There's a fun new tool at Edhiphy. The designers pulled the full text from twelve leading philosophy journals from 1890 to 1980 and counted the occurrences of philosophers' names. (See note [1] for discussion of error rates in their method.)
Back in the early 2010s, I posted several bibliometric studies of philosophers' citation or discussion rates over time, mostly based on searches of Philosopher's Index abstracts from 1940 to the present. This new tool gives me a chance to update some of my thinking, using a different method and going further into the past.
One thing I found fascinating in my earlier studies was how some philosophers who used to be huge (for example, Henri Bergson and Herbert Spencer) are now hardly read, while others (for example, Gottlob Frege) have had more staying power.
Let's look at the top 25 most discussed philosophers from each available decade.
1890s:
1. Immanuel Kant 2. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 3. Aristotle 4. David Hume 5. Herbert Spencer 6. William James 7. Plato 8. John Stuart Mill 9. René Descartes 10. Wilhelm Wundt 11. Hermann Lotze 12. F. H. Bradley 13. Charles Sanders Peirce 14. Buddha 15. Thomas Hill Green 16. Benedictus de Spinoza 17. Charles Darwin 18. John Locke 19. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 20. Thomas Hobbes 21. Arthur Schopenhauer 22. Socrates 23. Hermann von Helmholtz 24. George Frederick Stout 25. Alexander Bain
Notes:
Only three of the twelve journals existed in the 1890s, so this is a small sample.
Philosophy and empirical psychology were not clearly differentiated as disciplines until approximately the 1910s or 1920s, and these journals covered both areas. (For example, the Journal of Philosophy was originally founded in 1904 as the Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, shortening to the now familiar name in 1921.) Although Wundt, Helmholtz, and Stout were to some extent philosophers, they are probably better understood primarily as early psychologists. William James is of course famously claimed by both fields.
Herbert Spencer, as previously noted, was hugely influential in his day: fifth on this eminent list! Another eminent philosopher on this list (#11) who is hardly known today (at least in mainstream Anglophone circles) is Hermann Lotze.
Most of the others on the list are historical giants, plus some prominent British idealists (F. H. Bradley, Thomas Hill Green) and pragmatists (William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, Alexander Bain) and interestingly (but not representative of later decades) "Buddha". (A spot check reveals that some of these references are to Gautama Buddha or "the Buddha", while others use "buddha" in a more general sense.)
1900s:
1. Immanuel Kant 2. William James 3. Plato 4. F. H. Bradley 5. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 6. David Hume 7. Aristotle 8. Herbert Spencer 9. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 10. John Dewey 11. George Berkeley 12. John Stuart Mill 13. George Frederick Stout 14. Thomas Hill Green 15. Josiah Royce 16. Benedictus de Spinoza 17. John Locke 18. Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller 19. Ernst Mach 20. Wilhelm Wundt 21. James Ward 22. René Descartes 23. Alfred Edward Taylor 24. Henry Sidgwick 25. Bertrand Russell
Notes:
Notice the fast rise of John Dewey (1859-1952), to #10 (#52 in the 1890s list). Other living philosophers in the top ten were James (1842-1910), Bradley (1846-1824), and for part of the period Spencer (1820-1903).
It's also striking to see George Berkeley enter the list so high (#11, compared to #28 in the 1890s) and Descartes fall so fast despite his continuing importance later (from #9 to #22). This could be statistical noise due to the small number of journals, or it could reflect historical trends. I'm not sure.
Our first "analytic" philosopher appears: Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) at #25. He turned 33 in 1905, so he found eminence very young for a philosopher.
Lotze has already fallen off the list (#29 in the 1900s; #29 in the 1910s; #63 in the 1930s, afterwards not in the top 100).
1910s:
1. Henri Bergson 2. Bertrand Russell 3. Immanuel Kant 4. Plato 5. William James 6. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 7. Aristotle 8. Socrates 9. Bernard Bosanquet 10. George Berkeley 11. F. H. Bradley 12. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 13. René Descartes 14. Josiah Royce 15. David Hume 16. Isaac Newton 17. John Dewey 18. Friedrich Nietzsche 19. Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller 20. Arthur Schopenhauer 21. John Locke 22. Benedictus de Spinoza 23. Edwin Holt 24. Isaac Barrow 25. Johann Gottlieb FichteNotes:
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) debuts at #1! What a rock star. (He was #63 in the 1900s list.) We forget how huge he was in his day. Russell, who so far has had much more durable influence, rockets up to #2. It's also interesting to see Bernard Bosanquet (1848-1923), who is now little read in mainstream Anglophone circles, at #9.
Josiah Royce is also highly mentioned in this era (#14 in this list, #15 in the 1900s list), despite not being much read now. F.C.S. Schiller (1864-1937) is a similar case (#19 in this list, #18 in the 1900s list).
1920s:
1. Immanuel Kant 2. Plato 3. Aristotle 4. Bernard Bosanquet 5. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 6. F. H. Bradley 7. Bertrand Russell 8. Benedictus de Spinoza 9. William James 10. Socrates 11. John Dewey 12. Alfred North Whitehead 13. David Hume 14. George Santayana 15. René Descartes 16. Henri Bergson 17. Albert Einstein 18. C. D. Broad 19. John Locke 20. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 21. George Berkeley 22. Isaac Newton 23. James Ward 24. Samuel Alexander 25. Benedetto Croce
Notes:
I'm struck by how the 1920s returns to the classics at the top of the list, with Kant, Plato, and Aristotle as #1, #2, and #3. Bergson is already down to #16 and Russell has slipped to #7. Most surprising to me, though, is Bosanquet at #4! What?!
1930s:
1. Immanuel Kant 2. Plato 3. Aristotle 4. Benedictus de Spinoza 5. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 6. René Descartes 7. Alfred North Whitehead 8. Bertrand Russell 9. David Hume 10. John Locke 11. George Berkeley 12. Socrates 13. Friedrich Nietzsche 14. Rudolf Carnap 15. William James 16. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 17. John Dewey 18. Isaac Newton 19. Clarence Irving Lewis 20. Arthur Oncken Lovejoy 21. Albert Einstein 22. Charles Sanders Peirce 23. F. H. Bradley 24. Ludwig Wittgenstein 25. Bernard Bosanquet
Notes:
Nietzsche rises suddenly (#13; vs #56 in the 1920s list). Wittgenstein also cracks the list at #24 (not even in the top 100 in the 1920s).
With the exception of Whitehead, top of the list looks like what early 21st century mainstream Anglophone philosophers tend to perceive as the most influential figures in pre-20th-century Western philosophy (see, e.g., Brian Leiter's 2017 poll). The 1930s, perhaps, were for whatever reason a decade more focused on the history of philosophy than on leading contemporary thinkers. (The presence of historian of ideas Arthur Lovejoy [1873-1962] at #20 further reinforces that thought.)
1940s:
1. Immanuel Kant 2. Alfred North Whitehead 3. Aristotle 4. Plato 5. Bertrand Russell 6. John Dewey 7. David Hume 8. William James 9. George Berkeley 10. Charles Sanders Peirce 11. René Descartes 12. Benedictus de Spinoza 13. Edmund Husserl 14. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 15. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 16. Thomas Aquinas 17. Socrates 18. Rudolf Carnap 19. Martin Heidegger 20. G. E. Moore 21. John Stuart Mill 22. Isaac Newton 23. Søren Kierkegaard 24. A. J. Ayer 25. John Locke
Notes:
Oh, how people loved Whitehead (#2) in the 1940s!
Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) makes a posthumous appearance at #13 (#31 in the 1920s) and Heidegger (1889-1976) at #19 (#97 in the 1920s), suggesting an impact of Continental phenomenology. I suspect this is due to the inclusion of Philosophy and Phenomenological Research in the database starting 1940. Although the journal is now a bastion of mainstream Anglophone philosophy, in its early decades it included lots of work in Continental phenomenology (as the journal's title suggests).
The philosophers we now think of as the big three American pragmatists have a very strong showing in the 1940s, with Dewey at #6, James at #8, and Peirce at #10.
Thomas Aquinas makes his first and only showing (at #16), suggesting that Catholic philosophy is having more of an impact in this era.
We're also starting to see more analytic philosophers, with G. E. Moore (1873-1958), and A. J. Ayer (1910-1989) now making the list, in addition to Russell and Carnap (1891-1970).
Wittgenstein, surprisingly to me, has fallen off the list all the way down to #73 -- perhaps suggesting that if he hadn't had his second era, his earlier work would have been quickly forgotten.
1950s:
1. Immanuel Kant 2. Plato 3. Aristotle 4. Bertrand Russell 5. David Hume 6. Gilbert Ryle 7. G. E. Moore 8. Willard Van Orman Quine 9. George Berkeley 10. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 11. John Dewey 12. Alfred North Whitehead 13. Rudolf Carnap 14. Ludwig Wittgenstein 15. René Descartes 16. John Locke 17. Clarence Irving Lewis 18. Socrates 19. John Stuart Mill 20. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 21. Gottlob Frege 22. A. J. Ayer 23. William James 24. Edmund Husserl 25. Nelson Goodman
By the 1950s, the top eight are four leading historical figures -- Kant, Plato, Aristotle, and Hume -- and four leading analytic philosophers: Russell, Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976), G. E. Moore, and W. V. O. Quine (1908-2000). Neither Ryle nor Quine were among the top 100 in 1940s, so their rise to #6 and #8 was sudden.
Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) also makes his first, long-posthumous appearance.
1960s:
1. Aristotle 2. Immanuel Kant 3. Ludwig Wittgenstein 4. David Hume 5. Plato 6. René Descartes 7. P. F. Strawson 8. Willard Van Orman Quine 9. Bertrand Russell 10. J. L. Austin 11. John Dewey 12. Rudolf Carnap 13. Edmund Husserl 14. Socrates 15. Norman Malcolm 16. G. E. Moore 17. Gottlob Frege 18. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 19. George Berkeley 20. R. M. Hare 21. John Stuart Mill 22. Gilbert Ryle 23. A. J. Ayer 24. Karl Popper 25. Carl Gustav Hempel
Wittgenstein is back with a vengeance at #3. Other analytic philosophers, in order, are P. F. Strawson, Quine, Russell, Austin, Carnap, Norman Malcolm (1911-1990), Moore, Frege, R. M. Hare (1919-2002), Ryle, Ayer, Karl Popper (1902-1994), and Carl Hempel (1905-1997).
Apart from pre-20th-century historical giants, it's all analytic philosophers, except for Dewey and Husserl.
Finally, the 1970s:
1. Willard Van Orman Quine 2. Immanuel Kant 3. David Hume 4. Aristotle 5. Ludwig Wittgenstein 6. Plato 7. John Locke 8. René Descartes 9. Karl Popper 10. Rudolf Carnap 11. Gottlob Frege 12. Edmund Husserl 13. Hans Reichenbach 14. Socrates 15. P. F. Strawson 16. Donald Davidson 17. John Stuart Mill 18. Bertrand Russell 19. Thomas Reid 20. Benedictus de Spinoza 21. Nelson Goodman 22. Carl Gustav Hempel 23. John Rawls 24. Karl Marx 25. Saul Kripke
With the continuing exception of Husserl, the list is again historical giants plus analytic philosophers. Interesting to see Marx enter at #24. Hans Reichenbach (1891-1953) has a strong debut at #13. Ryle's decline is striking, from #6 in the 1950s to #22 in the 1960s to off the list at #51 in the 1970s.
At the very bottom of the list, #25, we see the first "Silent Generation" philosopher: Saul Kripke (1940-2022). In a recent citation analysis of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I found that the Silent Generation has so far had impressive overall influence and staying power in mainstream Anglophone philosophy. It would be interesting to see if this influence continues.
The only philosopher born after 1800 who makes both the 1890s and the 1970s top 25 is John Stuart Mill. Peirce and James still rank among the top 100 in the 1970s (#58 and #86). None of the other stars of the 1890s -- Spencer, Herbert, Lotze, Bradley, Green -- are still among the top 100 by the 1970s, and I think it's fair to say they are hardly read except by specialists.
Similar remarks apply to most of the stars of the 1900s, 1910s, and 1920s: Bergson, Bosanquet, Royce, Schiller, C. D. Broad, and George Santayana are no longer widely read. Two exceptions are Russell, who persists in the top 25 through the 1970s, and Dewey who falls from the top 25 but still remains in the top 100, at #87.
Also, in case you didn't notice: no women or people of color (as we would now classify them) appear on any of these lists, apart from "Buddha" in the 1890s.
In my recent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy analysis, the most-cited living philosophers were Timothy Williamson, Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Nagel, Frank Jackson, John Searle, and David Chalmers. However, none of them is probably as dominant now as Spencer, James, Bradley, Russell, Bosanquet, and Bergson were at the peak of their influence.
---------------------------------------
[1] The Edhiphy designers estimate "82%-91%" precision, but I'm not sure what that means. I'd assume that "Wittgenstein" and "Carnap" would hit with almost 100% precision. Does it follow others might be as low as 40%? There certainly are some problems. I noticed, for example, that R. Jay Wallace, born in 1957, has 78 mentions in the 1890s. I spot checked "Russell", "Austin", "James", and "Berkeley", finding only a few false positives for Russell and Austin (e.g., misclassified references to legal philosopher John Austin). I found significantly more false positives for William James (including references to Henry James and some authors with the first name James, such as psychologist James Ward), but still probably not more than 10%. For "Berkeley" there were a similar number of false positives referencing the university or city. I didn't attempt to check for false negatives.
16 comments:
I nominate Freud, as a hugely influential philosopher to the foundations of...
...physiology, ontology, philology, psychology and Talk Therapy...
And today Set Theory can be more naturalistic, if viewed as processing...
...none of my guys made the list, but thanks for work...
I enjoy reading historical accounts, insofar as they tell me things about origins. And, the latter interest me more---have influenced my thoughts and beliefs a great deal. Points of other interest, maybe:
* I never thought of Einstein as philosopher, until reading his remark on God and dice. Even then, his reputation as theorhetical physicist and mathematician outweighed philosophy, in my opinion. Some accolyte, like myself, could have found Albert's remark flippant---someone probably did.
* While there was mention of giants like Hume, Socrates, Russell and others,over the decades, supporting cast figures such as Ryle and Sellars were not noted. Wilf Sellars had problems; Nietzsche went quite mad, after much suffering, and admittedly, I know less about Ryle.
* I could say something about someone who drank poison, for the good of the order. But, I will only admit it was better(?) than some more painful form of death.
Origins are, uh, confusing. But, we were not there...
At risk of the obvious: not all philosophers were polymaths. Aristotle wrote about everything under the sun, while Kant had general theories about everything., while others had specific domains like language or the mind. That might affect citations, maybe not in the obvious ways.
Incisely and PRE-cisely. Thanks, Howie.
Paul. Einstein's work altered conventional views of space and time so drastically that it was easy for the man to moonlight as a philosopher. I remember that book by Russell, "The ABC's of Relativity," Relativity was mind-altering. I wonder how much the pioneers of Quantum Physics delved into philosophy, in addition to their thought experiments. Or take Galileo: his philosophical dialogues backed up his work. Newton might have missed the philosophical significance of his own work; so perhaps some revolutionary scientists do their own philosophizing, while others leave that to philosophers.
Does that sound right?
I think so. Your assessment shows more clarity than I could offer--- better inference, better perspective. Thanks for those insights.
I don't know, this is a lot of fun but watching Berkeley bound around up and down the lists, I do wonder about sample size.
Thanks for the comments, folks!
Arnold: I wonder how Freud would compare with these others. I'm not seeing him on their author lists. Maybe I'm missing something, but that suggests that they didn't include him as a "philosopher" in their tool.
Howie, Paul, and Anon: Yes, that seems right.
Margaret: Yes, the ups-and-downs do make one wonder about sample size, especially in the early decades. In the 1890s, Berkeley has 238 mentions in 71 articles; in the 1900s, it's 527 in 147; in the 1910s, it's 898 in 186. If we treat each article as independent, we should expect non-trivial noise, but probably not enough to account for the large fluctuations.
Unsolicited remarks to Margaret Atherton: There were/are thinkers I do not categorize as philosophers. Berkeley is one. My acceptance of the label, philosopher, does not include those who are bound up in theological speculations. Clearly, then, I am an outcast. I don't regard religion and philosophy as mutually inclusive, although modern recognition often places them under one roof, in university humanities departments.I think that is a mistake. Gould did not agree either, and, posited his NOMA notion. For which, he was soundly thrashed, by emergent thinking. Contextual reality erased Stephen J. Death finished the job. He was under sixty-five years of age, and, I had barely discovered his genius.
Bottom out: I won't buy religion-based philosophy. It is a facade. Socrates was not Catholic, was he?...so, was he a Jew? I don't think so. Respects.
PDV.
In my youth my phliosophy of life came from Freud. Freud had if not contempt than a disregard for much philosophy, except Nietzsche of whom he noted affinities from afar and Helmholtz, He advocated a philosophy of life and of the mind. In his later works he developed a philosophy of history as in Moses and Monotheism and The Future of an Illusion and of civilization as in Civilization and its Discontents. His idea of a life and death instinct is the closest he came to a philosophy of everything, and he was influenced by the Greeks in that. He was a brilliant student fluent in several European langauges and with a sound Classical education. He influenced the same sort captivated by Bergson. Though he has some champions, and still has some cache in some humanities, his days are numbered.
About Freud- any mention of Freud would turn up as polemics, he stirred much controversy- not to build on his work and Freud as a rival said, "was a climate of opinion." Mostly the humanities, meaning history and literary studies engaged with Freud, plus a few social sciences- curious how much academic philosophy felt threatened by him- there were neoFreudians like Marcuse who tried to make him compatible with Marx or with Heidegger etc.
I left out JS Mill, he translated Mill into German, and knew about Schopenhauer
At Edhiphy we read...
...Edhiphy is created as part of the "Exiled Empiricists project" at Tilburg University in the Netherlands...
There, they are 'tooling-listing' everything/everyway for what could be missing in (my) searches in wisdom and pursuits for truths... ...phenomenology et all...thanks
Freud was also influenced by Brentano (intentionality), the associationists, and the Epicureans and the Stoics- these influences point at how thinkers citing Freud might hav engaged with him
Plus I'd suppose his most provocative idea 'the unconscious' might hav eevoked a lot of critical response. I believe he met once with Russell and my feeling is he was talked about by "intellectuals" so were intellectuals and philosophers the same thing or overlapping or what?
Intellectuals and philosophers... One possible abswer: There is a bit of each in the other. This is both enigma and paradox. Sometimes you'll have that.
Post a Comment