Most famous philosopher of the 20th C?

[yuon]

So, I was reading A Brief History of Time recently (only twenty years out of date, I read the original). And in it Hawking said that the most famous philosopher of the Twentieth Century would be Wittgenstein.

Me, I thought, that's rubbish, Bertrand Russell would be more famous! (And this site seems to agree with me (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~rzach/logblog/2009/03/whos-most-famous-philosopher-of-20th.html).)

So, my question is, who do you think would be the most famous philosopher of the Twentieth Century?

(I do not have permission to create tags. I may only use existing tags.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Depends who you ask, Yuon. But, since Wittgenstein (on Russell's own admission) completely wiped out Russell's earlier ideas (pre-1912), from which catastrophe he never really recovered, I think we can guess who is the more important.

But, are you asking who is the most important or who is the best known?

The latter question, however, is impossible to answer unless you do a survey of a representative selection of the earth's population.

But, is it really worth all that trouble?

[scarletghoul]

I have never heard of Wittgenstein before, so it's definately not him. The most famous or influential philosopher will be someone who has affected and is known to ordinary people, not just academics and stuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarletghoul:


I have never heard of Wittgenstein before, so it's definately not him.

Unless you think you are the centre of the world, which I am sure you do not.


The most famous or influential philosopher will be someone who has affected and is known to ordinary people, not just academics and stuff.

Then you are talking about a political activist, not a philosopher.

[scarletghoul]

Unless you think you are the centre of the world, which I am sure you do not.
I'd be willing to bet that the average person doesn't know who Wittgenstein is either.


Then you are talking about a political activist, not a philosopher.
The 2 are not mutually exclusive. The most influential philosopher would no doubt be some kind of activist. Surely you will agree that a philosopher sitting on his arse only concerning himself with academic matters is not going to be as influential as a philosopher leading a political mass movement.

So I think certainly the most famous philosopher of the 20th Century would be Lenin or something.

If the question was "who is the most important philosopher of the 20th century to academic people" then it would be a differant thing altogether

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


I'd be willing to bet that the average person doesn't know who Wittgenstein is either.

And, you' be right. too.


The most influential philosopher would no doubt be some kind of activist. Surely you will agree that a philosopher sitting on his arse only concerning himself with academic matters is not going to be as influential as a philosopher leading a political mass movement.

But, not in so far as she/he is a philosopher, since philosophy (as it is traditionally understood) is totally useless.


So I think certainly the most famous philosopher of the 20th Century would be Lenin or something.

And yet Lenin was not a philosopher, or, at least no more than George W Bush was a peacemaker.

[yuon]

Rosa, I had meant the most well known. By which, I guess I was thinking, who did people on RevLeft think of when asked to name the "most famous philosopher of the 20th C".

For me, Russell is pretty high up there. Peter Singer would rate up there for me, as would Sartre.

The question, "who is the most important" is much harder to answer for me. I don't really know much about Wittgenstein (for example).

Anyway, from the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_born_in_the_twentieth_century most of the names don't jump out at me. Karl Popper does, but not as a general philosopher.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, but we have a thread in the sticky section that often strays in this direction.

I suspect you are right, though; the best known 'philosophers' of the 20th century are probably French.

[Luís Henrique]

For me, Russell is pretty high up there. Peter Singer would rate up there for me, as would Sartre.
Sartre and Russell, hands down. I suppose Singer is an Anglo phenomenon; outside that he is certainly a much dimmer star than, say, Foucault, Moore, or Heidegger.

The other name who comes to my mind is Marcuse.

Not by coincidence, Russell, Sartre, and Marcuse where the most engaged philosophers of the XX century, exception made, perhaps, of Althusser.

It has to do with the eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, I presume.

Luís Henrique

[disclaimer: no reckonings of value stated or implied in the above post.]

[ellipsis]

To me, one not trained in philosophy my pick would be Foucault or maybe Gramsci. I no next to nothing about how philosophers influence the school of philosophy or society but these two have been heavily influential on my own political/social/economic believes.

[blake 3:17]

In 2009? Foucault.

[Calmwinds]

Depends who you ask, Yuon. But, since Wittgenstein (on Russell's own admission) completely wiped out Russell's earlier ideas (pre-1912), from which catastrophe he never really recovered, I think we can guess who is the more important.
?

Where are you getting this from? As far as I have understood it, Russell although he said "I could never do fundamental work in philosophy" or something of the sort considered Wittgenstein's critique to require only a small correction on his part.

[Red Icepick]

Most famous? Noam Chomsky. Easily.

[Luís Henrique]

Most famous? Noam Chomsky. Easily.
Chomsky is famous, but not a philosopher.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Calmwinds, the quotation is from Russell's Autobiography, referring to Wittgenstein:


I saw that he was right, and I saw that I could not hope ever again to do fundamental work in philosophy.

Now he wrote this many years later (in fact, in the late 1960s) -- so, fifty years later he still had to admit that as far as fundamental work in philosophy was concerned, he was finished. 'Small corrections', therefore , were not even on the cards.

[Luís Henrique]

Calmwinds, the quotation is from Russell's Autobiography, referring to Wittgenstein:

Now he wrote this many years later (in fact, in the late 1960s) -- so, fifty years later he still had to admit that as far as fundamental work in philosophy was concerned, he was finished. 'Small corrections', therefore , were not even on the cards.

He published that in the late sixties, but wrote it in 1915 - it is in a letter (to Lady Ottoline Morrell, I believe) that he included in his autobiography.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


He published that in the late sixties, but wrote it in 1915 - it is in a letter (to Lady Ottoline Morrell, I believe) that he included in his autobiography.

Thanks for the correction, but he saw fit to publish it in 1967, without correction.

Even you, I think, can work the implications of that out, or do you need more help?

Oh, and thanks for promoting me to 'Dr', so long as you don't mind me calling you 'The Very Reverend', in view of your mystical beliefs?

[Luís Henrique]

LH:

Thanks for the correction, but he saw fit to publish it in 1967, without correction.

Even you, I think, can work the implications of that out, or do you need more help?

Oh, and thanks for promoting me to 'Dr', so long as you don't mind me calling you 'The Very Reverend', in view of your mystical beliefs?
It is not like you have ever called me by my name, so do it as you like it.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks, Your Holiness...

[Luís Henrique]

As we are speaking of religion, might I quote Russell on your prophet:


Wiggtgenstein, though a logician, was at once a patriot and a pacifist. He had a very high opinion of the Russians, with whom he had fraternised at the front. He told me that once in a village in Galicia. where for the moment he had nothing to do, he found a book-shop, and it occurred to him that there might be a book in it. There was just one, which was Tolstoy on the Gospels. He therefore bought it, and was much impressed by it. He became for a time very religious, so much so that he began to consider me too wicked to associate with.Luís Henrique

[Leo]

The most famous or influential philosopher will be someone who has affected and is known to ordinary people, not just academics and stuff.

Then you are talking about a political activist, not a philosopher.

Would you consider Socrates to be a political activist then, rather than a philosopher?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo


Would you consider Socrates to be a political activist then, rather than a philosopher?

Socrates I don't think was involved in politics. He might have been involved in political debate, but that is all.

[BakuninFan]

Sartre!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

His Supreme Holiness, Luis the First of Rome:


As we are speaking of religion, might I quote Russell on your prophet:

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russel[l], Autobiography, page 332

Wiggtgenstein [who is this Wiggtgenstein?], though a logician, was at once a patriot and a pacifist. He had a very high opinion of the Russians, with whom he had fraternised at the front. He told me that once in a village in Galicia. where for the moment he had nothing to do, he found a book-shop, and it occurred to him that there might be a book in it. There was just one, which was Tolstoy on the Gospels. He therefore bought it, and was much impressed by it. He became for a time very religious, so much so that he began to consider me too wicked to associate with.

Luís Henrique

Where have I denied Wittgenstein was a religious man? Indeed, I admit it here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Wittgenstein.htm

So, Your Self-Importance, you'll have to get up earlier in the morning to catch me out.

And, if you are going to be picky, use a spell-checker first...

Now, remind us: what religion did Hegel belong too, and argue on behalf of all his life?

[Leo]

Socrates I don't think was involved in politics. He might have been involved in political debate, but that is all.

Socrates had affected and was known to ordinary people of his time, not just the contemporary equivalents of academics and stuff. You said, in response to a poster saying: "The most famous or influential philosopher will be someone who has affected and is known to ordinary people, not just academics and stuff" that s/he was "talking about a political activist, not a philosopher". Hence I asked whether you considered Socrates to be a political activist rather than a philosopher. So the point is not about Socrates' involvement in politics, but about him affecting and being known to ordinary people of his time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

You may be right about his popularity; since I didn't live then, I can't say.

My reply, however, was directed at your words


Would you consider Socrates to be a political activist then, rather than a philosopher?

not your intentions.

Recall, that the 'ordinary people' of his day weren't workers -- the latter were the slaves (and I am not sure they knew much about Socrates).

[Luís Henrique]

Leo, since Dr. Lichtentstein wont give you a proper response, let me address your concerns.

I don't think the ancient greeks had a developed enough division of labour to establish differences between professional or academic philosophers and political activists. Any Athenian citizen was a "political activist" in that he (and it has to be "he", not "she/he") spent most of his time engaging in politics.

But the OP asks for the most famous philosopher of the XX century, not for the most popular philosopher ever. Academics aren't going to be excessively popular in a late capitalist society; that's why a famous philosopher nowadays would have to be a double of something else. And as it isn't very likely that an academic philosopher would be also a rock singer, top model, or soccer player, the more probable thing that would make a philosopher famous would be political activity. This seems to match the most responses here: Sartre and Russel would be the most famous philosophers of the XX century; both were philosophers and political activists.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

You may be right about his popularity; since I didn't live then, I can't say.

I was not talking about his popularity though, I am talking about him being someone affecting and being known to ordinary people, not just the contemporary equivalent of academics (like the nobility intelligentsia or sophists and their wealthy pupils) due to his constant discussions in the market places, streets and houses of ordinary fellas. He was, after all, murdered for corrupting the youth - must have had quite an influence.


My reply, however, was directed at your words ... not your intentions.

Those are your words (political activist vs. philosopher), I was questioning them, I was not arguing that Socrates was a political activist - I was rather saying that by your logic he would be. Anyway, whatever.


Recall, that the 'ordinary people' of his day weren't workers -- the latter were the slaves (and I am not sure they knew much about Socrates).

Well, they were not just slaves though, they included slaves as well the rest of the society which was not the nobility basically. There are, I remember reading reports of Socrates discussing with slaves of the time though, and it is definately recorded that slaves were enthusiastically welcomed in Epicurus' school of philosophy so I don't understand why you would consider the slaves of the Ancient Greek era to be ignorant of philosophy.


Leo, since Dr. Lichtentstein wont give you a proper response, let me address your concerns.

Thank you.


I don't think the ancient greeks had a developed enough division of labour to establish differences between professional or academic philosophers and political activists. Any Athenian citizen was a "political activist" in that he (and it has to be "he", not "she/he") spent most of his time engaging in politics.

This is an interesting point, but certainly, the Athenian democracy was still one in which the wealthy and/or noble citizens played a prominent, dominant and arguably a ruling role. I mean, there was after all a distinction between politicians of the Ancient Greek era like Solon, Ephialtes and Alexander the Great and philosophers like Socrates, Anthisthenes and Aristotle.


But the OP asks for the most famous philosopher of the XX century, not for the most popular philosopher ever. Academics aren't going to be excessively popular in a late capitalist society; that's why a famous philosopher nowadays would have to be a double of something else. And as it isn't very likely that an academic philosopher would be also a rock singer, top model, or soccer player, the more probable thing that would make a philosopher famous would be political activity. This seems to match the most responses here: Sartre and Russel would be the most famous philosophers of the XX century; both were philosophers and political activists.

Speaking of 20th century, I think it could be safely said that Camus is actually the most famous philosopher of the 20th century - he was a philosopher, a political activist and a football player, you can't beat that.

I think 20th century philosophy is for the most part pretty pathetic in general though.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


I was not talking about his popularity though, I am talking about him being someone affecting and being known to ordinary people, not just the contemporary equivalent of academics (like the nobility intelligentsia or sophists and their wealthy pupils) due to his constant discussions in the market places, streets and houses of ordinary fellas. He was, after all, murdered for corrupting the youth - must have had quite an influence.

That was, of course, part of the trumped up charge, but there is no evidence that he did 'corrupt the youth'.


Those are your words (political activist vs. philosopher), I was questioning them, I was not arguing that Socrates was a political activist - I was rather saying that by your logic he would be. Anyway, whatever.

And I was addressing your query.

However, I think we can both be grateful for the input of His Excellence, the Archbishop of Pettiness.


Speaking of 20th century, I think it could be safely said that Camus is actually the most famous philosopher of the 20th century - he was a philosopher, a political activist and a football player, you can't beat that.

Er, he was a novelist. But even if you are right, his philosophy had no impact on his political practice, such that it was -- since, as we both know, philosophy is totally useless.

[Leo]

That was, of course, part of the trumped up charge, but there is no evidence that he did 'corrupt the youth'.

Well, he went from door to door and aided people to open their eyes, to think for themselves and so forth - there is good reason for why the practice of what was later called the Socratic method was interpreted as "corrupting" the youth by the ruling elites of Athens.


Er, he was a novelist.

He was a novelist also, Sartre was a novelist also as well.


But even if you are right, his philosophy had no impact on his political practice, such that it was

True and the same thing is the case with the rest of the 20th century philosophers. Even Heidegger's lunatic philosophical ideas does not really have that much to do with him being a Nazi scumbag.


since, as we both know, philosophy is totally useless.

Well, I don't know about that. In twentieth century, I would certainly agree that philosophy has been completely useless, but throughout history some philosophies have made real contributions to humanities capacity to express it's understandings and perceptions of things and thus to the development of science itself.

[spiltteeth]

I would say Mao, his little red book sold quite a lot of copies.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


Well, he went from door to door and aided people to open their eyes, to think for themselves and so forth - there is good reason for why the practice of what was later called the Socratic method was interpreted as "corrupting" the youth by the ruling elites of Athens.

Door-to-door? Doesn't sound like Socrates to me.

And these are only 'good reasons' if we side with the ruling-class of his day.


He was a novelist also, Sartre was a novelist also as well.

I'll give you Sartre, but what work of philosophy did Camus ever publish?


True and the same thing is the case with the rest of the 20th century philosophers. Even Heidegger's lunatic philosophical ideas does not really have that much to do with him being a Nazi scumbag.

Couldn't have put it better myself!


In twentieth century, I would certainly agree that philosophy has been completely useless, but throughout history some philosophies have made real contributions to humanities capacity to express it's understandings and perceptions of things and thus to the development of science itself.

I'd like to see a few examples.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spiltteeth:


I would say Mao, his little red book sold quite a lot of copies.

Alas, Mao was a philosopher only in the same sense that George W Bush was a peacemaker.

[mel]

I'll give you Sartre, but what work of philosophy did Camus ever publish?

I take it you aren't counting "The Rebel" or "The Myth of Sisyphus" (Both book-length, non-fiction essays dealing with philosophical questions)

Camus didn't write particularly good philosophy (in my opinion), but I'd venture to say that he counts as a philosopher.

[YKTMX]

I have never approached Wittgenstein, really. There is literally no beginning to my interest in linguistics. I'm sure that's because I'm a complete philistine, but, well, you know!

From the point of view of political philosophy, I'd give a mention to Rawls: A Theory of Justice is a masterpiece. It basically spawned a whole new area of discussion, namely "distributive justice", and provided basically all its basic concepts.

For those of a more continental bent, I'd say Althusser, which sounds strange given that almost everyone disagrees with him now, but the poststructuralists, who have basically owned academic philosophy (or at least the kind I might be interested in) since the 1970's, are basically non-Marxist Althusserians who have read Derrida. The whole purpose of poststructuralist theory, in political terms, is to attack the notion of a transcendent human subject, which they've completely ripped from a few articles in For Marx.

Who knows? Adorno, maybe? Probably fuckin' Heidegger - god help us all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Melbicimni:


I take it you aren't counting "The Rebel" or "The Myth of Sisyphus" (Both book-length, non-fiction essays dealing with philosophical questions)

These are novels; I did say he was a novelist. They may be good or bad novels, I'll leave that to others to decide, but as philosophy, they suck.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

YKTMX:


I have never approached Wittgenstein, really. There is literally no beginning to my interest in linguistics. I'm sure that's because I'm a complete philistine, but, well, you know!

But, linguistics has nothing to do with Wittgenstein's work.


From the point of view of political philosophy, I'd give a mention to Rawls: A Theory of Justice is a masterpiece. It basically spawned a whole new area of discussion, namely "distributive justice", and provided basically all its basic concepts.

For those of a more continental bent, I'd say Althusser, which sounds strange given that almost everyone disagrees with him now, but the poststructuralists, who have basically owned academic philosophy (or at least the kind I might be interested in) since the 1970's, are basically non-Marxist Althusserians who have read Derrida. The whole purpose of poststructuralist theory, in political terms, is to attack the notion of a transcendent human subject, which they've completely ripped from a few articles in For Marx.

Who knows? Adorno, maybe? Probably fuckin' Heidegger - god help us all.

Well, you may be right about these, but it is still the case that the ideas of this motlely crue have no practical impact at all, except perhaps to fill college courses and bookshops.

[mel]

Melbicimni:

These are novels; I did say he was a novelist. They may be good or bad novels, I'll leave that to others to decide, but as philosophy, they suck.

How do you define a novel? These aren't works of fiction, and they aren't identifiably narrative (save a small portion of the Myth of Sisyphus). I agree that it's shitty philosophy, but I'd be hard pressed to call either work a "novel".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Maybe so, maybe not, I won't labour this point (except I have to disagree that they aren't fiction).

But, even so, they have had no discernible practical import.

[mel]

Maybe so, maybe not, I won't labour this point (except I have to disagree that they aren't fiction).

With the exception of the Sisyphus thought experiment, I can't fathom how an essay could be described a work of fiction (except as a pejorative charge about the relative merits of the points raised), certainly not a work of narrative fiction, but I won't take the point any further.


But, even so, they have had no discernible practical import.

Is having "discernible practical import" a necessary condition for being a philosopher? Bad philosophy or no, hell, even terrible philosophy, the person who wrote it would still be a philosopher, and can perhaps even be quite a popular one.

[Luís Henrique]

I'd give a mention to Rawls
This, again, is an anglo phenomenon; I don't think he has any relevance in the non-English-speaking parts of the world. And, as much as I loathe the person and the ideas, if fame means fame, then Ayn Rand is much more famous than Rawls. And yes, she again was a double of "philosopher" and fiction writer. And political activist.

Another possible candidate: Teillard de Chardin. Again, bad philosophy, but quite famous. Or Spengler. Toynbee - bad philosopher, worse historian, but famous nevertheless.

Luís Henrique

[YKTMX]

This, again, is an anglo phenomenon; I don't think he has any relevance in the non-English-speaking parts of the world. And, as much as I loathe the person and the ideas, if fame means fame, then Ayn Rand is much more famous than Rawls. And yes, she again was a double of "philosopher" and fiction writer. And political activist.


On the first point, you are perhaps correct, although I would doubt it. First of all, if we're talking about academic philosophy, I'm not sure the "non-English-speaking" world really exists. I mean, while I'm sure most Malaysians don't speak English, I can almost gurantee most Malaysian academic philosophers, or most Malaysians likely to have an interest in philosophy or read philosophy, speak and read English.

If you're suggesting that the analytic framework of Rawls, and the other distributive justice theorists, is primarily an Anglo-Saxon "thing" (with continental philosophy being the world of deconstruction and dialectics) then perhaps this is true. But I would suggest to you that the first type has greater claim to hegemony that than the second - not least because Anglo-American culture, including intellectual culture, is hegemonic, as a rule, in the majority of the world.

And, as I said, in political philosophy at least, Rawls is the important American philosopher by a distance, I would suggest. I mean, I'm sure Saul Kripke is more important in other branches.

As for your point about Ayn Rand - I really, really disagree. Having read some academic philosophy, I can't say I've ever seen her work cited, even to refute it. It seems quite a bizarre suggestion to me. I mean, if you want to talk about a cold war hack with almost no influence beyond the outer limits of American "libertarianism", she would be the best example.

[Leo]

Door-to-door? Doesn't sound like Socrates to me.

Well, not like a salesman of course and as much as whether the entrance of houses in his time could be considered doors now...


And these are only 'good reasons' if we side with the ruling-class of his day.

But I didn't mean anything like he should have been killed, my point was that he was dangerous to the ruling class and that's why he was killed.


I'll give you Sartre, but what work of philosophy did Camus ever publish?

Neither Victims Nor Executioners, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Rebel, Reflections on the Guillotine.


Couldn't have put it better myself!

:blushing:


I'd like to see a few examples.

Well, just to give a few examples; Democritus? Socrates? Anthistenes? Aristotle? Epicurus?

[Leo]

On the first point, you are perhaps correct, although I would doubt it. First of all, if we're talking about academic philosophy, I'm not sure the "non-English-speaking" world really exists. I mean, while I'm sure most Malaysians don't speak English, I can almost gurantee most Malaysian academic philosophers, or most Malaysians likely to have an interest in philosophy or read philosophy, speak and read English.

I study philosophy in a non-English speaking country, my philosophy classes are not in English or any other foreign language and most of my class-mates do not speak English above the average level in the country... and I have never heard of Rawls.

[Luís Henrique]

I study philosophy in a non-English speaking country, my philosophy classes are not in English or any other foreign language and most of my class-mates do not speak English above the average level in the country... and I have never heard of Rawls.
Obviously you dont exist, Leo.

But dont take it too seriously, I dont exist too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

As for your point about Ayn Rand - I really, really disagree. Having read some academic philosophy, I can't say I've ever seen her work cited, even to refute it.
Well, she was an amateur philosopher, or a "popular philosopher" in the sence that Bob Dylan is a "popular musician" (as opposed to Penderecki or John Cage).

Luís Henrique

[YKTMX]

I study philosophy in a non-English speaking country, my philosophy classes are not in English or any other foreign language and most of my class-mates do not speak English above the average level in the country... and I have never heard of Rawls.

I didn't suggest that the instruction of philosophy doesn't take place outside the "English-speaking" world. I certainly didn't suggest that if it did it would take place in English.

You are from Turkey, are you not? I might suggest to you that the "average level", as you put it, of a Turk's English will be higher than the avergae level of an American's = Turkish. As such, there is greater scope for philosophy written in English to have influence on Turkey than philosophy written in Turkish to have influence over the "Anglo" world - even allowing for translations, the multilingual etc.

As for your ignorance of Rawls - that could be due to a number of factors. Perhaps yours is a course more founded on the "traditional" areas of philosophical enquiry - epistemology, philosophy of history, linguistics, cognitive studies etc. - and therefore negligent of a political philosopher like Rawls.

I'm pretty sure if you come to political philosophy, or even approach any course with "equality" or "distributive justice" as a theme, Rawls will be central.

Perhaps I'm wrong about that, I don't know much about how philosophy is taught in Turkey.

I mean, I would hate for anybody to think that I'm promoting some kind of Anglo-American preeminence here. I'm not. But John Rawls is, I'm almost certain, the most cited American philosopher (maybe even leave out "American") of the 20th century in the area of political philosophy. As I said, I don't know as much about other areas.

[YKTMX]

Obviously you dont exist, Leo.

But dont take it too seriously, I dont exist too.

Luís Henrique

You're being curiously defensive here.

Any particular reason?

[YKTMX]

Well, she was an amateur philosopher, or a "popular philosopher" in the sence that Bob Dylan is a "popular musician" (as opposed to Penderecki or John Cage).

Luís Henrique

I'm not sure that's a good comparison at all, in fact. The values in both branches are reversed. In music, the "popular" form dominates the "higher" form. In philosophy, the "higher" form dominates the "popular".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Melbicimni, I am happy to concede the first point, mainly because I do not think it worth arguing over, but:


Is having "discernible practical import" a necessary condition for being a philosopher? Bad philosophy or no, hell, even terrible philosophy, the person who wrote it would still be a philosopher, and can perhaps even be quite a popular one.

Not at all; I only mentioned it again since I raised this earlier in this thread in oder to clarify what the OP had said.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


Well, not like a salesman of course and as much as whether the entrance of houses in his time could be considered doors now...

Still doesn't sound like Socrates to me. From where did you derive this snippett of information?


my point was that he was dangerous to the ruling class and that's why he was killed.

Ok, but the way you worded it made it sound as if there was some substance to the actual charge.


Neither Victims Nor Executioners, The Myth of Sisyphus, The Rebel, Reflections on the Guillotine.

Yes, I have already conceded this point to Melbicmni -- mainly because it's not worth bickering over.


Well, just to give a few examples; Democritus? Socrates? Anthistenes? Aristotle? Epicurus?

And...??

[black magick hustla]

Continentals resonate in all the non english speaking world. Mexican academia always namedrops Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Sartre, and recently Zizek. Analytics like Rawls have very little relevance outside anglo american departments. Wittgenstein is probably an exception because his work generally poured outside analytical philosophy. Although in my opinion, some analytics were way better than a lot of 20th century continental obscurantism. What happens with analyticals a lot is that they can be hella boring and obsessed with technicalities. THe reason why Wittgenstein resonated in other disciplines is because he was concerned with things beyond logic chopping - the tractatus being, if anything, an ethical treatsie, for example.

[yuon]

So far as political philosophy goes (rather than general philosophy), I would have to agree with YKTMX that Rawls would be up there. Though, truth be told, I studied more Nozick (but only to rebut his arguments).

As to Chomsky, I am interested in knowing why anyone would say he wasn't a philosopher. Wikipedia (with three references) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky) says he is, and on the website chomsky.info (http://www.chomsky.info/bios.htm) there are biographies which also say he is.

So...

Oh, and I think, perhaps, Foucault would rate a mention. (Perhaps so far as "popular" philosophy goes, we should be mentioning The Matrix and similar works of popular fiction.
---

Oh, and we probably all know of Sartre, and we probably all know of Simone de Beauvoir. But, how many would think of Sartre first as the partner of de Beauvoir, and only second as a philosopher in his own right? I know at least one person who when questioned said something along those lines.

---

Umm, thinking about it some more, does anyone considered Jung and Freud to be philosophers? If so, I guess they would rate even higher than most of the other people mentioned.

[black magick hustla]

man only anglos care about rawls. nobody talks about him.

another mention might be Popper. He isnt as popular as some of the continentals, but a lot of science folks have atleast heard about him, which is a rare thing tbh

[yuon]

man only anglos care about rawls. nobody talks about him.

another mention might be Popper. He isnt as popular as some of the continentals, but a lot of science folks have atleast heard about him, which is a rare thing tbh

So, if you studied political philosophy in a non-English place, you wouldn't see Rawls mentioned? Even if equality, and modern liberalism were being discussed?

As for Popper, what about Thomas Kuhn? "Paradigm shift" is a phrase that has crept into language about everything.

[spiltteeth]

Although he, literally, had nothing to say, it's gotta be Ol' Wiiti.

You know Waugh dismissed Wittgenstein’s philosophical work as “incomprehensible” and attributes Wittgenstein’s influence to his “striking looks, manner and extraordinarily persuasive personality.”

[Leo]

Still doesn't sound like Socrates to me. From where did you derive this snippett of information?

From the teachers in my university.

I think it is quite common knowledge that Socrates tried to discuss with as many fellas as possible though.


Ok, but the way you worded it made it sound as if there was some substance to the actual charge.

Well, I wouldn't call it "corrupting" the youth but he was certainly aiding lots of people to question things, and dangerous as this was, it is not really surprising that the Athenian ruling elite presented this as "corrupting" the youth. Of course I think what Socrates was doing was a commendable thing rather than a condemnable one.


And...??

Would you say their philosophies contributed nothing to scientific development?


You are from Turkey, are you not? I might suggest to you that the "average level", as you put it, of a Turk's English will be higher than the avergae level of an American's = Turkish.

Obviously.


As such, there is greater scope for philosophy written in English to have influence on Turkey than philosophy written in Turkish to have influence over the "Anglo" world - even allowing for translations, the multilingual etc.

Not necessarily. Besides, there are more philosophical texts originally written in Middle Eastern languages than there are in English. English is not a main language of philosophy at all outside the English speaking work, in fact. Most of our teachers know German, French, Arabic, Ancient Greek and Latin, but only a few are really proficient in English.


As for your ignorance of Rawls - that could be due to a number of factors. Perhaps yours is a course more founded on the "traditional" areas of philosophical enquiry - epistemology, philosophy of history, linguistics, cognitive studies etc. - and therefore negligent of a political philosopher like Rawls.

I'm pretty sure if you come to political philosophy, or even approach any course with "equality" or "distributive justice" as a theme, Rawls will be central.

Nope, we study political philosophy, the question of justice, freedom etc. at I've never heard of Rawls.

And it isn't as if I don't hear mention of obscure American philosophers, I mean we studied Hartman.


Perhaps I'm wrong about that, I don't know much about how philosophy is taught in Turkey.

It doesn't really have to do with how philosophy is specifically taught in Turkey, rather whether this guy has any relevance in the non-English-speaking parts of the world

Maybe you should take into consideration when all posters from different parts of the non-English-speaking parts of the world so far have said so.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


From the teachers in my university.

I think it is quite common knowledge that Socrates tried to discuss with as many fellas as possible though.

With all due respect, I think they are wrong. What Socrates did do was converse with anyone he met in the square, on hi travels or in people's houses. I am not sure he went around like a latter day proselytiser, though.


Would you say their philosophies contributed nothing to scientific development?

I don't think their philosophy did, no. Their scientific work surely did (but it has been greatly exaggerated, on this see Cliff Conner's Marxist history of science "A People's History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And "Low Mechanicks" (Nation Books, 2005)), but the two disciplines did not really separate until the 19th century.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure that's a good comparison at all, in fact. The values in both branches are reversed. In music, the "popular" form dominates the "higher" form. In philosophy, the "higher" form dominates the "popular".
"Dominates" in what sence?

Popular musicians make a lot more money than what Marlos Nobre used to call "impopular musicians". They also get a lot more wavelenght time. Go to the academia, people study Cage, Ligetti, Verèse, Stockhausen (besides, of course, Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, Schumann, Wagner). Not Bon Jovi, Rolling Stones, Chico Buarque or Victor Jara.

Who sells more books, "popular philosophers" or the academic ones? The proportion may be different, but I would bet Rand not Rawls, Castañeda not Santayana, Paulo Coelho not Gerd Bornheim. The "philosophical" branch of the "self-help" industry alone probably sells more books and occupies more bandtwidth than the whole academic philosophy thing.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

With all due respect, I think they are wrong. What Socrates did do was converse with anyone he met in the square, on hi travels or in people's houses. I am not sure he went around like a latter day proselytiser, though.

No no, that's what I mean anyway. I didn't say he did it like a salesman or something.


I don't think their philosophy did, no. Their scientific work surely did

And did their philosophies not have any effect in pushing them towards scientific work?

[Luís Henrique]

You're being curiously defensive here.

Any particular reason?
Just mocking your ignorance of things unAmerican.

Luís Henrique

[YKTMX]

Nope, we study political philosophy, the question of justice, freedom etc. at I've never heard of Rawls.


That's interesting. Your study is all the poorer for it, I might cautiously suggest.


It doesn't really have to do with how philosophy is specifically taught in Turkey, rather whether this guy has any relevance in the non-English-speaking parts of the world

Maybe you should take into consideration when all posters from different parts of the non-English-speaking parts of the world so far have said so.

Well, I certainly will take that into consideration. I've not considered myself a dogmatist on the question of the fame (or otherwise) of John Rawls.

Certainly your "revelations" about the lack of Rawls at your University is relevant to the discussion.

To Luis:


Just mocking your ignorance of things unAmerican.

Luís Henrique

Interesting. I think this is the first mention I have ever made of any American philosopher in 3 and half thousand posts on this board.

I don't think my posts about Lukacs, Althusser, Gramsci, Zizek, John Holloway or Marx himself (none of whom are American or particularly well-liked by establishment philosophy in Britain or America) reflect the concerns of someone "ignorant" of anything un-American.

I mean, it's totally incontestable fact that A Theory of Justice is a highly influential work in political philosophy. My knowledge of that fact and my love of the book motivated me to suggest Rawls as a plausible candidate for "famous philosopher".

Somehow, this motivation has been read by some comrades as being the product of "ignorance" or some unreasonable Anglo-centric bias.

Fine. I must admit that I wasn't aware of the absence of Rawls in philosophy departments in Turkey when I made my post.

I am humbled.

[Luís Henrique]

Your words:


First of all, if we're talking about academic philosophy, I'm not sure the "non-English-speaking" world really exists. I mean, while I'm sure most Malaysians don't speak English, I can almost gurantee most Malaysian academic philosophers, or most Malaysians likely to have an interest in philosophy or read philosophy, speak and read English.

Maybe it was not your intention, but it sounded quite anglo-centric. Though not in an aggressive or bigoted way.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Leo:


And did their philosophies not have any effect in pushing them towards scientific work?

I think they got their scientific ideas from more practical, working people, as Conner shows.

[kalu]

Derrida. I could say that he's a celebrity just for the scorn attached to his name, but his ideas, especially "deconstruction," have influenced today's top theorists, such as Gayatri Spivak and Judith Butler. Whatever one's position on Derrida, he simply cannot be ignored (and I won't bother mentioning analytics here, because except for a few like Rorty, they ignore continental philosophy in general; nothing particular to Derrida). Derrida is also well-known in pop culture for his difficult writing style, so he is certainly (in)famous.

On a more balanced and personal note, of the many so-called philosophers, theorists and "revolutionaries" I've read or spoken to, very few seem to understand the method of Derrida's critiques. Particularly, Derrida's continual displacement of his "key" terms, in a chain of equivalences moving from "sous rature" (under erasure), supplement, to arche, trace, and so on. Derrida's work on (inter)textuality is continually performed in his very style of writing, such as his play with words, which some have simply read as "obscurantism." Personally, I'd give him more credit: the man had a fantastic working knowledge of Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, which implies a serious commitment to the canon he so thoroughly chides for its "metaphysics of presence." The latter is one of his most damning accusations, by illustrating the Western emphasis on "immediate" presence in speech of a unified signifier and signified (Saussure's version of "word" and "idea"). His grammatological project is an attempt to track the course of "presence" both in other texts, and his own.

Perhaps the most lucid introduction to Derrida's ideas, surprisingly, is a political scientist's work, Timmothy Mitchell's Colonising Egypt. Mitchell's own ideas of the "state effect" parallel the Derridean critique of the "really real." Extremely important implications for Marxism (see Laclau and Mouffe), postcolonialism, feminism, and more. Again, he simply can't be (nor has he been) ignored, though few seem willing to actually engage with his work beyond inane platitudes or charges of "terrible writing."

[Dimentio]

In Sweden, we usually define Sartre as one of the defining faces of 20th century philosophy.

[Orwell'sLeftEye]

John Rawls. Gogo.