Talk:George Santayana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 when did Santayana move to Rome? 2 An Admission 3 Another mea culpa 4 Doomed to fulfill or repeat history? 5 Rivals Pursuing Both Philosophy and Letters

[edit] when did Santayana move to Rome?

The article as I came across it says "1925", my encyclopedia (it's mispelled, that's how you can tell it's American) says "1932", the Stanford page says "late twenties", and this bio says "1924". I've left it as 1925 because I can't decide when it really was. Does anyone know? --MarkGallagher 20:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• This is an unimportant detail. McCormick's fine biography (in the library of my university) surely can set this matter straight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.160.42 (talk • contribs) 20:54, November 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Admission

I, Philip Meguire, expatriate American economist employed in New Zealand, have become, by and large, the author of most of this entry. Let the brickbats come as they may. My philosophical tastes incline to logic, analysis, and scientific method. So why do I love Santayana? Nor for his philosophy, which I find impenetrable. Rather, he reminds me of my French ancestors. I also point to the editor of "Overheard in Seville" being an academic mathematician. Santayana is not hugely popular among mainstream academic philosophers nowadays, but apparently easily makes friends elsewhere. I own copies of Persons and Places and The Last Puritan, and have read McCormick's biography. I look forward to perusing the Letters one day. Most of all, once he left Harvard, Santayana was, to a remarkable extent, a free man, a shining exemple to us more modest sorts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.181.160.42 (talk • contribs) 20:57, November 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lovely to hear from you. The article is looking very good. How do you feel about creating an account? It's free, it makes your work easier to identify (you could be User:PhilipMeguire, instead of a bunch of numbers), lets you bung particular pages onto a "watchlist" to help you more easily keep track of them, gives you your own userpage, etc. etc. You can create an account by clicking the "Create account / login" button in the top right of your screen, or by following this link. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another mea culpa

Actually, I too have contributed significantly to this article, as I was the first to develop the section on his philosophy, for example. I see that some of my other revisions and additions have been removed by others; the replacement of the bibliography with the Santayana Edition index is a nice change, although I think that The Life of Reason and The Sense of Beauty do deserve their own pages. As to one of the claims in the article, it's been my understanding that Santayana's finances weren't so strong towards the end of his life, although I confess to not having yet read the McCormick biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 21:48, December 1, 2005 (UTC)

Note that those entries in your bibliography dealing with titles the critical edition does not yet include, survive. I invite you to make sure that the section on his philosophy does justice to your understanding of that philosophy. You are most welcome to create separate entries for Reason and Beauty and to shift text there. McCormick is fairly strong on Santayana's finances, because these were managed in Boston by his half-brother Robert Sturgis and the descendants thereof, and McCormick had access to the records. The Last Puritan and Persons and Places sold well, leaving George quite comfortable. Pearl Harbor meant that he could not access his American funds, but the nuns looking after him were understanding and he settled in full after the war. At his death, things were not as bright as they once had been, but I rather doubt the wolf was at the door. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 12:11, December 2, 2005 (UTC)

You're right; I recall now that it wasn't so much a matter of his not having money, as it was of his not having access to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 00:51, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've also seen Santayana's name on a Wikipedia list of academics (mostly philosophers) who are believed to have been, but for which there is no strong evidence, homosexual. In Bruce Kuklick's The Rise of American Philosophy, he cites an unidentified source to whom Santayana confided later in life that he believed that he'd had homosexual inclinations as a Harvard undergraduate, but so far that is the only documented mention of Santayana's sexuality I've come across. I admit that the absence of a marriage or any other romantic attachment that I've seen thus far in the biographical material on Santayana struck me as mildly noteworthy at first but it didn't occur to me to presume his orientation to be anything but heterosexual until reading Kuklick. Does McCormick address this? Would this be worth including in the Wikipedia article? I realize, of course, that our contemporary definitions of sexuality, particularly homosexuality, do not easily map onto American belief and practice in the Victorian era, but I'd be curious to learn if there has been any other scholarship on this aspect of Santayana's personal life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 00:51, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

McCormick definitely does speak to this, and I urge you to read him for yourself. I've confined my entry to a very brief mention of a bald fact: Santayana never married. That's what I prefer; I do not like the current fashion of writing or speculating about the sexual feelings or activities of celebrities, unless they splash it all over their diaries and letters, or run afoul of the law. That said, there is at least one passage in The Last Puritan does smell a bit homosexual to me. There is also a letter from before 1900 in which he good-humoredly reveals that his youthful self was not devoid of sexual urgings. The elderly Santayana is also supposed to have confided to Daniel Cory "I must have been that way [homosexual] in my Harvard days." But I do not wish that sort of stuff mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 04:06, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

By "sort of stuff" do you mean inconvenient truths? --Kstern999 00:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sort of stuff' may here mean immature, unnatural, and repulsive physical relationships between two persons of the same gender, which were later regretted by a mature individual.Lestrade 12:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I see from the article history that some jackass has been playing around, taking advantage of the question I raised; I'm glad to see that it was promptly cleaned up. If I had known that someone would be so puerile I wouldn't have introduced the topic for discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 05:11, December 16, 2005 (UTC)

I assume only incorrect or clearly untrue statements were "cleaned up." Facts which are, for the moment, unsubstantiated might merit a "citation required." --Kstern999 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add that the "Man of Letters" section is a wonderful addition to the article. Somewhat ironically, I think Santayana is read more today by those outside philosophy departments than within (both his philosophy and his literature/criticism), so a section on his literary works and belles lettres is quite fitting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 00:51, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

You are very kind, and I thank you. Saatkamp claims that much of the Anglo-American philosophical world is moving towards positions Santayana staked out, but I am rather skeptical. I doubt that Santayana the technical philosopher sits well with what passes for philosophy in the Anglo-American world since the deaths of Bradley and McTaggart. James has proved durable, Dewey's reputation is rising, Royce has proved durable and (I think) is set to rise (a critical edition would help). My hero Charles Peirce is amply studied, and is looking more and more like the greatest abstract thinker the western hemisphere has ever produced. In no way, however, does Santayana the philosopher elicit that sort of academic interest. I own the abridged version of Reason and find it largely opaque. On the other hand, Santayana the man of letters is proving rather durable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 04:06, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also made a couple of small improvements to the "Philosophy" section by adding links to two of the philosophical terms ("naturalism" and "metaphysics"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 00:51, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

I've picked up Vol. I of his letters but haven't had much opportunity to peruse it yet. I recently found out that Franklin Roosevelt also took a class with him when Santayana taught at Harvard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.156.44 (talk • contribs) 21:48, December 1, 2005 (UTC)

A nice detail, but keep in mind that Roosevelt unlike, say, T S Eliot, was no intellectual. BTW, the excerpts from the correspondence with various Sturgises I've read reveal a very American Santayana. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.36.179.65 (talk • contribs) 12:11, December 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doomed to fulfill or repeat history?

Does the corrent quote not end it "doomed to fulfil it"? This website suggests it is this, not 'repeat' - (It is ironic that George Santayana's statement in his "Life of Reason" about progress is so often twisted into something void of reason regarding history. You hear it most often stated in a pontifical tone that "History is the great teacher. Thus it is that those who cannot remember to past are doomed to repeat it." The message being, I suppose, is if you don't pay attention to your history teacher, you will help move the country toward World War III. Which, of course, is trite nonsense completely at odds with Santayana's overriding philosophy based on reason. What Santayana actually wrote is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness...and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.28.65.210 (talk • contribs) 03:25, January 26, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivals Pursuing Both Philosophy and Letters

Thanks for creating this article. I've got a question: What's the basis for claiming "Among American writers combining philosophy and letters, Ralph Waldo Emerson is his only rival"? I cast my vote for Ayn Rand, as an American that bests Santayana in terms of books sold and influence. Apparently, she's also gaining weight with academic philosophers, whom she mostly despised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer dream (talk • contribs) 21:30, June 2, 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like original research to me. I've put up some 'scare tags'. Miraculouschaos 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)