On Plott's History. AI

Deepseek

I am prevented from signing into my Deepseek account on both my cell phone and my laptop. I get the "wheel of death." The result is that I am only able to copy partial conversations.

---

Critiques of Plott's Global History of Philosophy, vol 1, Axial Age

Of course. Oliver Plott's Global Philosophy of History [repeats my title error], Vol. 1: Axial Age presents a comprehensive and ambitious theory, but it has been subject to significant critiques from historians, philosophers, and area studies scholars.

Here is a breakdown of the major critiques, structured by thematic concern:

1. The "Axial Age" Concept Itself: Reinforcing or Reifying a Contested Category Plott builds his entire philosophy on Karl Jaspers' concept of the Axial Age (~800-200 BCE). Critics argue this is a foundational weakness because:

Eurocentric and Normative Bias: The criteria for "Axiality" (transcendence, reflexivity, critique of the world) are derived primarily from the historical experience of Greco-Roman and Judaic traditions. Applying them to China, India, and elsewhere can be a form of philosophical colonialism, judging other civilizations by a standard they didn't set.

Synchronization and Homogenization: The theory flattens profound differences between, say, the Greek polis, the Hebrew prophets, the Brahmanic-Upanishadic shift, and Confucian ethics into a single, synchronous "breakthrough." This obscures unique historical trajectories and causal factors.

Exclusionary Problematics: What about the "non-Axial"? Civilizations like ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, or the Olmecs are often relegated to a "pre-Axial" status, implying a hierarchy of historical development. This marginalizes their significant intellectual and spiritual achievements.

2. Philosophical Overdetermination and Historical Materialism

Plott's approach is seen as prioritizing idealist intellectual history at the expense of material, social, and economic factors.

Neglect of Material Bases: Critics (influenced by Marxist or anthropological historiography) argue that the "Axial breakthroughs" cannot be understood without analyzing the material conditions that enabled them: iron-age technology, state formation, urbanization, literacy, changing class structures, and warfare. Plott's focus on philosophical consciousness can appear as if ideas emerge in a vacuum.

The "Great Man" Theory of Philosophy: The narrative can devolve into a story of "great thinkers" (Plato, Buddha, Confucius, Isaiah) without sufficient context of the social conflicts, institutional changes, and broader discursive fields that shaped their thought.

3. Methodological Nationalism/Civilizationalism

Plott's framework tends to treat "Greece," "India," "China," and "Israel" as discrete, unified units of analysis.

Internal Diversity: These were not monolithic cultures. "Axial" debates often occurred within fierce internal contestation (e.g., the Sophists vs. Plato in Greece, Charvakas vs. Upanishadic thinkers in India). Plott's synthesis can smooth over these radical conflicts.

Cross-Cultural Connections: The theory often assumes independent, parallel evolution. Recent scholarship emphasizes the possibilities of early Eurasian connections and exchanges (e.g., along the Silk Roads) that might have facilitated or influenced these transformations, which an overemphasis on "axiality" as internal genius can obscure.

4. Teleology and the Philosophy of History

This is the most fundamental philosophical critique. Plott's project, by its very nature as a "philosophy of history," is accused of imposing a grand narrative.

A Secularized Salvation History: The Axial Age functions as a secularized version of theological history—a pivotal turning point that defines the meaning of human history, leading toward modernity, universalism, or "reflexivity." This is seen as a teleological construct.

Justifying the Present: The narrative often implicitly serves to explain the roots of "Western" or "modern" values (critical reason, individual morality, universal ethics). This can be anachronistic, reading current values back into the past and creating a genealogy that legitimizes them.

5. Specific Historical and Philological Challenges

Area studies scholars often find the handling of their specific fields problematic:

China: The categorization of Confucianism as "transcendent" in a Jaspersian sense is hotly debated. Chinese thought is often characterized as "immanent transcendence" or this-worldly, challenging the axial criterion of a sharp break between a transcendent order and the mundane world.

India: The focus on the Upanishadic-Brahmanic tradition can sideline the equally significant, contemporary "axial" challenges from the Śramaṇa movements (Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivikas), which were arguably more radical breaks from Vedic ritualism.

Greece: The "Greek Miracle" narrative is reinforced, often downplaying the deep influences from Near Eastern and Egyptian civilizations (a critique articulated by Martin Bernal and others).

6. The Role of the "Post-Axial"

Critics ask: What comes after? If the Axial Age is the key hinge, how does Plott's framework explain later transformations (the rise of monotheistic empires, the scientific revolution, colonial modernity)? Does it risk making everything after the Axial a mere footnote or working out of its core principles?

Conclusion: The Value Amidst Critique

Despite these critiques, Plott's work is generally acknowledged as a serious and stimulating synthesis. The critiques do not necessarily invalidate the project but highlight the inherent tensions in any "global philosophy of history."

Plott's defenders might argue that he is offering a heuristic framework for comparative civilizational study, not a rigid historical law. The value lies in the systematic juxtaposition of traditions, forcing us to think about deep commonalities and differences in human cultural evolution.

The enduring power of the Axial Age debate, which Plott's book reignites, lies not in its empirical accuracy but in its provocative questioning: Is there a common structure to the human quest for meaning? How do periods of intense critique and spiritual creativity arise? What connects our modern intellectual heritage to these foundational moments?

In essence, the critiques suggest that Plott's Global Philosophy of History [Global History of Philosophy] is perhaps more valuable as a monumental work of comparative philosophy than as a strictly historical or historiographical account. It succeeds in framing profound questions but struggles to provide answers that satisfy the particularizing disciplines of modern historical science.

---

Note: A philosophy of history written according to a new schema certainly implies a philosophy of history