Re: Great Books

[jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx]

Greetings,

> If you think that contemporary English language intellectual culture is
> worthless, then of course, you will not think that these books are worth
> reading on account of their relevance to it. 

All the works you mentioned, I would have also included in the
Influential books canon. However, where I diverge is in your omission of
the non-Western classics, since they *do* dominate heavily in
intellectual discussions outside of the West. In fact, some of the books
even make it into the West.

For example, the Upanishads influenced Schopenhauer, who influenced
Einstein; Confucius influenced Leibniz; and the Tao te ching and
Buddhist texts influenced Heidegger. And these Western authors are often
included in the Western Canon.

> In the case of fictional works, it seems harder to justify their inclusion by
> the criterion of continued relevance to contemporary intellectual debates.
> 
> In the case of music and paintings, these do not seem to contribute to
> intellectual discussions at all 

Do you acknowledge though that the editor of the Great Books himself
expressly included arts and music in his preface:

HUTCHINS: "It would be an exaggeration to say that Western civilization
means these books. The exaggeration would lie in the omission of the
plastic arts and music, which have quite as important a part in Western
civilization as the great productions included in this set."

> What about non-Western works? If we judge them by their continued influence on
> English-language intellectual debates, then many or all of them will be
> excluded (although, you can see some non-Western influences occasionally).

China today is a global scientific, economic, and military power, and
its government is actively promoting Confucian philosophy. Confucius and
his ideas routinely enter into English-language intellectual debates.
Not understanding Confucius when the United States is about to go to war
with China is like the Europeans not understanding Islam during the
Crusades. We are repeating cultural misunderstandings with catastrophic
consequences.

> For the works to become part of a global canon (recognised by speakers of
> English), however, it would be necessary for there to be more influence on
> English-language intellectual debates by these works than there currently is.

From what I understand, there has already been a steady rise in interest
in non-Western philosophy. Of the scientists I know, Bohr, Einstein,
Dirac, Heisenberg, and Schrodinger were all fascinated by non-Western
philosophy and religion. Nietzsche, for example, took some inspiration
from Persian philosophy.

-- 
Aaron Lin
jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)