series to email me at marvan@ut.edu.

In the meantime, the reader who emailed me  submitted the following post, which I hope you find interesting and helpful!:

By Anonymous 

I approached Marcus about the idea of doing a series on what people wish they’d known as grad students about their own area of specialty. He suggested that I tackle the first post of the series. So, here goes.  I am a historian of philosophy in a tenure-track position. I’m mostly happy with my professional specialization and my place in it, but I would still want to tell my younger self a few things I’ve learned since finishing my Ph.D.

1) Get historians and non-historians to read your works in progress

In general, professional philosophy has tended towards increasing specialization, as many of us are well aware. But this trend is especially true in history of philosophy. According to a measurement conducted a few years ago, two of the three most specialized AOSs in philosophy are historical areas (ancient, modern, and philosophy of physics). In my own field of history, I find that the papers written entirely for specialists *tend* to be less philosophically interesting than papers written with at least some non-specialists in mind. It is obviously important to have specialists in your historical period read your work—they know the texts, the contexts, and the secondary literature. But I think it’s equally important to have outsiders read your work because it acts a way of keeping the fetishism of some kinds of scholarship to a minimum.

2) You can’t satisfy everyone

To the best of my knowledge, the scholarship in every major historical area exists on a spectrum. Mohan Matthen describes the difference between the two ends of the spectrum well:

“History of philosophy has evolved quite a bit in the last twenty or so years. There was a time when one could read, say, Locke carefully and insightfully and publish one's thoughts. Call that thematic history of philosophy (THP). Though THP is far from moribund, specialists in history now read very broadly in the literature in the period, which requires special skills, not least linguistic. Discovery is as much a part of the new history of philosophy as analysis — discovery of texts, of trends, of relationships; in ancient philosophy, even discovery of meaning (philology). Call this scholarly history of philosophy (SHP). Margaret Wilson wrote very insightfully about this issue.”

As Matthen goes on to say, some historians think of THP as amateurish. But I think the judgments sometimes run the other way as well: there are plenty of historians who think of SHP as insufficiently philosophical, even if historically interesting and important. I personally think that both can be done well, or poorly, qua philosophy. Nevertheless, it’s very difficult for a single piece of work or a single project to satisfy everyone in this regard (let alone everyone on the same point of the spectrum). So, resign yourself to this fact and instead focus on being the kind of historian of philosophy you want to be, all things considered. In this regard it is important to know the kinds of history that journals are sympathetic to. You can do this by asking around, reading recent issues, or looking at the bibliography of your dissertation.

3) Don’t overestimate the knowledge of your peers

There is a tendency to think that everyone in ancient has read every work of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Skeptics, etc., as well as all the major secondary literature. Likewise, there is a tendency to think that everyone in modern has read all the works of the big seven figures in early modern, as well as various amounts of work by the so-called secondary figures. Maybe this is true of some of your peers, but I doubt it is true of the vast majority (it’s almost certain nobody on the TT has read all of the Leibniz!). I’m not suggesting you read only the work relevant to your pet project on your pet figure. Rather, don’t lose confidence if you work on Descartes and you’ve only read parts of Hume’s Treatise or you work on Plato’s ethics and haven’t read the Prior Analytics. There are gaps in people’s backgrounds, even in their own AOS (I think overspecialization contributes to this). You will fill in the gaps, to various degrees, with time, teaching, and referring/commenting.

4) Picking the right dissertation topic

In general I think the best topic is the one which interests you and which you have the most to say about. But it’s also important to keep in mind what interests others and what has a better or worse chance to lead to professional success. With this in mind, a *lot* of conferences and journals are seeking submissions from figures and themes that do not fall within the historical canon. I would think that it’s currently easier to publish on one of these outsider figures/themes than on a canonical one. After all, journals/conferences are seeking them out and there is more opportunity to make a novel and interesting point if you don’t need to weave between hundreds of articles/books on the same and related topics.  (Though maybe I’m underestimating the difficulty of saying novel and interesting things without the help of an established literature). So, *if* these figures and themes interest you, I think it’s probably a good idea to pick a dissertation topic that relates to them somehow. You could always write on two overlapping figures/themes, one canonical and the other not. Doing so lets you explore uncharted territory while still having a firm footing in the canon.

5) Don’t rely so much on secondary literature

I agree with Marcus that one should read and cite widely when it comes to the secondary literature. However, I strongly suggest not reading too much secondary literature early in the process, whether that process is a dissertation or a single article in a new area. First, secondary literature inevitably shapes how you read a text and makes it more likely that you will read it roughly how others read it. Second, if you read too much secondary literature early on, you will likely find yourself writing on a topic others are writing on, even if you disagree with their theses/arguments. The result is that that your work will be more derivative. Instead, don’t be afraid to pick up a new work and just read it with fresh eyes. You’d be surprised the things that strike you which didn’t strike anyone else, and some of them will probably be of interest to others.

Thanks so much to this reader for contributing their post. As someone who doesn't do history of philosophy myself, I found it very insightful and hope you all did too. Are you interested in sharing things you have learned about your AOS? Again, just shoot me an email!