The other list going around, in addition to the greatest and underdog philosophers is the most destructive. Now at first the very notion of such a list made me a tad worried. It reminded me of that dangerous book discussion from a few weeks ago. (Yes, I know, the original list was harmful books) However destruction need not have the negative connotation some give it. After all destruction is often helpful. Heidegger, after all talks of destruction and it is a notion fairly closely related to Derrida's deconstruction. Even Nietzsche talked about destroying the buildings of philosophy (systems) and yet finding value in the bricks of such buildings. One can't help but think Nietzsche even had this in mind when he wrote in Ecce Homo,
I know my fate. One day there will be associated with my name the recollection of something frightful, of a crisis like no other before on earth, of the profoundest collision of conscience, of a decision evoked against everything that until then had been believed in, demanded, sanctified. I am not a man. I am dynamite.
Clearly Nietzsche is a self-described philosophical destructor. (Something that those who simply take him as a positivist of some sort ought keep in mind)
Keeping in mind that destruction isn't necessarily pejorative, here's my list of the most destructive philosophers.
1. Hume Really, he was the one who ushered in the most skepticism in philosophy in the modern era. No one else comes close. Even those like the positivists or "radical pragmatists" like Rorty who try to limit philosophy can't compare. He was also, I think, a necessary check on the Rationalists. Probably the most dominant, the most influential, and in some ways the best of all skeptics.
2. Socrates As I've often said one ought keep a difference between Socrates and Plato. I'd have loved to have seen an encounter between Plato in his middle period and Socrates. I have a feeling Socrates would have left Plato feeling dazed and confused. In a very real way all of the dialogs of Socrates are a kind of destruction through questioning. I put him second only because I think the modern era has largely neglected Socrates as a philosopher.
3. William of Ockham Credited with bringing about nominalism, he still offered criticism of the then dominant Scholasticism of Scotus that still resonate today. While the razor attributed to his name is often abused (and all too frequently bears little resemblance to his thought) he really did usher in a way of thinking that cast doubt on the very notion of universals, real generals, or anything but particulars. Now I tend to think that an unfortunate thing. But one must credit him with one of the most far reaching destructions within philosophy there was.
4. Nietzsche The self professed dynamite wins out over any of the positivists purely because he wrote in a way to be taken in so many ways. While there is a tendency at the moment by many analytic philosophers to take him nearly as a positivist, he clearly had a style and rhetoric that allowed much more. He is the godfather of a lot of revolutionary Continental thought as well as unfortunately a lot of muddle headed relativism in humanity departments. He announced the death of God, and even if the God whose death he announced was the God of the philosophers, he really was akin to an atheistic John the Baptist announcing the coming of this absence of God. He is in 4th place only because the others are so great.
5. Carnap I could have put almost any of the logical positivists here. Even if they are widely viewed as a failed project, they had I think a profound influence on society, science and philosophy. They really justified a strong skepticism against what some might call most philosophy. While now they are often misportrayed and have become a boogey-man for philosophers rivaled only by Protagoras and the relativists, they really did destroy a lot of philosophy.
Now before I end the post, I should note that most people writing up their "top 5 destructive philosophers" merely mean it in terms of philosophers who brought about states of affairs in philosophy they don't like. Now I may find a philosopher like Richard Rorty distasteful. But often I think philosophers do better when there is someone like that on the edges making them think and work. That is, the skeptics are very important for philosophy. But that's not really what some are arguing. (Say the list at Tu Quoque) So the question then becomes, given my Mormonism, who are the philosophers most destructive to the acceptance of my worldview?
1. Carnap Positivism isn't necessarily opposed to LDS theology. (Indeed one frequent LDS commentator here is rather positive towards the positivists) But I do think the most negative impact of positivism was the distrust of any non-public phenomena. I also think their influence in history really did lead to some silly and far reaching errors with respect to how religion in general was perceived.
2. Hume I actually like Hume a lot. But one must admit that his views on religion tended to lead to the general distrust of religious thinking (as opposed to simply organized religion or the religious thinking of the time). I put him 2cd rather than 1st simply because I think the positivists with their scientism had criticisms that ended up being more damaging in certain ways.
3. Newton Not really Newton's fault, since he was basically a neoPlatonist. But his ideas led to a kind of reductionist mechanistic worldview more in line with the epicureans of the ancient world. I think that this often had dehumanizing implications in society.
4. Foucault Really. I know he is a powerful thinker with a lot of value in his thought. But I honestly think he had a hugely destructive influence on the basic worldview of Europe. Far more than figures like Nietzsche, Heidegger or others who get the blame. Of course my bias may be showing since I rather like Nietzsche, Heidegger and so forth. But then I like Newtonian mechanics a lot too. So I don't think that's it. Admittedly I've long had a negative view of Foucault even if I really thought his History of Sexuality was very well written. (Despite its historical flaws) I could give more reasons, of course. His particular brand of Nietzscheanism seems distasteful to me.
5. Sartre For reasons similar to (4). Like with Foucault I think there are things about him I dislike that go far beyond his philosophy. But then there are things about Heidegger outside of his philosophy I dislike strongly as well. But there's just something about the way Sartre conceived of existentialism that deeply disturbs me. Everyone keeps saying good things about him. And admittedly I've only tried reading a few of his books. (Never was able to finish any of them)
I think Sartre is one of those (incredibly) rare philosophers who is better as literature than as philosophy. The guy can certainly craft an excellent phrase, but I've never been convinced that he had enough to say.
With respect to Hume, I have long been curious about how deeply his philosophy would have been shaken had he (through some speculative vortex) been able to consider R.A. Fisher's writings on randomized experiments. Randomization provides a routinizable operational definition of causation--the lack of which was one of the foundational ideas of Hume's thought...
I think the single most destructive philosopher for me is Ayn Rand. The Fountainhead nearly destroyed my will to live--and not in a good way.
I'm definitely no Rand fan. But I'm not sure she's had the influence some ascribe to her. But she'd probably make my top 10 list.
Saw your post and that it mentioned our site. If you look at my post I was very specific to note that I believed that these philosophers were destructive towards a "Christian world view." This says nohing about their value or importance, nor does it say anything about my like or dislike of their work. I actually read and enjoy these writers and find that their work is incredibly valuable to me in my studies and in my faith. If nothing else they help me to sharpen and hone my thinking. I absolutely love reading Nietzsche. They were not on the list because I do not like their ideas, in many cases I love their ideas even if I don't agree with them; they were on the list because I believe that their ideas were actually destructive towards a Christian worldview. Just thought I would clarify.
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