Picking up on some remarks of mine, Brian Leiter is playing the “which contemporary philosophers will still be read in 100 years” game - which can be quite fun. My money is on Rawls and Parfit. Not that they are necessarily the best, but other contenders who have written less monumental works will have their thoughts incorporated into philosophical discourse in a way that floats free of the original form those thoughts were couched in.
I think that unless a philosopher is steeped in an understanding of the pace of technological change, that philosopher is going to seem highly irrelevant in 100 years.
You really need to understand the rate at which history is speeding up. Something like “The Age of Spiritual Machines” by Ray Kurzweil is more important to read than Rawls by a long shot. Not that Kurzweil isn’t infuriating and perhaps wrong in many respects…
Ah yes, Aristotle and Plato, so behind the times …
An American friend of mine who did his M.Phil in intellectual history at Cambridge used to joke that in 100 years time one of the academic descendants of Quentin Skinner and John Dunn will present a paper to a history of political thought seminar there to explain that although everyone still reads Brian Barry these days, in order really to understand his work you have to study this completely forgotten figure called John Rawls…
None, it is all coterie material written for coteries that will not exist in 100 years.
I think it’s a fair point that what’s really helpful to immortality is a single, seminal book that can easily be assigned to undergraduate survey classes. Being known only to specialists is a recipe for certain death. But having complex work that’s difficult to convey or assign in a three-week period in a second-year theory course will make in much more likely that you’ll land in the hands only of specialists.
On that mark I think Rawls is obvious. I was assigned TOJ in an undergraduate theory course. Few other contemporary philosophers have that one-truly-great-work appeal.
Rawls also benefits for being important to a number of fields - political theory, legal theory, etc.
Can I cheat and claim Dawkins? I’m not sure he really qualifies as a philosopher, but he has a philosophy, and I think the Selfish Gene will be around longer than anything else comparable. Not only is it a towering intellectual synthesis of disciplines, but it is also very readable.
Along similar lines: Deepak Chopra, Thomas Moore, and Ken Wilber.
If we’re going to let ‘philosopher’ range wide enough to include Dawkins (which I don’t particularly object to doing) then there’s an easy addition to the list - Chomsky.
Ol’ Noam may have political views that are, to use the politest phrase I can think of, fubarred, but he’s dominated his chosen field more completely than anyone since Keynes, if not Einstein. And that field is one of the closest fields to philosophy, which helps in counting towards being an immortal philosopher.
While his direct impact on philosophy of mind and philosophy of language hasn’t (yet) been as great as one might expect given his influence in linguistics and cognitive science, he’s sure to be an important figure for many decades to come. My impression (and I should do some actual research to back this up) is that across academia he’s the most frequently cited living person by a long way, which is a nice head start on immortality.
Brian,
You are absolutely right as to the “head start”, and I’ll save you the research.
Chomsky was, in fact, the 8th “most cited academic source” between the years 1980 and 1992.
Here is the list: Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel, and Cicero.
From what I have read, however (I’m no linguist), he’s more likely to end up following the Freudian track than the Hegelian one. His theories are turning into philosophical dead ends. Once the hero-worship aspect is gone, he is likely to be seen as an interesting historical detour, not a relevant point for continued study.
Even if Chomsky starts losing some stature he’s got a long way to fall. I flipped through the citation records in humantities and social sciences for the last three years for a few famous works, and here’s the (very approximate - there’s no way to do this accurately I know of) results
Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions 10000
Rawls, Theory of Justice 7000
Chomsky, Aspects 4000
Nozick, Anarchy State and Utopia 2500
Chomsky, Sound Pattern of English 2200
Quine, Word and Object 2000
Chomsky, Lectures on Govt and Binding 2000
Chomsky, Syntactic Structures 2000
Parfit, Reasons and Persons 1000
Kripke, Naming and Necessity 900
Rawls, Political Liberalism 800
Chomsky, Minimalist Program 700
Lewis, Plurality of Worlds 500
For some historical comparison, though the numbers here are even woolier
Plato, The Republic 3500
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations 600
I wonder whether it’s right to add Kuhn to the list of who’ll be around in 100 years. He’s also got a long way to fall before he stops being very widely read (or at least cited).
By the way, Chomsky’s political works barely register on the citation indices.
The idea that a philosopher must possess a profound understanding of the pace of technological change to be relevant in 100 years is pretty depressing. In its current chapter, the story of technology sees peripeteia almost continually…right?
Chomsky will be remembered as an important American dissident whatever happens with his philosophical/linguistic reputation (which I believe will also be sustained), and the tendency of considerably less active academics to denounce collectively and scornfully his political work does tend to support his, perhaps at first glance paranoid, invocations of the “commisar class.”
I don’t buy the idea that a philosopher has to be read to be important. No one reads Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior today and yet it’s so frequently mentioned that it has become legend.
In most disciplines 100+ year old works are read as a pivot or foil for more recent discussions. If they were immediately relevant we wouldn’t have to worry as much as we do about interpretation.
I believe it’s also possible for important thinkers to have their ideas “float free of their original form” into the common toolset of a discipline within one or two generations. One generation will read the work and create a secondary literature that the following generation will read without bothering to read the primary works of the first generation. Then the following generation comments on said works, ad infinitum. It’s what happens in a somewhat anti-historical discipline such as analytic philosophy and is generally the rule in the sciences.
Agreed with shai. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t be able to get up in the morning—I’m not so bold to think that I’ll be on the hundred-year list, but I like to think that somehow I can contribute to the free-floating stuff.
Andrew:
what’s really helpful to immortality is a single, seminal book that can easily be assigned to undergraduate survey classes.
Well, Kant squeaks by with the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals—but even if he had only written the Critique of Pure Reason, he’d still be read, and only a true sadist would assign the Critique in a survey class. Aristotle I think is similar—his work isn’t assigned in survey courses because it’s easy to cover in survey courses, but because it’s so important. So I’ll go with importance over assignability. By which measure Rawls is still going to make it.
My god. Arnold and I agree about something.
Now what am I doing wrong?
Kuhn…….a long way to fall before he stops being very widely read (or at least cited).
I think the last point is the important one. Who knows what will be ebing cited next year, let alone in the next century. On Kuhn and scientific revolutions. I think they call them information cascades these days: check out the Watts, Barabasi , Buchanan set if your interested.
I’m going to join Dell Adams above and throw Ken Wilber into the ring. Synthesizing Western and Eastern philosophies and on-going psychological research into the nature of consciousness opens up a vast realm for philosophical exploration. Wilber’s work is of great importance in this process. Plus, he is an independent philosopher who makes a living from his books and thus is having and influence outside the narrow confines of academic philosophy.
Maybe we should do a “philosophical time capsule.” Do a survey and put in the top ten or so texts that people think will still be of importance in 100 years.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review