The abolition of social relations as a vital element in thought, understanding and reason probably arrives with Descartes, whose tool was to dispense with all fallible claims, which takes him inside his own head communing with a God who can maybe lie to him.
But actually i suspect the empiricists also downgrade the social dimension -- however I haven't reread Locke for 30 years (I always found him a big far bore); and Hume -- while chatty and clubbable in tone -- is cheerfully derisive about what people merely say and think. (Marxist phlilosophers would make a lot at this point of the centrality to Locke's and Hume's politics of the property-owning individual as the "atom of right" or some such)
Kant was focused on defanging Hume in Critique of Pure Reason; his later works -- about for example morality and aesthetics -- pay far more attention on the social world, albeit sometimes in a somewhat abstracted form; but reason (for Kant) puts the social world at bay.
Hegel explicitly brings it back in: the role of history in the development of reason is a reintroduction of the idea that understanding is always social -- and hence, since all so-far-exisiting societies are flawed, always flawed. (Marx of course brings the material relation of understanding with the social right to the forefront: there's a -- much-contested! -- reading of Marx which is surprsingly close to the pragmatists; certainly Marx himself regarded philosophy as a filibuster, a secular reaffirmation of churchly and reactionary values)
wild guesswork
But actually i suspect the empiricists also downgrade the social dimension -- however I haven't reread Locke for 30 years (I always found him a big far bore); and Hume -- while chatty and clubbable in tone -- is cheerfully derisive about what people merely say and think. (Marxist phlilosophers would make a lot at this point of the centrality to Locke's and Hume's politics of the property-owning individual as the "atom of right" or some such)
Kant was focused on defanging Hume in Critique of Pure Reason; his later works -- about for example morality and aesthetics -- pay far more attention on the social world, albeit sometimes in a somewhat abstracted form; but reason (for Kant) puts the social world at bay.
Hegel explicitly brings it back in: the role of history in the development of reason is a reintroduction of the idea that understanding is always social -- and hence, since all so-far-exisiting societies are flawed, always flawed. (Marx of course brings the material relation of understanding with the social right to the forefront: there's a -- much-contested! -- reading of Marx which is surprsingly close to the pragmatists; certainly Marx himself regarded philosophy as a filibuster, a secular reaffirmation of churchly and reactionary values)