I am wondering what peoples opinion's are on the most promising areas of study in the history of philosophy currently. I am currently reading on Renaissance philosophy, particularly some authors from the 1950's or some who were getting their education through that period (Barzun, Kristller). It is very interesting reading Kristeller and hearing him speak of the awaiting of better translations, complete manuscripts, etc. and his excitement about budding, promising areas of scholarship on a relatively new subject.

In 2018, I am wondering what areas remain understudied, undertranslated, etc. Are there any? Perhaps I should add, by the Western tradition. I was going to suggest Eastern philosophy, but of course it isn't understudied so much as under represented in the Western tradition. So, with that being said. And if not, is the future of the field just constant reinterpreting.. correcting old prejudices (some might say with new ones) ..?

  • 1
    I will also mention John William Miller. I have been intending to look into his philosophy, but so far I've only read one of his books. google.com/…
    – Gordon
    Oct 9, 2018 at 12:34
  • To answer the question it is necessary to know which areas are complete, which is impossible to answer, there will be always more to do. So, it leaves a large space to subjectivity. In my own opinion, mathematics and logics being part of metaphysics have left aside a keystone of understanding and reason that lies between both: the systems theory, which is at least immature.
    – RodolfoAP
    Feb 1, 2022 at 7:19

4 Answers 4

  1. The Italian Hegelian tradition that runs from Jaja and Spaventa through to Croce (though Croce had severe criticisms of Hegel) and Gentile is an area little studied in the history of philosophy.

  2. The work of the late 18th-century/ early 19th centuries Scottish philosophers, Thomas Reid and Thomas Brown, receives only marginal attention yet much of it is sophisticated.

  3. In the early 19th century Sir William Hamilton is remembered if at all for 'the quantification of the predicate' but Hamilton wrote extensively on metaphysics and the philosophy of mind. John Stuart Mill devoted an entire and rather long book to the critical examination of Hamilton. He is overdue to be looked into again.

Those are some leads that might be of interest.

  • 1
    I found it. This is what I remembered. It was an introduction to a book, The Philosophy of History and the Duty of Freedom. Introduction by Dr. Emanuel Paparella: ernestopaolozzi.it/1288/… sorry, I do not know exactly how "new" this is. But it's good, imo.
    – Gordon
    Oct 9, 2018 at 12:09
  • 1
    The above concerns Croce. You may have already read the book, but I put it down if others are interested.
    – Gordon
    Oct 9, 2018 at 12:13

There are many "under-studied" philosophers at any given time or place. Let me give a few examples:

  • In France, there are (mostly) not German philosophers that are studied, but their French interpreters (who at times vastly distort the message even when translating only), e.g. Kojève for Hegel.
  • There is a revival of broad Kant-Scholarship of a new level in English-speaking academia since the Cambridge Editions contributed translations that are much more precise.
  • There were times when the linguistic turn played a big role, others when epistemology was more naturalistic, including the corresponding authors being "in".
  • There are often local research nodes, e.g. about Perennial Philosophy, Ancient Greek, Scholastic, Early Modern, Eastern, etc. that emerge because of a certain professor that educates and attracts specialists in the field. Often they are not even known on a broad scale, even if they publish.

That being said: I do not think there is any "under-studied philosophy" per se. This may be the case in certain circles/journals, certain historical periods, certain language communities. So the question can be broadly answered with "we probably do not even know 90% of the best philosophy ever written".

Also, academic philosophy is not about parroting or (re-)interpreting what is already written. That is one strand of philosophy, certainly, and mostly done in departments that work in the history of philosophy. The vast majority is about writing genuine philosophy using certain bits and parts of other philosophy as part of the argument, either to support or to dissociate one's own position.

Thus, what you learn in academic philosophy is not about parroting or re-interpreting other philosophers, but to express your own position by using arguments of other philosophers as either positive or negative foil (and the form of doing so without plagiarising). Only one aspect of this is knowing arguments of other philosophers in the first place. And yes, there are certain mainstream philosophers you learn. But everyone is free to choose to write about others (less/not known) as a postgraduate and many, especially more senior lecturers, do so.


There are, I believe, two "understudied" (and underrepresented) philosophies that should be briefly discussed:

  1. Islamic Philosophy: While I am no scholar of Islamic Philosophy, I would still say that this area of Philosophy has been largely ignored or at best, given anecdotal status by Western Philosophers-(and Historians of Philosophy). True, Islamic Philosophy is not "Western" and very much belongs in the realm of Eastern Philosophy. However, it was primarily Islamic Philosophers-(i.e. such as, Ibn-Sina/ Avicenna and Ibn-Rushd/Averroes), who helped revitalize and advance Greek Philosophy-(especially Aristotelian Philosophy and Science) from its moribund state during the Middle Ages.

  2. Byzantine Philosophy: Yes, when studying Early Medieval Philosophy there is Saint Augustine and yes, when studying Late Medieval Philosophy, there is the intellectual Powerhouse St. Thomas Aquinas. How about John Chrysostom, Saint Athanasius-(remember The Council at Nicea?), Origen or St. John of Damascus? These mostly Greek names, belong to Byzantine Philosophy and Theology.

Let's remember, that Greek Philosophy did not necessarily end with the rise of Roman Stoicism...it essentially made a "comeback" on the world philosophical stage in the form of Christian Metaphysics and Theology often referred to as, "The Early Church Fathers". One may think that The Early Church Fathers primarily refers to Roman/ Latin or European Christian Theologians; however, there were also The Early Eastern Church Fathers during the first centuries of The Middle Ages. Many of the competing early Church Doctrines that never made to it historical "primetime", were authored by Greek-(as well as Syrian, Egyptian and Armenian) Eastern rite Christian Writers. It should be noted that the concept of the Trinity, has sharply divided the Western and Eastern Churches...to this day. The 1000 year old "schism" between Western and Eastern Christianity, was not just political or even cultural, but also Doctrinal and Theological.

Nevertheless, despite its long and influential history, Byzantine Philosophy and History, like the aforementioned Islamic Philosophy and History, sadly, have been consistently "understudied" (and I believe largely unappreciated), in the History of Philosophy


Philosophers in the academic community leave almost unexplored one entire area of research by following the physicists and rarely asking the 'why?' question. They know that all significant problems of philosophy arise because metaphysical questions are undecidable but very few ask why this is the case. Why not? Because it opens the door to mysticism.

As a consequence of its distaste for this question in our Western professional philosophy almost no work has been done in this area. The Dialethists ask 'why?' and conclude that the Universe is paradoxical and incomprehensible but this is not so much an answer as a dismissal of the question. The Theists conclude it's an incomprehensible Divine miracle but this is the abandonment of philosophy. Kant, Hegel, Bradley, Brown and some others do attempt to address the 'why?' question but for Russell's Western tradition, as his well-known survey shows, this is an almost virgin field of research.

A failure to ask the 'why?' question for metaphysical problems means that mysticism is, as you say, not simply under-studied but barely studied at all. This presents an opportunity for amateur researchers since there is much work to be done and little professional competition. The only problem would be that when we embark on this research we have departed from the Western tradition and arrived at the gates of the 'Land of Woo' or 'Eastern' philosophy, where academic philosophers must start worrying about their tenure and the derisory laughter of their peers.

As the Perennial philosophy is a global system this means the every area of philosophy is under-studied in the West, from ontology to epistemology to ethics.

  • This question is extensively studied in the literature on scientific explanation in philosophy of science. Start with Wesley Salmon’s “Four decades of scientific explanation” Oct 16, 2018 at 20:58
  • @ChristopherE - Empirical science has no method for studying this question so I'm not sure what you mean here. The question is not just metaphysical but meta-metaphysical, I have never heard a scientist make a comment about it or even express an interest and few philosophers seem any more enthusiastic. There would be no point in reading a book about four decades of scientific explanation if we're studying a metaphysical question. Horses for courses and all that.
    – user20253
    Oct 17, 2018 at 13:19
  • PS - Oops. I just remembered the physicist Paul Davies. Bravely and unusually he does examine this question in 'Mind of God'. He concludes that mysticism may be where the answer lies, albeit he is sceptical.
    – user20253
    Oct 17, 2018 at 13:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .