tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post5335111115275551806..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: The Base Rate of KantEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1468881145509287222015-02-03T09:49:25.269-08:002015-02-03T09:49:25.269-08:00Perhaps this is the wrong forum for such a discuss...Perhaps this is the wrong forum for such a discussion, but leaving aside the issue of whether or not contemporary philosophy is in a lull, it seems the only practical option is to attempt to increase "the base rate of Kants."<br /><br />Even if we were experiencing a burst of Kantian level figures, the proper action is almost certainly to attempt to improve further rather than merely celebrating our success.<br /><br />Ignoring for the moment issues of resources, it seems palpable that cultural issues have a huge impact on the future productivity of most everyone. If there was some way to weaken the influence of individuals with poisonous interpersonal skills, this might profoundly impact the field going forward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-65713077181550649202012-02-01T19:41:48.322-08:002012-02-01T19:41:48.322-08:00~ the time might be ripe for some more tearing dow...~ <i>the time might be ripe for some more tearing down</i><br /><br />So it is. <br /><br />Modern philosophy is centered around greats who reiterated, or introduced, devastating critiques against classical dogma. These figures were surrounded by followers who often misinterpreted the critique to soften its edge, and by opponents, always ready with another epicyclic defense of the old dogma.<br /><br />We have many potential Kants, all we need is one with the mojo to say what needs to be said, then to follow up with 'new' constructive philosophy. In science, this was done by Galileo.Steve G.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-27573504215936984522012-01-30T13:22:28.981-08:002012-01-30T13:22:28.981-08:00Candid: I agree the numbers are much larger now. ...Candid: I agree the numbers are much larger now. Maybe two orders of magnitude is about right. And although this surely has a major impact on the sociology of fame within the discipline, I'm still inclined to think that once a certain population of scholars is achieved the better denominator for revolution rate is per year or per generation rather than per scholar.<br /><br />Compare fame in music. I'm inclined to think that regardless of the total number of garage bands and semi-professional string quartets, there are only so many field-topping musicians that can be hugely famous across the entire culture at any one time and only so many broadly culturally important changes in musical style over the years.<br /><br />Of course, with tons and tons of serious non-famous musicians one also starts to get subareas like bluegrass and reggae and whatever with leaders within those subareas who don't rise to broader cultural visibility but have huge fame and influence in their niche.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-9903665212085206222012-01-30T13:14:14.770-08:002012-01-30T13:14:14.770-08:00Interesting thought, Paul! Of course, the time mi...Interesting thought, Paul! Of course, the time might be ripe for some more tearing down. And arguably Kant was more of an upbuilder than a teardowner, especially if Hume is the baseline.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-77971939910948631502012-01-29T11:11:04.720-08:002012-01-29T11:11:04.720-08:00Could it be that Locke, Hume, and Kant became famo...Could it be that Locke, Hume, and Kant became famous to a large degree because they were breaking down what came before? Hume obviously attacked causation and Kant basically accepted that and tried to limit the losses. Locke certainly attacked Scholasticism to some extent. It's obviously the case that it's easier to tear down a building than build it up. Could it be that these early modern philosophers became famous for bucking the system and tearing stuff down? Maybe that could explain why we no longer have such towering figures- because having broken down the prior edifice, it's now much harder to build something in its place. Since constructive philosophy is always harder, there would be less chance of as many people mastering it.Paul Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-43505970295366548162012-01-29T09:49:34.296-08:002012-01-29T09:49:34.296-08:00Just to add to my previous comment, it might be wo...Just to add to my previous comment, it might be worthwhile to think about the total number of practitioners of philosophy (and science) in, say, the 20th and 21st centuries vs the total number of such practitioners in all of previous history. <br /><br />Given the numbers I'm seeing, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that there were well over 10 times as many in the 20th and 21st century than in all of previous history.<br /><br />Hard to dominate in quite same way.candid_observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-86765536152539779192012-01-29T09:18:21.009-08:002012-01-29T09:18:21.009-08:00Here's some relevant information:
http://nces...Here's some relevant information:<br /><br />http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp<br /><br />Apparently, in the academic year 1879-80, 54 PhDs were awarded in the US across all disciplines. In 2005-2006, the number was over 56,000. A rather similar ratio applies to the overall number of faculty. <br /><br />Now the change in Europe was surely not so extreme. But it's still reasonable to expect that in the sciences and philosophy the number of practitioners has risen by a factor of 100 or so. <br /><br />One would expect that that would bear very much on the dominant figure issue, both in the sciences and in philosophy. Many, many more really smart competitors these days for the open throne of Towering Presence, and much, much more ground to cover to seize it.candid_observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-31679351420664000652012-01-28T22:25:58.571-08:002012-01-28T22:25:58.571-08:00"After several centuries of such work, future..."After several centuries of such work, future generations will surely recognise, say, Deepak Chopra for the genius he is."<br /><br />NOOOOOOOO!!!!!clasqmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12812785541545674276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-19300320392523658202012-01-28T16:14:03.399-08:002012-01-28T16:14:03.399-08:00One further thought on the difficulty of having a ...One further thought on the difficulty of having a huge, broad impact on a mature discipline: Physics was arguably quite mature when Einstein came and had a huge impact on several different (or seemingly different!) parts of it. Einstein's broad impact (at such a young age, too) was possible, I suspect, partly because of a lack of sociological barriers between subdisciplines of physics -- barriers that are probably much higher now. For a discipline the size of philosophy, it's remarkable how sociologically unsegmented it is. I suspect that's partly because expertise in the methods of one subdiscipline transfers fairly readily to the other subdisciplines.<br /><br />Or... maybe that's entirely wrong and another Einstein could be around the corner, who finally straightens out (say) the apparent mess of current particle physics, resulting in a swift and thorough reconceptualization of broad swaths of other parts of physics.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13595618065699877592012-01-28T16:06:36.688-08:002012-01-28T16:06:36.688-08:00Wow, lots of interesting comments! I see some pla...Wow, lots of interesting comments! I see some plausibility in (almost) all of them, despite the conflicts among them and also with my original post. I'm not sure how one might go about settling the issues in a rigorous way.<br /><br />A few thoughts in reaction:<br /><br />Jones: On #4, I like the idea of a quantitative test, but I worry that the factor you mention will be inextricably conflated with other sources of subcultural and temporal variation in general citation practices.<br /><br />Candid: I do suspect philosophy might be different than most other disciplines in its relative lack of subdisciplinary barriers.<br /><br />Steven/Kapitano/Uncredible/Anon 7:19: Interesting ideas all. Is there a way to address these issues more rigorously?<br /><br />Uncredible: I excluded Russell for his relative lack of impact on value theory and Hegel for the sociological patchiness of his impact. Kant had huge impact in value theory and LEMMings, and that impact has been broad and steady. The same is true of Locke, I think, and arguably true of Hume. I recognize that such judgments about specific figures are contestable, though.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-68908905123989227582012-01-28T12:54:20.867-08:002012-01-28T12:54:20.867-08:00Four thoughts:
1) independent of their inherent q...Four thoughts:<br /><br />1) independent of their inherent quality as philosophers, one might a priori expect earlier philosophers to be more influential than later ones, just because they were earlier. If Philosopher A precedes B who precedes C, then it's more likely (to say the least) that B will have been influenced by A than vice versa...and so more likely that someone (say, C) who wants to engage with the work of B will have to engage with the work of A. Western philosophy could not have been mere footnotes to Plato and Aristotle had those two guys been contemporaries of Kripke.<br /><br />2) Related to (1), philosophers may just need a lot of time to become Towering Greats. Kant probably didn't seem to be KANT to his contemporaries, and not just because of "winnowing" or the slower rate back then of dissemination of ideas. Rather, back then Kant had not yet enjoyed the benefits of several centuries of debates, conferences, monographs etc. on the theme of Why Everything Kant Said Was True, Even the Transparently Ridiculous Things (or the secondary industry of why the opposite is the case). After several centuries of such work, future generations will surely recognise, say, Deepak Chopra for the genius he is.<br /><br />3)I still think there's something to the idea of the rate of Kant per philosopher, and expecting there to be more Kants now just because there are more would-be Kants around. Even granting that 'field-changing ideas can only occur so fast', the dissemination of ideas happens so very much faster nowadays, that you might expect that such ideas could occur much more often too -- and hence that there "should" be more Kants.<br /><br />4) Here's one way to "test" the opening hypothesis: if it's true that specialisation is the culprit for our sorry lack of Kants, then you might expect that current work recognised as major in a subfield typically cites more authors than older work recognised as major in that subfield. i.e. that, say, Parfit has to cite more authors than Kant. Of course, one would have to control for the differing norms of citation...Jones, one of the Jones boyshttp://oneofthejonesboys.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-88365442333589967902012-01-28T08:31:31.569-08:002012-01-28T08:31:31.569-08:00Philosophy hardly seems to be in any way unusual i...Philosophy hardly seems to be in any way unusual in its current lack of a towering figure like Kant. Where is there today any discipline blessed (or cursed) with such a towering figure? Not in any of the hard sciences or in mathematics that I can think of (which you pretty much acknowledge) -- but not, I believe, even in any of the social sciences nor in the humanities (can you think of such a case?). <br /><br />The only example I can come up with who casts such a dominating shadow in the contemporary scene is Chomsky over linguistics. And the largeness of his presence is well compensated for by the relative smallness of his discipline. <br /><br />Perhaps it's specialization, perhaps it's the number of participants in the disciplines (obviously related phenomena), perhaps it's our own blindness to the true stature of current figures, or our blindness to the true stature of contemporaries of figures of the past we now regard as towering. But, in any case, the dearth of contemporary dominant figures is not an issue with philosophy alone. <br /><br />In short, the base rate of overpowering figures in ANY discipline today is near or at zero. You might ask yourself why you think philosophy might be an exception.candid_observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-5633453022341729812012-01-28T07:19:49.610-08:002012-01-28T07:19:49.610-08:00What about the hypothesis that we're closer to...What about the hypothesis that we're closer to the truth in more and more subfields now than when Kant wrote? So it was easier for someone really smart to nail all sorts of insights and come up with all sorts of arguments that aren't available to us. I don't think this is the right explanation, but I bet it's in the back of a lot of people's minds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-77449094670575610162012-01-28T04:14:53.989-08:002012-01-28T04:14:53.989-08:00"see Newton, Darwin, etc., though in a way I ..."see Newton, Darwin, etc., though in a way I think their visions are so broad reaching as to be philosophical in the capacious sense of that term"<br /><br />@ Eric: Yes, of course, there is that issue. Historically, most if not all modern academic disciplines descend from a branch of philosophy and an adept from any one of them may produce results that sound very philosophical. Is Chomsky a linguist or a philosopher?clasqmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12812785541545674276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-29633088826652689092012-01-27T18:32:10.229-08:002012-01-27T18:32:10.229-08:00Hardly anyone has recognized the fact but Western ...Hardly anyone has recognized the fact but Western philosophy (in particular) essentially came to and end with the original 1972 publication of the remarkable book introduced here.<br /><br />www.kneeoflistening.com/i1-spiritual-genius.html <br /><br />He then then spent 36 years patiently explaining the cultural implications of His appearance here. The results of His explanations (etc) are introduced here.<br /><br />www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon <br /><br />Also<br /><br />www.adidaupclose.org/Literature_Theater/skalsky.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-21522266805965751652012-01-27T17:51:46.938-08:002012-01-27T17:51:46.938-08:00By the criteria you use to exclude Hegel, Russell,...By the criteria you use to exclude Hegel, Russell, etc., was even Kant a Kant? I.e. were Locke and Hume really more even in their impact than Russell? <br /><br />On the other hand, the "spatiotemporal variability" issue may be a product of philosophy getting more factitious. People mostly agree that Kant was great, but for everyone after Kant, different factions have different ideas about who was great.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-42275849245465824962012-01-27T14:50:40.541-08:002012-01-27T14:50:40.541-08:00by 2022, wittgenstein, kripke and lewis will be re...by 2022, wittgenstein, kripke and lewis will be recognized for what they are: charlatans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-71746053146481565812012-01-27T12:28:40.989-08:002012-01-27T12:28:40.989-08:00Two thoughts about this:
1) The range of philosop...Two thoughts about this:<br /><br />1) The range of philosophy is much smaller, and also more fine-grained, than it was 200 years ago.<br /><br />Questions like 'what is light?' and 'where do dreams come from?' have been largely answered.<br /><br />Questions about god and biblical interpretation have been relegated to theology courses.<br /><br />Even questions like 'what is economic profit?', which haven't been conclusively answered, have still been narrowed down - and moved into other fields. There are a lot of answers which have been disproven, and only a few contenders remain. A genuinely new theory of money seems unlikely.<br /><br />So, fewer fields, but more subfields. And it's hard to revolutionise a field by working in one subfield.<br /><br />2) Prefiguring and influencing every major figure like Hegel, there were dozens of other figures now largely forgotten or known only to specialists - Fichte, Schelling, Boehme, Eckhardt. Plus later interpreters through whose lens we tend to see the major figures - much our image of Hegel comes from Engels, Plekanov and Chalybäus.<br /><br />It may only be in hindsight that towering figures tower, once we've forgotten the others who surround them.Kapitanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647896216499813443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-18694407665781869172012-01-27T11:25:43.485-08:002012-01-27T11:25:43.485-08:00Couldn't it be that there have been a lot of K...Couldn't it be that there have been a lot of Kants, but we just don't notice for that reason (since Kant being Kant depends on everyone else being less-than-Kant)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-90591800380869021632012-01-27T08:13:50.738-08:002012-01-27T08:13:50.738-08:00The idea that the issue is base rate per number of...The idea that the issue is base rate per number of working philosophers is on the right track. When there is a smaller number of competitors, it is easier to be the best (being #1 out of 1000 is easier than being #1 out of 10,000). Suppose that Hume is the best out of 10,000 philosophers, and there are only 1000 per generation in his day. That makes him the best for a few generations. So when Hume or Kant is the best for a few generations, then the impact they have on students and other scholars is huge. Now there are many more philosophers. Suppose that someone now is the best out of 10,000 philosophers. If that's the number of people in the profession, their "bestness" is limited to a single generation, not multiple ones like Hume and Kant. So the old school folks weren't any better than the best philosophers we have now; they just were the best for longer, and so had more of an impact. Add to this the contemporary Balkanization of subdisciplines and it is clear why it is so much harder for any contemporary philosopher to have the overall disciplinary impact of the heroes of yore.Steven Haleshttp://facstaff.bloomu.edu/shalesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-87499341554923360562012-01-27T08:13:35.593-08:002012-01-27T08:13:35.593-08:00Anon Jan 26: I'm inclined to think, actually, ...Anon Jan 26: I'm inclined to think, actually, that philosophy as it currently stands is much more methodologically unified and has many fewer barriers between subdisciplines than do most scientific disciplines. So I'm inclined to think that it's more likely that a new Kant arises than that a new Newton does.<br /><br />Jeremy: Agreed!<br /><br />Clasqm: There's always competition between disciplines and philosophy doesn't always win (see Newton, Darwin, etc., though in a way I think their visions are so broad reaching as to be philosophical in the capacious sense of that term). It's an interesting conjecture about decline in relative draw, though. I'm not sure how to measure that, but philosophers do tend to be pretty smart as a whole by standardized measures like GRE and (I believe) GPA outside of discipline.<br /><br />Anon Jan 27: They get winnowed with distance, I suppose. I'm not sure about Mill as the example, though.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-25348583005456513082012-01-27T05:12:18.612-08:002012-01-27T05:12:18.612-08:00How long can a philosopher survive having a reputa...How long can a philosopher survive having a reputation for being merely very good (or even less than that) before it becomes impossible for them to be considered great? I'm sure it's too late for Mill and Schlick, but how about, say, Anscombe or Dennett, depending on how tastes change in the future?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-74675666816665410402012-01-27T04:07:15.320-08:002012-01-27T04:07:15.320-08:00Perhaps the best and brightest in western society ...Perhaps the best and brightest in western society are no longer attracted to philosophy? If Einstein had taken it up, who knows what might have resulted.clasqmhttp://tinyurl.com/profmichelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-1635276064959023682012-01-26T23:38:13.499-08:002012-01-26T23:38:13.499-08:00The fact you present applies to most scientific fi...The fact you present applies to most scientific fields: maths, physics, chemistry... the era of the old giants is over. I believe it's a logical trend, too much area to cover.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-10626510458408467132012-01-26T19:50:59.643-08:002012-01-26T19:50:59.643-08:00I agree that no one in the 20th century made the s...I agree that no one in the 20th century made the sort of central contributions both to M&E and to value theory that Locke/Hume/Kant did. But just M&E-wise, Wittgenstein, Kripke and Lewis clearly rank among the most influential post-Cartesian philosophers. Fodor's impact in the philosophy of mind has been pretty staggering too.Jeremy Goodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09330736966027504537noreply@blogger.com