In previous work, I've found that eminent philosophers tend to do their most influential work when they are in their 40s (though the age range has a wider spread than eminent scientists, who rarely do their most influential work in their 50s or later). I have also found some data suggesting that philosophers tend to be discussed most when they are about age 55-70, well after they produce their most influential work. It seems to take about 15-20 years, on average, for a philosopher's full import to be felt by the field.
I was curious to see if the pattern holds for philosophers born 1850-1899, whom we can examine systematically using the new Edhiphy tool. (Edhiphy captures mentions of philosophers' names in articles in leading philosophy journals, 1890-1980.)
Here's what I did:
First, I had Edhiphy output the top-50 most-mentioned philosophers from 1890-1980, limited to philosophers with recorded birthyear from 1850-1899.[1] For each philosopher, I went to their Ediphy profile and had Edhiphy output a graph showing the number of articles in which that philosopher was cited per year. For example, here's the graph for George Santayana (1863-1952):
[Articles mentioning George Santayana per year, in a few selected philosophy journals, per Edhiphy; click to enlarge and clarify]
I then recorded the peak year for each philosopher (1928 for Santayana). As you can see, the display is a little visually confusing, so it's possible that in some cases my estimate was off by a year.
One complication is that there are many more total mentions of philosophers in the later decades than the earlier decades -- partly due to more articles in the database for later decades, but probably also partly due to changes in citation practices. Still, most authors (like Santayana) show enough decline over time that late citations don't swamp their first peak. So instead of trying to introduce a systematic adjustment to discount later mentions I simply recorded the raw peak. For the thirteen philosophers with more than one equal-valued peak, I took the earlier year (e.g., John Dewey was mentioned in 48 articles in both 1940 and 1951, so I treated 1940 as his peak).
In accord with previous work, I found that philosophers' peak discussion tended to occur late in life. The median age at peak discussion was 67.5 (mean 68.8).
Four outliers peaked over age 100: David Hilbert (112), Pierre Duhem (114), Giuseppe Peano (116), and Karl Pearson (121). However, it's probably fair to say that none of these four was primarily known as a philosopher in their lifetimes: Hilbert, Peano, and Pearson were mathematicians and Duhem a physicist. Almost everyone else on the list is primarily known as a philosopher, so these four are not representative. Excluding these outliers, the median is 66.5 and mean is 64.7, and no one peaked after age 90.
Three philosophers peaked by age 40: Ralph Barton Perry (peaked at age 35 in 1911), C. D. Broad (peaked at age 40 in 1927), and William Pepperell Montague (peaked at age 40 in 1913). Broad's early peak -- as you can see from the graph below -- is due to an outlier year, without which his peak would have been much later. On the other hand, given the overall increase in mentions over time, we should probably be discounting the later decades anyway.
[Edhiphy citations of C.D. Broad; click to enlarge and clarify]
Six philosophers peaked age 44 to 49; five peaked in their 50s; 14 in their 60s; 10 in their 70s; and 8 in their 80s.
You might wonder whether the philosophers who peaked late also produced their most influential work late. There is a trend in this direction. Hans Reichenbach, who peaked in 1978 at age 87, produced his most cited work in 1938 (at age 47). L. J. Russell, who peaked in 1970 at age 86, appears to have produced his most cited work in 1942 (at age 58). Edmund Husserl, who peaked in 1941 at age 82, produced his most cited work in 1913 (at age 54) John Dewey, who peaked in 1940 at age 81, produced his most cited work in 1916 (at age 57). Ernst Cassirer, who peaked in 1955 at age 81 produced his most-cited work in 1944 (at age 70). Still, for all but Cassirer the delay between most-cited work and peak discussion is over 20 years.
A similar spread occurs in the middle of the pack. The five philosophers with peak citation at median ages 67-68 (the median age of peak citation for the group as a whole) produced their most-cited works at ages 30 (Karl Japsers), 42 (J. M. E. McTaggart), 45 (C. I. Lewis), 49 (Max Scheler), and 61 (Samuel Alexander). For this group too, the typical delay between most-cited work and peak citation is about twenty years.
Although the peak age is a little later than I would have predicted based on earlier work, overall I'd say the data for early twentieth century philosophers tends to confirm trends I found in my earlier work on mid-to-late twentieth-century philosophers. Specifically:
(2.) The peak rates of discussion of philosophers' work tends to come late in life, typically decades after they have published their most influential work.
Articles mentioning JME McTaggart, by year 1890-1980 in Edhiphy. Note peak in the late 1930s. McTaggart's most influential publication was in 1908.------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Edhiphy has a few peculiar gaps in birthyear data. By far the most conspicuous are Gottlob Frege (born 1848) and Albert Einstein (1879). However, Frege is outside my target period, and Einstein is not primarily known as a philosopher, so this shouldn't much distort the results. Several figures with missing birthdates are psychologists (Scripture, Binet, Hering) or physicists (Bridgman, Maxwell). H. A. Prichard is perhaps the most discussed straight philosopher born in the period whose birthdate is not recorded in Ediphy.
2 comments:
Interesting bit of wordplay in the name of the tool you used. I wonder if the levels of edification attained by learned philosophers correlate with levels of comfort in the philosophy world when philosophers achieved recognition(s)? I can't follow and read your findings well enough to assess such correlatiob(s), but imagine that angle at least crossed your mind.
Some of my favorite reads have been more radical than others and, as might be expected, some of those attained respect and professional;some did not.
Admittedly,I jump out of the system more than most, probably because philosophy was never my "bread and butter".
I apologize for typos and other errors or omissions. Something has not been working right. Hope you understood what I was trying to say.
Post a Comment