The latest discussion going around the blogsphere is the BBC's Greatest Philosopher poll. (See, for instance Johnny-Dee or Bill Vallicella among many others) I'd mentioned it in the sidebar last month when they set up their nominations. (I nominated Heidegger even though I don't think him the greatest philosopher in the least) My big problem with the poll though is really tied to the question. It has eerie echos of Anselm's "a greater than which can not be conceived." My problem with Anselm or variations on his argument is that "greater" seems a rather subjective judgment. (I should note as an aside that Anselm's argument is far more subtle than normally understood) I have the same problem with this poll. What on earth do we mean by greatest? It seems like many are simply taking it as "figure I like most" or even "most influential."
For most influential Plato obviously wins, hands down. Since he got philosophy rolling (with apologies to the pre-Socratics or Socrates himself) he obviously is the greatest. Even modern philosophers who haven't encountered Plato since their undergraduate history of philosophy class still are doing philosophy largely as Plato thought it. So in a sense the poll is almost pointless. Whitehead once remarked, all philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. While I don't think that is true, even those who think Plato was completely wrong still engage him. (Whether that be Aristotle, Nietzsche, Heidegger or Derrida)
Now given the place of Plato, I suspect that for the poll to be meaningful, we must mean far more than just influential. Bill Vallicella, paraphrasing Ed Feser, selects five criteria for greatest and adds a "sixth." (In quotations since I counted four criteria, not five)
. . .breadth of vision; originality; influence; truth of the ideas promulgated. I would add a sixth: belief in the power of discursive reason to arrive at (some) of the ultimate truth, but combined with an appreciation of the limits of discursive reason.
A few brief comments. First, if we are dealing with philosophy I suspect "truth" is not something we're likely to agree upon. For instance Bill votes for Plato on the above criteria. But I think Plato was very wrong in important aspects of his philosophy. Indeed some might say that Plato's error was so grave as to problematize philosophy for the next 2500 years. In breadth Plato certainly does well. In influence, as I mentioned, no one else comes close. For originality, I'm not sure Plato does well, given the influence of Socrates and especially the Pythagoreans. Still his most original element is the forms. But that's also probably his greatest error. With regards to discursive reason, I suppose that with Plato one must distinguish the early Plato from the middle and later.
Thinking through this expanded notion, I think I tend to arrive at a few other figures.
1. Plotinus: Few put Plotinus down simply because almost no modern philosophers read him and neoPlatonism has such a negative image. However almost every reader of Plato since Plotinus tended to read Plato through the lens of Plotinus. Even after more careful philology enabled us to examine Plato without the biases of past generations, the influence of the German and British Platonists still biases reading. And they were reading in light of Plotinus. If you ignore Plato and turn to the anti-Platonists, one still finds surprising parallels with Plotinus. Derrida, Heidegger and others seem to echo Plotinus in very surprising ways That is they often are trying to overcome Plato in a way that many might see Plotinus already doing. (Of course there are many ways to read Plotinus, but his negative theology was overlooked for quite some time with other approaches being taking up historically) I could go on. But I think that Plotinus, even as he thought himself merely a teacher of Plato, was actually quite original in many things. Especially as he blended Aristotle, neoPythagoreanism, Stoicism and other elements with Plato. Typically originality isn't creating an idea from a vacuum but blending existing ideas in a fashion that they never had before. (And of course the very notion of originality would seem silly to a Platonist)
2. Descartes: He really ushered in the modern era and set philosophy down a certain trajectory just as much as Plato did earlier. He really provided the basis for modern physics, breaking it away from Aristotle in a fashion that the earlier Renaissance philosophers never quite accomplished. He isn't quite as divorced from the medieval philosophical tradition as many think. (His notion of mind, in particular, is often divorced from Aquinas far too much to be historically justified) Still he prepared the groundwork for epistemology and enabled the modern world to arise.
3. Socrates: Obviously Plato owes a lot to Socrates. I think anyone who compares the early dialogs to the later recognizes the difference between the two. In a way one can see Plato as a popularizer of Socrates who then increasingly adds errors into the philosophy as he seeks an end to the questioning of Socrates. Thus the forms. Socrates himself owes a lot to the Pythagoreans and the Skeptics. But he is the figure of philosophy. Perhaps not as influential as Plato or Aristotle in that few adopted Socrates way of philosophy. However his breadth and actual philosophy can't be neglected. (Although it frequently is)
4. Plato: I put Plato in 4th because his innovations seem his greatest error. Further while there clearly are formal arguments in his text, one can't help but wonder how many of them are actually his! Certainly he is influential. I'd even say he is amazingly important. But is he the greatest? I don't think so.
5. Tie. Kant and Aristotle: I place them in a tie. Aristotle really ushers in empiricism avoids the idealism of Plato and so forth. Every time he is rediscovered he revolutionizes philosophy. His criticisms of Plato are deep and penetrating. (Even if one often has to reconstruct them) In a way he is the important counterweight to Plato in philosophy. Kant, however holds a similar role to Descrates. Kant provides a middle ground of realism that I think really provides a way for modern thinking to be successful against skepticism and many of the other problems of philosophy. (i.e. Hume, whom many others voted as the greatest)
Disagree? Let me know.
Johnny-Dee also listed his top 5 philosophers of the 20th century. These are the greatest in some objective way and not in a more subjective way. (See this thread for an example of that)
For the sake of discussion, I'll neglect those figures best known as 19th century philosophers. C. S. Peirce, for instance, did work at the cusp of the 20th century. But he's primarily a 19th century figure.
In no particular order
1. Donald Davidson
2. Ludwig Wittgenstein
3. Martin Heidegger
4. W. V. O. Quine
5. Bertrand Russell
Some of those might be more controversial. Certainly Russell and Davidson will, since so many of their views are disputed. However I personally think their flaws are overstated at times. Further sometimes mistaken ideas can be more useful than agreed upon ideas. Especially if we take the idea of philosophers as providing the bricks for future generations.
Ben over at Stalking Sophia has a good critique of the whole question of greatest philosopher which I'm very sympathetic to.
Davidson might be top ten, but I can't see how he would beat David Lewis out of the top five. I consider Lewis easily the more influential of the two.
I'm not sure influential ought be the most significant determination of a philosopher though. (Otherwise that BBC poll with Marx winning probably is apt) For instance one could argue how influential Davidson is at all, considering how few of his ideas anyone agrees with. (At least in the analytic tradition)
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble