Will Durant: A philosopher or just a historian of philosophy?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I was reading some discussion somewhere on the Web where some people were saying something to the effect of if you think that Will Durant was a philosopher then you don't know what philosophy is. Will Durant was just a historian of philosophy, they said.

Which was he?

 

[Orontes]

Hello,

I think your poll is flawed. It should have a neither option. Durant was a historian. His magnum opus (along with Ariel Durant) the eleven volume history of Western Civilization covers in elegant fashion the width and breath of the West. This includes intellectual history, but it is not exclusive to intellectual history let alone philosophy. Durant does have a single volume work on the history of philosophy. It is a nice general introduction to the subject. Even so, it is a mistake to consider him as only a historian of philosophy. To consider Durant a philosopher would mean he has put forward original work in philosophy. The five most basic categories of philosophy are: ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics and logic. I am unaware of Durant ever attempting an original treatise on any of these or any other sub-category of philosophy.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Even so, it is a mistake to consider him as only a historian of philosophy.

I did not ask if he was a historian only of Philosophy. I asked what his relationship was to the enterprise of Philosophy: A historian of the enterprise, an original contributor to the enterprise, or both?

Again, I did not ask if he was a historian of only Philosophy. I asked about his relationship with Philosophy. Anything outside of Philosophy is irrelevant.

To consider Durant a philosopher would mean he has put forward original work in philosophy. The five most basic categories of philosophy are: ontology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics and logic. I am unaware of Durant ever attempting an original treatise on any of these or any other sub-category of philosophy.

I have read part of two of his works: The Pleasures of Philosophy (also known as The Mansions of Philosophy, I believe) and The Story of Philosophy. The work did not strike me as pure historical narrative. A lot of it was his thoughts on the place of Philosophy in intellectual history; the relationship of Philosophy to other disciplines; the nature of Philosophy; the nature of other disciplines in contrast to Philosophy; etc., etc. I would classify a lot of it as metaphilosophy. And a lot of his "history" of Philosophy seemed to be, rather than historical narrative, a part of his argument for his metaphilosophy.

Metaphilosophy is a branch of Philosophy, is it not?

I don't know if any of it was an "original treatise", but I am inclined to say that a lot of it was indeed philosophical speculation and not mere historical narrative. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the subtitle of The Pleasures of Philosophy was "An Attempt at a Consistent Philosophy of Life". That book, as I recall, was largely him articulating his own philosophy. Not exactly a history book.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the subtitle of The Pleasures of Philosophy was "An Attempt at a Consistent Philosophy of Life".

That may be wrong. I just searched the catalog of the library that I got the book from and they list it with a different subtitle than what I named. I don't know where I got the phrase "An attempt at a consistent philosophy of life", but my mind associates it with that book.

 

[Orontes]

I did not ask if he was a historian only of Philosophy. I asked what his relationship was to the enterprise of Philosophy: A historian of the enterprise, an original contributor to the enterprise, or both?

Again, I did not ask if he was a historian of only Philosophy. I asked about his relationship with Philosophy. Anything outside of Philosophy is irrelevant.

I see. I took "just a historian of philosophy?" to be an exclusive statement.

I have read part of two of his works: The Pleasures of Philosophy (also known as The Mansions of Philosophy, I believe) and The Story of Philosophy. The work did not strike me as pure historical narrative. A lot of it was his thoughts on the place of Philosophy in intellectual history; the relationship of Philosophy to other disciplines; the nature of Philosophy; the nature of other disciplines in contrast to Philosophy; etc., etc. I would classify a lot of it as metaphilosophy. And a lot of his "history" of Philosophy seemed to be, rather than historical narrative, a part of his argument for his metaphilosophy.

Metaphilosophy is a branch of Philosophy, is it not?

I don't know if any of it was an "original treatise", but I am inclined to say that a lot of it was indeed philosophical speculation and not mere historical narrative. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, the subtitle of The Pleasures of Philosophy was "An Attempt at a Consistent Philosophy of Life". That book, as I recall, was largely him articulating his own philosophy. Not exactly a history book.

I don't know "Mansions of Philosophy". I understand it was actually adapted into the "Story of Philosophy". I would agree metaphilosophy is a legitimate category of philosophy, at least since the time of Plato, but I don't know if either works above could really be considered formal treatises on metaphilosophy. Rather, I suspect they are works attempting to share Durant's love of philosophy and explain its general whys and wherefores to a general audience.