Who are the 'Philosophers' anyway?

[Martin Cohen]

There's been some commentary on the Ayn Rand article, and in particular, what I 'imagined' to be a relatively uncontroversial change of the description of Ayn Rand from 'philosopher' to 'novelist'.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand#Awfully_critical

But others think not. Larry and Hayford think - do I have this right- that 'a philospher' is anyone who has a degree in the subject. Well, mayb e, but then we have to have a new category of 'philosophers' to match how the term is used everywhere else. Otherwise we have a list of British philosphers that runs Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Cohen and honestly it isn't what people expect in an encyclopedia. IN everyday interchanges here, yes, I don't mind being 'a philospher', and Larry is one too - but in the encyclopedic sense? I think we need a higher standard - something like this:

When someone is designated 'a philosopher' in an encyclopdia it should be because they have produced a work recognised by a significant number of the community of scholars (not just academic philosophers, but nor is it the general public) as a contribution to philosophical knowledge.

So Ayn Rands claim, I suggest, rests NOT on usage - popularityis quite irrelevant, but on her supposed contribution - 'objectivism'. Yet it does not take much time to see that this is a contribution of the kind Scientologists would understand - it is coining of an 'ism' backed by a powerful publicity machine. 'Objectivism' is not recognised by the scholarly community as 'philosophy' at all. In as much as there is a theory, it is a very old one - egoism, or to be more precise, 'infantile egoism'

Or take Mao for instance. Mao wanted to be taken as 'a philosopher' and wrote many self-consciously 'philosophical' works PLUS he contributed a distinctive new philosophy to the world: 'Maoism'. But no one says of him 'the philosopher, Mao Tse Tung, wrote... blah blah blah - and Wikipedia's entry rightly does not introduce him as a philosopher.

With Rand: she, like Mao, like many others presents a 'philosophy' and wishes to be remembered as a 'philosopher'. This, i hazard, is true of just about every academic and quite a few amateur 'philosophers' too. Yet her ideas are not accepted within the philosophy world (and this after a suitable period of time has elapsed) as sufficiently novel or useful to justify her inclusion in the necessarily limited ranks of 'philosophers'. This objection stops all the others becoming 'philosophers' for the purposes of the historical record, it should stop Rand too .

I'd say criteria should be drawn up on a special page.

In passing, Larry and others say the revised Rand article is very 'hostile', and not neutral at all. This certainly comes back to the issue Larry just raised (and I replied to) on 'neutrality. I would say the article corrctly reflects Rand's work - that is to say successful and popular, but criticised both on 'literary' grounds and for its 'philosphical pretensions'. That I would say was the 'neutral' assessment.

I gave quotes from her work, quotes selected by her supporters to show the work in a good light, but set them in the context of critical comment. The impression is perhaps rather poor - but was that a bias in the article ior a weakness in the material?

Anyway, perhaps by coincidence, this article may be a good study for us all of how to make the 'npov' work.

I would hope that consensus would be reached, and that changes will not be simply imposed  - least of all on the basis of straw polls!

[Hayford Peirce]

But others think not. Larry and Hayford think - do I have this right- that 'a philospher' is anyone who has a degree in the subject.

I don't know what Larry thinks about *that* particular remark, but I'm baffled as to how and why you think that I could possibly think such a thing! Personally I think that Ayn Rand is a nut job and as much a philosopher as George Bush the Younger is a Statesman. Or any other improbable analogy you may choose....

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

There's been some commentary on the Ayn Rand article, and in partiular, what I 'imagined' to be a relatively uncontroversial change of the description of Ayn Rand from 'philosopher' to 'novelist'.

Just a note that I'll put in its own thread: can we try to make a point of connecting Forum and article discussions? I've put the URL in above, but I don't know a good way of referring to areas and threads in the Forums from the article pages.

... I think we need a higher standard - something like this:

When someone is designated 'a philosopher' in an encyclopdia it should be because they have produced a work recognised by a significant number of the community of scholars (not just academic philosophers, but nor is it the general public) as a contribution to philosophical knowledge.

That's a start, and not limited to designating someone a "foo"-er. I might ask for a term other than "scholars", which brings up some unfortunate past memories specific to CZ. "Experts", perhaps, for want of a better immediate term.

Or take Mao for instance. Mao wanted to be taken as 'a philosopher' and wrote many self-consciously 'philosophical' works PLUS he contributed a distinctive new philosophy to the world: 'Maoism'. But no one says of him 'the philosopher, Mao Tse Tung, wrote... blah blah blah - and Wikipedia's entry rightly does not introduce him as a philosopher.

Well, WP is not exactly taken as a reference here.

Nevertheless, is there any serious argument that Mao is taken very seriously as a political and military theorist, as well as practitioner? Some millions of bodies attest to that.

Philosophy has a blurry boundary. "Natural philosophy" is, I feel safe to say, considered an obsolete term, but "political philosophy"?

... necessarily limited ranks of 'philosophers'. This objection stops all the others becoming 'philosophers' for the purposes of the historical record, it should stop Rand too .

Limiting ranks is an interesting problem indeed. Alexander the Great, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Vo Nguyen Giap attended no military studies. Only the last wrote about military theory, and his work definitely blurs into politics and philosophy -- Marxism and variants run through the pages.

In passing, Larry and others say the revised Rand article is very 'hostile', and not neutral at all. This certainly comes back to the issue Larry just raised (and I replied to) on 'neutrality. I would say the article corrctly reflects Rand's work - that is to say successful and popular, but criticised both on 'literary' grounds and for its 'philosphical pretensions'. That I would say was the 'neutral' assessment.

Before you say "pretentions", I suggest there be a firm definition of philosopher. As in Mao's case, when people are willing to die -- and kill -- for what they consider a philosophy, I'm not willing to reject that in favor of literary criticism.

[Hayford Peirce]

With Rand: she, like Mao, like many others presents a 'philosophy' and wishes to be remembered as a 'philosopher'.

Well, I certainly agree with you there. Remember the noted American "philosopher" Hugh Hefner who, for a number of years in the 1960s wrote a monthly article for his magazine called The Playboy Philosophy? Whatever the merits of his various comments, whoever wrote it was probably a better writer than Ayn Rand. But, of course, no more of a true "philosopher".

In passing, Larry and others say the revised Rand article is very 'hostile', and not neutral at all. This certainly comes back to the issue Larry just raised (and I replied to) on 'neutrality. I would say the article corrctly reflects Rand's work - that is to say successful and popular, but criticised both on 'literary' grounds and for its 'philosphical pretensions'. That I would say was the 'neutral' assessment.

I think that Larry is objecting to the fact that there are several black and white declarations by the author of the article that not everyone might agree with and that these adjectives and/or adverbs need to be replaced and/or modified in order to give a more neutral approach to the article. For instance in the second paragraph, it was flatly stated that "there is nothing resembling an argument". Oh, really? Are you certain that every qualified person in the world would agree with that statement? I have changed it to read "there is little resembling an argument".  And it may well be that it should actually read, "Many qualified observers feel that there is little resembling an argument" or some other qualified statement.

None of which is say that I believe that she actually is a philosopher -- just that we should be careful to preserve neutrality here.

[Larry Sanger]

In passing, Larry and others say the revised Rand article is very 'hostile', and not neutral at all. This certainly comes back to the issue Larry just raised (and I replied to) on 'neutrality. I would say the article corrctly reflects Rand's work - that is to say successful and popular, but criticised both on 'literary' grounds and for its 'philosphical pretensions'. That I would say was the 'neutral' assessment.

But it's not.  'Neutral' in the context of CZ doesn't mean whatever you think it means; it means what [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]] says it means.

Sorry I don't have time to write more...the fam is going to take a trip.

[Larry Sanger]

I do want to say this.  If you think that we must either decide to call Rand a philosopher or not, you are not understanding the requirements of our neutrality policy.  Since there will not be general agreement, even among experts, on the question whether Rand should be called a philosopher, we need to describe the facts in some more attenuated fashion.  We say, for example, "Ayn Rand was a novelist and, for some, a philosopher..."  Or, "Ayn Rand was a novelist and amateur philosopher[1]" (footnote).  Etc.  Let your imagination run wild.

[Martin Cohen]

I think that Larry is objecting to the fact that there are several black and white declarations by the author of the article that not everyone might agree with and that these adjectives and/or adverbs need to be replaced and/or modified in order to give a more neutral approach to the article. For instance in the second paragraph, it was flatly stated that "there is nothing resembling an argument". Oh, really? Are you certain that every qualified person in the world would agree with that statement? I have changed it to read "there is little resembling an argument".  And it may well be that it should actually read, "Many qualified observers feel that there is little resembling an argument" or some other qualified statement.

Well, some might call that 'weasel' words, but I take your point. And in fact I agree with you - if there is a degree of divergence in views, articles should avoid being too 'black and white'. Your phrase "there is little resembling an argument" looks about right, once could even clarify further "or at least not in the strict philosophic sense".

As for Rand as 'philosopher'. ow Larry suggests that where there is no agreement on 'who is a philosopher' we use a 'qualifier term'. I don't like the one's he offers, but I agree with the approach.

My suggestion is something like: Rand is a novelist whose writings are considered by some to contain a distinctive philosophy of life, known as 'Objectivism'.

Mind you, its not that different from what I did offer before, viz:

'Ayn Rand(1905-82)  was a Russian-born twentieth century  novelist, nowadays credited as the founder of the philosophical movement called Objectivism'

Or take Mao, he surely has a better claim to be a philosopher, and indeed I would call 'Maoism' a true branch of political philosophy. But it still does not make good sense to describe him as a twentieth century Chinese philosopher... does it? Any more than (to my mind) it does to call Rand a 20th century american philosopher. In fact to do so just confuses. Its not 'bias' that makes me avoid the term, its 'good editing'. The term we use should be the one that most accurately reflects what the person was and did.

Mao was a political leader who also wrote various ideas down about 'how to rule'. Rand was a novelist whose books also include various ideas about how people should live. It seems to me that we should restirc tthe term philosopher to those whose 'main activity' was philosophising (inside or outside academe).

What do others think?

[Hayford Peirce]

Mao was a political leader who also wrote various ideas down about 'how to rule'. Rand was a novelist whose books also include various ideas about how people should live. It seems to me that we should restirc tthe term philosopher to those whose 'main activity' was philosophising (inside or outside academe).

What do others think?

Personally I agree with you.  And my semi-facetious example of Hugh Hefner would fit right in there with the others.  He took himself seriously, and so, I believe, did many thousands of his readers.  An article about Hugh might begin, "....American publisher, hedonist, and self-proclaimed philosopher."

Which reminds me of my favorite dictionary definition: the old Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate, probably the 3rd or 4th edition, which I had 45 years ago, called Antoine Marie etc. etc. de Sade "French soldier and pervert".  Hehe....

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I think that Larry is objecting to the fact that there are several black and white declarations by the author of the article that not everyone might agree with and that these adjectives and/or adverbs need to be replaced and/or modified in order to give a more neutral approach to the article. For instance in the second paragraph, it was flatly stated that "there is nothing resembling an argument". Oh, really? Are you certain that every qualified person in the world would agree with that statement? I have changed it to read "there is little resembling an argument".  And it may well be that it should actually read, "Many qualified observers feel that there is little resembling an argument" or some other qualified statement.

Well, some might call that 'weasel' words, but I take your point. And in fact I agree with you - if there is a degree of divergence in views, articles should avoid being too 'black and white'. Your phrase "there is little resembling an argument" looks about right, once could even clarify further "or at least not in the strict philosophic sense".

As for Rand as 'philosopher'. ow Larry suggests that where there is no agreement on 'who is a philosopher' we use a 'qualifier term'. I don't like the one's he offers, but I agree with the approach.

My suggestion is something like: Rand is a novelist whose writings are considered by some to contain a distinctive philosophy of life, known as 'Objectivism'.

Mind you, its not that different from what I did offer before, viz:

'Ayn Rand(1905-82)  was a Russian-born twentieth century  novelist, nowadays credited as the founder of the philosophical movement called Objectivism'

Without judging who is, and is not, a "good" philosopher, I think a reasonable case can be made for Rand making a serious attempt to...practice?...philosopher-izing. Remember that her writings were not limited to novels. One nonfiction book that comes to mind, for example, is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. In other words, she didn't simply try to express philosophical ideas through the speeches of characters in novels.

There were her regular salons in New York, and such things as the Nathaniel Branden Institute (until she broke with Branden).  She was known for some strange utterances in the salons, but also explicitly discussed what she considered philosophical ideas. Now, as to the weird, one may notice that her fictional characters do make a lot of references to smoking. In person, she essentially insisted that her disciples smoke cigarettes, and she'd turn off the lights and tell them to meditate on the glowing coal as symbolic of man's mastery over fire. That extended to the street, where she'd thank belching smokestacks.

Of course, if one examines her interactions with another "political philosopher' out in the New Right, Andy Galambos, one can understand why, within the first five minutes after meeting, they declared one another insane.

In a different area, I can think of very serious and effective people that call themselves bioethicists, although their training might have been medical rather than philosophical. Few would call themselves philosophers, but would one argue ethics is not a branch of philosophy?

One of these days, wearing a Military Workgroup hat, I really must do articles on just war theory and military ethics. Augustine and Aquinas certainly contributed to those topics, but, while Aquinas is probably universally accepted as a philosopher, that's not the usual first descriptor. Many who contributed to just war theory, especially its incorporation into international law, will call themselves attorneys or politicians -- but are they not quite seriously practicing philosophical investigation?

[Hayford Peirce]

Okay, here's another question: Is Dan Dennett, seen peeking through the roof beams of my porch-under-construction in Tahiti at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Daniel_C._Dennett, a:

1.) A philosopher?

2.) A professor of philosopher?

3.) A popularizer of philosophy, disdained by *real* philosophers?

4.) A combination of some of the above?

4.) Or what?

[Larry Sanger]

Dan Dennett is both a professional philosopher and a popularizer.

[Hayford Peirce]

Dan Dennett is both a professional philosopher and a popularizer.

Great! I have rewritten the lede of the Dennett article to read:

'''Daniel Clement Dennett''' is a philosopher, a professor of philosophy at [[Tufts University|Tufts]], and the author of several best-selling books popularizing various aspects of philosophy, including  ''Breaking the Spell'', ''Freedom Evolves'' and ''Darwin's Dangerous Idea''.

[Martin Cohen]

Dan Dennett is both a professional philosopher and a popularizer.

How about - an academic philosopher. That he popularises the subject is commendable - but surely not necessary to include?

BTW, I've rejigged the Rand page, yes she does 'philosophise', but not all who do that can be counted as 'philosophers'. My suggestion is that that judgement is made by the 'philosophical community'... we might add too, 'history', but we would have to wait a bit longer for that.

Dan Dennett, I suspect will be forgotten in 50 years, and his writings likewise, but he will at least remain 'historically', an academic philosopher.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

the 'philosophical community'...

Who are?

[Hayford Peirce]

Dan Dennett is both a professional philosopher and a popularizer.

How about - an academic philosopher. That he popularises the subject is commendable - but surely not necessary to include?

Whenever the New York Times wants a "philosopher's" take on something, there is Dan -- occasionally on the front page of that August Institution. And aside from Doug Hofstater, who else is a well-known popularizer?  The fact that some of his books are bestsellers sure makes them notable to me! Not to include this info in an article about Dennett would be like writing an article about Steven King and calling him a philanthropist and youth-baseball-league enthusiastic who lives in Bangor, Maine -- and omitting any mention of his novels. It may well be that both Dennett and King will be forgotten 50 years from now, but in the here and now, if someone sees either of their faces in the NYT, then I think CZ articles about them ought to contain the info about their main claim to fame in public life.