1

Driving the Philosophy-Mobile

Sadie Stock

Philosophy of Philosophy

Dr. Phillips

Feb 21, 2023

 2

If other philosophy students are like me, the first time that I had to read an ancient

philosophical opus, I had a headache for days afterward. Much like any sort of academic history,

philosophy is dense, but an understanding of its roots is critical to a solid philosophical foundation.

Though important, philosophy and other disciplines could benefit from a reduced focus on the past. I

hold this position for different reasons than others. Imagine holding a controversial opinion in

philosophy such as the previously mentioned one and when you are allowed to defend your position in

a published paper, you make immature and harsh claims that completely undermine your reasonable

conclusion. This is precisely what Philosopher Hanno Sauer did in his paper “The End of History”.

All is fine when he suggests a lessened focus on the history of philosophy, but things fall apart when

Sauer claims that focused research on philosophical history harms philosophy and then insults the

great philosophers of the past. In this paper, I will be reshaping Sauer's conclusion by applying more

appropriate premises, highlighting the importance of historical philosophy, and accentuating the

benefits of exerting less energy toward the history of philosophy and putting more effort towards other

crucial areas like understanding current disciplines and incorporating them into philosophical work.

I will accomplish this task by 1.) Explaining how and where Sauer goes wrong 2.) Showing how

people disagree with Sauer, but shouldn’t disagree with me 3.) Pointing out why the history of

philosophy is important, and why we shouldn’t dismiss it 4.) Explaining how and why it would indeed

be beneficial to spend less time and energy dedicated to philosophers of the past, and showing one way

a redirected energy could be beneficial to philosophy in other disciplines and fields. 5.) Restating why it

is possible and helpful to philosophy to focus more time and energy on different philosophical areas of

pursuit while still recognizing, appreciating, and understanding historical philosophy.

 3

1. ) Hanno Sauer wrote an exceptionally clear paper that was easy to follow and understand.

Which is why I initially felt confident agreeing with his thesis. However, upon deeper investigation, I

was able to recognize the obvious cracks in his claims. Sauer is correct in saying that there is a heavy

persistence of historical philosophical theories today, more so than in other types of academic history.

Sauer makes fair points about how other disciplines indeed study their pasts but do not dwell on them

as much as current philosophers do. Sauer also states that with the advancement and progression of

time, ancient philosophers no longer seemed qualified to have their dated theories still taking up space

in the philosophical realm. He seems to forget that philosophical discoveries are not very comparable to

other more tangible sciences. Philosophy mainly occurs in the mind, and while the way that we think

can evolve with the times, the mind is more capable of engaging with past theories of philosophies

without repercussions that would occur with engaging in past theories of other disciplines that are

performed outside of the mind. Where Sauer continues to fall short is by including arrogant premises

about past philosophers. I am disappointed in the approach and premises that Sauer uses to defend his

position. Sauer’s blatant insolence is shown by his premises such as “Historical authors were probably

wrong about almost everything” and. “Historical authors were probably much worse philosophers”.

To attack predecessors of the longest-lasting discipline of knowledge and learning is simply juvenile. To

judge the past through a current lens is heavily frowned upon and very arrogant. The nature of

advancement in any respect is to discover where we went wrong and to move forward. It is expected for

the pioneering thinkers to not be “right”, if they were, we wouldn’t have anything to discover. Sir Isaac

Newton famously stated that “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”(Sir

Isaac Newton 1675). Past astronomers and mathematicians consistently had theories and ideas that
 4

have since been proven incorrect, but we do not label them idiots or “worse” academics for being

proven wrong by today's highly advanced standards. Similarly, doctors of the past are not criticized for

not saving as many lives as doctors today, they are recognized for doing what they could with what they

had at the time. Sauers premises regarding past philosophers are not only rude, but they are also

presentism, the application of current standards to past events commonly referred to as the historian's

fallacy. Sauer committing this fallacy when it comes to evaluating the work of past philosophers,

discredits the rest of his claims, making it hard to take anything else he says seriously. Sauer claims that

not only is heavy engagement with historical philosophy unnecessary but that studying historical

philosophy as a good way to think about philosophical problems is harmful to current philosophical

practices because of the irrelevance of past theories. Sauer attempts to use the analogy of other sciences

not using the historic calculations of their disciplines because they have been proven wrong. This

analogy is faulty however because this implies that there is a wrong way to do philosophy… or in other

words, there is a wrong way to think. This is not so, some ways get closer to reality than others but

philosophy differs from other disciplines because of its flexibility. Sauer suggests a cure for the harm of

researching historical philosophy is a “healthy dose of historical amnesia” (Sauer 2022), suggesting a

less intense focus on the philosophy of the past. While I agree that a reduced emphasis on historical

philosophy would be beneficial, it is not to mitigate harm to the practice as Sauer implies.

2. ) Many disagree with Sauer's position, and it is easy to see why. Offensive premises about

ancient philosophers and bold claims of harmful philosophical practices are sure to have some

backlash. Philosophers are some of the greatest academic thinkers, they wouldn’t continue the practice

of studying past theories for as long as they have if it were harmful and unuseful. My claims are more
 5

understanding than Sauer's. My suggestion to remove some focus from the study of historical

philosophy has more to do with the fact that it is the area of philosophy that we have spent the most

time with and therefore know the most about. Our fervent research on the past can handle a slight

reduction of attention for the benefit of all other areas of study, within and outside of Philosophy. Still,

many insist philosophy is fine the way that it is and it doesn't need to be reshaped or have some of the

focus“redirected”. Sounds like an appeal to tradition fallacy to me… but some may still say that

spending less time with historical philosophy is unnecessary. This resistance to broadening horizons is

more concerning than Sauer's claims. Let us examine in more detail about my propositions.

It is unwise to ignore the significance of the history of philosophy, in fact, many modern

philosophers have articulated the importance of the rich history of philosophy. Philosophers like

Timothy Williamson lists how using the history of philosophy is helpful in current work because it

gives us a base to stand on, “If you really ignore all past philosophy… you would be trying to redo

philosophy from scratch”(Williamson 2018, 104) Sauer sees an intense focus on historical philosophy

as something bad and harmful, I see more of a missed opportunity. Sauer states something similar,

discussing what he calls an “opportunity cost”, meaning that any time spent doing A is less time spent

doing B. A is researching historical philosophy and B is researching modern philosophy. To him, this

opportunity cost of researching historical philosophy is what becomes harmful. I view this missed

opportunity in a slightly different light. Truly I see the value in the philosophy of the past. Unbothered

by the amount of distraction that we have today, some of the most profound insights came from those

thinkers long ago. Spending any amount of time in any fashion with the history of philosophy is not

harmful to philosophy. For something cannot be hurt by a better understanding of itself. Instead, I
 6

relate practicing philosophy to driving a car. The history of philosophy is much like the rearview

mirrors situated above the dash and on the sides of the vehicle. Surely it is reckless to drive, refusing to

look in the rearview mirrors for they give you valuable insight about where you have been and what

may be coming from behind. Likewise, however, if one were to drive, spending the majority of their

time checking the rearview mirrors, they would miss what is coming ahead of them. The history of

philosophy is essential to practicing philosophy just as rearview mirrors are essential to safely driving a

car. But, the amount of time spent on studying the past may cause us to miss philosophical

opportunities in front of us. A balance must be made to successfully drive our philosophy mobile to

whatever destination we are seeking.

3. ) So we understand the importance of checking our rearview mirrors, we now need to utilize

our time looking forward. The extra energy removed from the past can now be put towards different

and maybe new approaches to philosophy, like using other fields and disciplines within philosophical

practices. Philosophy was the starting point for all other disciplines, creating space for questioning and

a desire for explanations of why things are the way they are. As time moved forward, the relationship

between philosophy and its subsequent expanding academic disciplines was relatively mutual.

Philosophers drew upon the scientific discoveries around them while academics drew on the

philosophical practices and their roots. I fear a greater and greater separation between philosophy and

other disciplines has occurred, a bitter sense of superiority has infiltrated the academic world and

caused a greater divide. Some argue that philosophy already uses other disciplines within the work, and

perhaps to some extent this is true, it is often no more than just a casual reference and shallow

application between two disciplines. What philosophy and all other disciplines need, is a stronger
 7

integration of the other disciplines of knowledge that surround us. In his book doing philosophy,

Williamson dedicates a whole chapter to explaining the connection that philosophy has with several

other disciplines. As both an aspiring anthropologist and philosopher, I see firsthand how beneficial

the integrated use of disciplines can be. Applying philosophical principles to anthropology allows me

to think more critically about issues that arise and applying anthropological principles to philosophy

has helped me remain open to many different theories and perspectives. The lack of understanding of

the prevalence that philosophy holds in other areas of study and vice versa is what is truly harmful to all

disciplines, not just philosophy. The world would benefit from an increased understanding of all areas

of knowledge, and this liberal use of differing perspectives and discoveries would lead to brighter paths

ahead in all academic disciplines.

5.) In conclusion, Hanno Sauer makes inconsiderate and false claims about the research of

historical philosophy making it hard to agree with removing focus from the history of philosophy.

Historical philosophy is critical to philosophy today and shouldn’t be dismissed, because of the sturdy

base on which it gives us, however, it has been in the spotlight for long enough. Spending less time on

the history of philosophy allows more energy to be given to different areas of philosophy such as

reincorporating other disciplines into philosophical practice which would benefit all areas of

academia—reuniting the universal quests for knowledge and learning once again.
 8

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Sauer, Hanno. “The End of History.” Inquiry, 2022, 1–25.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2022.2124542.

Williamson, Timothy, and Williamson. “Chapters 8-9.” Essay. In Doing Philosophy: From Common

Curiosity to Logical Reasoning, 98–126. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.