Massimo Pigliucci has a great post
at Rationally Speaking, based on a Twitter survey by Oxford University
Press, where he first talks about his favorite philosophers of all time,
then, to narrow down response on an iPhone app, the most overrated
philosophers of the 20th century.
I expanded my thoughts a bit in a comment there, to list underrated as well as overrated, and all-time as well as 20th-century.
Here it is.
Hume
is a definite No. 1 on my favorites list. (He was for Massimo, too). He
is eminently readable, a bonus among
philosophers. Also, with his thoughts on the self, etc., arguably the
father of modern psychology, and a more distant ancestor of modern
cognitive science. Indeed, we could put Hume in a Tardis or whatever,
bring him forward 250 years, and he'd have insights galore to offer in
those fields and more.
(And, Nov. 27, 2020, update, per David Harris' 2015 bio, which I've now read, in many of his Essays Moral and Political, distressingly shallow, as if le bon David followed Addison too much and acted like he was writing for the 1750s British equivalent of New Yorker readers at best.
And, further update a year later, after reading through said bio and related things? He was a rank racist ready to repeat cultural and other stereotypes about White Europeans as well as his rank anti-Black racism. And, that's NOT presentism to say that. A Platonic ideal of Hume might be No. 1, but the real guy, ain't.)
Diogenes. Life would be more
authentic if we, and the world in general, thought more like him. Let
alone if we acted more like him. Arguably, he's a forerunner and
progenitor to some modern absurdists like ...
Albert Camus, the leading expositor of absurdism (do not call him an existentialist) would be No. 3, I think.
Marcus
Aurelius might be fourth; I'm not sure. He contributed nothing new to
Stoicism, and kind of undercut his own intellectual high ground by
naming his son Commodus as heir rather than adopting somebody else, but
the "Meditations" are still a pleasure to read. (On the other hand, no previous emperor had had a natural-born son live to an age to succeed him; adoption during the Good Emperors period, and also the Julio-Claudians, was an expedient, not a design.)
Ludwig
Wittgenstein would be fifth, I think, but as a "favorite" for stimulating others into thinking about linguistic issues, even when Witty himself was also wrong. Yet, also, overrated; see more below. I think the early
Wittgenstein of the Tractatus may be overrated ... an affectation for
some. The later Wittgenstein? Also an affectation of alleged intellect
for many, but that doesn't detract from the fact that his ordinary
language philosophy has been influential. And, on the popularity side,
anybody willing to brain Karl Popper with a fireplace poker can't be all
bad, right?
Update five years later. I would now very much agree with Massimo Pigliucci. Yes, Witty's later philosophy has been influential, but the whole idea of meaning — or at least meaning as we discuss it – being tied up with the bounds of language, arguably goes back to Plato and the original Brahmins in early Aryan India, both of whom were concerned about the written word being a straitjacket.
Meanwhile, to the degree the Wittgenstein of the Reflections refuted the one of the Tractatus, and not just expanded it, he never would admit that.
Add in Witty's lifelong Platonism, and I can indeed buy that he's in the top five of overrated philosophers of the 20th century. (And yes, both inside and outside of philosophy, he was very much a Platonist.) That said, I'm surprised that Massimo hasn't beat Dan Kaufman over the head more on this issue.
So, to recap the recasting: Wittgenstein is properly rated, but not more than that, as a promotor of the big concepts of linguistic philosophy as it developed in the middle third of the 20th century (and take that narrowly) and overrated on everything else.
Indeed, he might be on my top 10 for all-time overrated philosophers.
If I add one more, it's going to be a mythical character, but that's that. Lao Tzu, the alleged founder of Daoism.
Now, a couple of underrated philosophers (all time, not just 20th C):
1. Pyrrho. Pyrrhonic Skepticism influenced Hume, among others. (Only in his original Treatise, which he later repudiated as part of being a social climber. Something else I learned from two bios of him, but more, MUCH more, from Mossner than Harris.
2.
Camus, per a comment above. More insightful than Sartre, yet barely
even gets considered as a philosopher by many. And he should be. Because
he was.
3. Gilbert Ryle. Influential on a number of
late 20th-century philosophers, including, but far from limited to, Dan
Dennett. His "ghost in the machine" is a good modern philosophical
restatement of rejecting ontological dualism.
4.
Diogenes. Even educated people know little about him other than his
comment to Alexander the Great, and they know even less about capital-C
Cynicism as a philosophy. It's a shame. I won't load the page up with
links, but go to Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
and look up both the man and the philosophy. He's underrated precisely
because he was a willing contrarian and outcast, and he made that the
basis of his philosophy. And, winners write history.
5. Hume. Setting aside some problems of the empiricism project with fruition in his hands, he's still been a big influence on modern skepticism. And modern secularism. At the same time, he's sullied somewhat by his racism. (Massimo and I disagree on whether saying this is "presentism" or not. It's NOT.)
And, per this and comments above, Hume may actually be "correctly rated" not underrated.
Next, here's my all time, not just 20th century, overrated philosophers.
1. Socrates (my moniker for this blog and more riffs on the myth, not the reality, of the man, and ..
2. Plato.
These
two go together. Plato totally set up straw men for Socrates to argue
against, in the Sophists and others. The reality is that the Sophists
were wanting to make the roots of a classical, Hellenic "gentleman's"
education available to those who didn't have the time and money of the
upper crust for private study. And, one need not be Izzy Stone to see
that both were
antidemocratic elitists, to boot, given that Socrates failed to condemn
either the first or second revolt Alciabiades led/instigated against the
Athenian democracy.
3. Aristotle. Were he Jewish and
200 years older, we'd probably finger him as the author of the "P"
strand of the Torah. Highly influential in terms of basic logic, yes,
but, if we want to in a sense call him the first philosopher of science,
he was a disaster. And, there were early scientists and technologists
around. His contemporary Eratosthenes used trigonometry plus geography
to produce a highly accurate measure of the earth's circumference. A
century later, Archimedes was a technological and inventive wunderkind.
Therefore, Aristotle had no need to make the massive amount of
evidence-free statements about human and animal life, classifications of
life, etc. that he did. Nor, per thinking on metaphysics and other
fields of philosophy at the time, did he have to postulate the four
causes that he did. And, on ethics? Massimo is a virtue ethicist and so
he loves Aristotle. I don't, as an educated layperson, consider myself
to be aligned with any one school of ethics. I do claim, and did in
comments to Massimo's 2012 blog posts about schools of ethics, that
virtue ethics has about as many problems as Kantianism or
utilitarianism.
4. Wittgenstein inserts here.
5. Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky and other
Christian existentialists. Basically, they failed in their attempts to
give Christianity, especially theodicy, an intellectual veneer in the
late 19th century and beyond. That's especially true when they're mashed up with process theology (see below).
6. Dan Dennett.
No, this is not a Poe or a total joke. He's not written anything
original in nearly 20 years, and has actually made some whoppers, from
where I sit, beginning with the evidence-free flat statement that
evolution is algorithmic. He also gets merit here because of his
philosophical influence on modern Gnu Atheism in general.
Contra
Massimo, I don't think Wittgenstein was overrated. He is a mixed bag,
but I'd put him as ... about correctly rated, overall.
Update, five years later. He might not be in the top 5, and tongue in cheek, Dennett probably shouldn't be in the top five, because he's not that influential, but I'll officially put Wittgenstein in the 10 most overrated philosophers ever. See above italicized section.
OK,
underrated 20th century philosophers. This list is much shorter
because, as noted above, I'm not a professional philosopher and
therefore don't have the level of insight, or personal attachment, that
Massimo does.
1. Camus
2. Ryle
Overrated, 20th C:
1.
Heidegger/Derrida/Foucault and any progeny of any of their schools of
thought. Let me add Stanley Fish by name. Basically, deconstructionism
is self-refuting, petard hoisting, etc. Derrida doesn't have a leg to
stand on. Structuralism has enough similarities that my critique extends
to Foucault. Heidegger? His quasi-existentialist contributions to what became
process theology are more than enough reason to put him here (adding
Alfred North Whitehead, Teilhard de Chardin, Paul Tillich, and any other expositors of the Ground of Being), setting aside his Nazi friendliness.
2.
Dennett as a special case. He certainly influenced me, nearly 20 years
ago, but, I've moved on. Beyond his "recycling" and his refusal to
accept that rejecting a "Cartesian meaner" logically also means
rejecting a "Cartesian free willer," his invention of the word "Brights"
for secularists was bad enough, but his following claim that there was
no connotation, no implication, about religious people ... I see that as
a transparent lie.
3. Sam Harris and any other Gnu
Atheist claiming to have disproven the existence of god. Harris,
especially, knows what any open-minded person who has taken a basic
class on logic, formal or informal, should know -- attempting to prove
the nonexistence of anything is the logical equivalent of dividing by
zero. Vic Stenger is another Gnu who does this. Harris deserves
additional mention for claiming Buddhism is just a psychology.
(Yes, one can in certain versions of modern formal logic, disprove the existence of God. One can also stand Anselm on his head and prove a perfectly existing Satan beyond which nothing more perfectly evil can exist.)
4.
Jean-Paul Sartre, with apologies to my Facebook friend Brett Welch. I
think Sartre's stubborn refusal to accept the truth about Stalin and
Stalinism, contra Camus, speaks a lot for and about him as a thinker.
And, speaking of that, I think Camus had the edge on him as a writer,
overall, at least a philosophical writer (No Exit is psychology first,
philosophy second, as are several other works by Sartre) and think
Sartre was jealous.
1 comment:
Updates, a decade later:
Hume would fall out of my top five. His clear racism, contra his biographer, and other apologists for him like Julian Baggini, is the biggest reason, but related snide classism and ethnocentrism go with that, as noted in the link. So, too, as noted, would Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein would be in most overrated of the 20th century, at least. Hume would NOT be in the all-time overrated. He might, as the first psychologist (you were NOT, Nietzsche) still be in the underrated, in some ways.
Heidegger might be even more in the overrated, and along with pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand and psychologist with philosophical undertones Carl Jung, be leaders of the three largest philosophical cults of the past century.
Post a Comment