Second-Best Philosopher Ever
Second-Best Philosopher Ever
Skipping preliminaries, I am going immediately to nominate Bertrand Russell. It might be thought that he can be ruled out by the principle that later philosophers have absorbed his work and so surpass him trivially. That would certainly be true of his contemporaries and predecessors, but Russell wrote so much that it is hard for anyone to absorb all of it (how many people have actually read Principia Mathematica?). I have read a lot of Russell, from The Analysis of Matter to Marriage and Morals, and reviewed at least three biographies of him; but there is still a lot I haven’t read (I’ve never read The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism). So, there may be stuff that has not been absorbed by contemporary philosophy, or simply forgotten. But my main reason for choosing him is that I think he would be best able to master and contribute to contemporary philosophy: he had the brain and the breadth. Also, much of our current philosophy was shaped by him. He was a great writer, an original thinker, often right, and massively erudite. You can imagine him today dominating the subject, as he once did. He doesn’t strike us as belonging to the past. I do sometimes wonder about Gareth Evans, who clearly had enormous potential; but his life was taken from him at such a young age that it is impossible to predict his later development. What would he have achieved if he had lived a full life? Would he have branched out from the somewhat narrow field of interests that preoccupied him in his youth? I can go both ways on this question. In any case, it is impossible to say. But Russell had a long active life and demonstrated his intellectual powers to the fullest. He was never much for ethics and aesthetics, and he was somewhat stuck in a crude form of empiricism, but he obviously had broad abilities, scientific and literary. He was ahead of his time and extremely clever. He outshone his contemporaries. It’s hard to think of anyone at his intellectual level. Diehard Wittgensteinians might dispute his title to second-best—they might even make Wittgenstein the very best (!)—but Russell certainly has a strong claim to the coveted title. If he had been acquainted with the best, he would probably have won the race; but that figure lay in the future. I think we would have been friends; I would certainly revere him. Still, he strikes me as the strongest candidate for second-best, despite my admiration for many others (long since dead). I believe that in a not-so-remote possible world Saul Kripke might have been second-best, but we are talking actualities now; he just lacked breadth and didn’t write much. I also have a soft spot for Berkeley (if it were not for the religion), and find Hume adorable (like everyone else). Most current philosophers I disqualify for being too specialized and too mired in contemporary professional norms. I therefore happily nominate Bertrand Russell for the number two position. Come on up here, Bertie!
Who is first best philosopher ?
You can find out by searching this blog under “Best Philosopher Ever”.
In “Best Philosopher Ever,” you say that you have changed your mind about family resemblance. Have you addressed that in writing?
I have indeed-I have a whole book on it, Truth By Analysis. There are also a couple of papers on the topic on this blog.
You discuss a related matter, in “Against Language-Games” in Philosophical Provocations, pp. 74-78.
Yes I do, but for family resemblance you have to look elsewhere. The essay on language games clearly refutes Wittgenstein’s position.
Two related questions: first, were Russell flourishing today, would he rival you and second, what might he make of your arguments as you have similar interests?
That’s a difficult counterfactual to evaluate: he would certainly be better at logic, but I don’t see him doing so well in philosophy of mind and ethics. I think he would have liked my mysterianism but not my anti-empiricism.
One more follow up: am I correct to say that much of Post Kantian philosophy is spent trying to get back in touch with the thing itself? Even analytical philosophy? And moreover your work argues that yes we can say something about the mind and the physical world, that it is not all chaos or hyle, but we really can’t know the essence of mind or the physical world. Is that anywhere close? There’s that famous line which I can paraphrase about Kant’s wonder at the starry skies and the soul; we can wonder at it but we can’t directly be in touch with it, I take it that you’re saying, from reading your blog.
We can know many essential truths about mind and matter, but it is doubtful we know their ultimate nature.
If Russell is Paul and you are John, who is George and who Ringo?
Nice question. Of course, we don’t all perform together in a group, and George and Ringo are not really in the same class as John and Paul; but let’s take the question to mean who are third and fourth in the philosophical rankings. I find that difficult to answer: Frege and Wittgenstein would be obvious answers, but there are strong reasons against both of them. I think I’m going to have to go with Kripke and Strawson, though I could wish for greater breadth from both of them. In a contrarian mood I could plump for Sartre and Suits.
On the question of John and me I have another perspective. I sing a lot of John’s songs, so I have listened carefully to his singing (which changed over time according to his influences). My admiration has increased (though he can hardly match Aretha Franklin or Mavis Staples or many others). He is a very effective and intelligent singer; he can smack a note in the belly. Take a listen to “Leave my kitten alone” on the Anthology.
Will do! Thanks for the suggestion.