Western philosophy has systematically neglected the category of the future

Evidence

For what strikes the random observer of the history of philosophy is the lack of attention given the future as such, as though there were something essentially frivolous in a consideration of that which does not yet exist, when so much exists already. In that the philosophers resemble M. Terentius Varro, “most learned of all the Romans,” who “is supposed to have forgotten the future tense in the first version of his Latin grammar.” — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 247

Categorization

• XREF: This connects to Jameson’s later insistence on utopia and the ‘imagination of alternatives’ — the critique that theory fixates on the past/present while abandoning futurity, the core of Bloch’s utopian inheritance. — connects to: Hegel never reconciled the future’s chronological and logical-conceptual senses — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 214; Denying a philosopher’s concept of the future doubles as denying that philosophy’s own future — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 206
• SEED: A possible essay angle: ‘The forgotten future tense’ — how Western thought’s neglect of the novum maps onto contemporary politics’ inability to imagine alternatives to the present.
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Hegel never reconciled the future’s chronological and logical-conceptual senses — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 214; Denying a philosopher’s concept of the future doubles as denying that philosophy’s own future — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel: Plasticity,…, 206