Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. J.P. Loo's avatar
  2. Sebastian Sunday Grève's avatar
  3. Giovanni Molteni Tagliabue's avatar
  4. Fabien Muller's avatar
  5. Saul Smilansky's avatar

Taylor Wins Templeton Prize

Charles Taylor–whose influential work has ranged across political philosophy, post-Kantian German and French philosophy, philosophy of mind, ethics, and philosophy of the social sciences–is this year’s winner of the  somewhat peculiar Templeton Prize, which is awarded for "progress toward research or discoveries about spiritual realities," and in practice has seemed to recognize mainly scientists friendly to religion and/or apologists for religion.  The list of previous prize winners is a rather motley collection, and only one philosopher has received the prize previously, the well-known environmental ethicist Holmes Rolston III at Colorado State University, who is also a Presbyterian minister (according to the Templeton site).

The Templeton Prize comes with a huge cash award (US 1.5 million dollars) which seems to be the main reason it attracts attention.

Some Canadian readers tell me that the media there (Taylor is emeritus at McGill, and teaches part-time now at Northwestern) have been describing this as "the Nobel Prize of philosophy," which it obviously isn’t (the Schock Prize is as close as philosophy gets, and that is too heavily skewed towards formal work to be a real surrogate).  But here’s an amusing query for readers:  if there were a Nobel Prize in philosophy, who among living philosophers should get it and why?  Feel free, of course, to nominate Charles Taylor!  Some obvious figures from the post-War era–like Quine, Rawls, Sartre, and Foucault–are, alas, deceased.  I shall only post non-anonymous comments.  Please post only once, and be patient:  the next couple of days, I am quite busy, and so may not be able to review comments right away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

26 responses to “Taylor Wins Templeton Prize”

  1. Hilary Putnam, for the sheer number of significant ideas he has been at least in part responsible for: the work that led to the solution of Hilbert's 10th problem; the work that led (along with Gold's) to formal learning theory; multiple realizability; functionalism; semantic externalism; modal structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics; the model-theoretic arguments; quantum logic in application to the measurement problem; indispensability arguments; the critique of conventionalism; the 'brain-in-a-vat' argument; and on and on.

  2. It does seem to me that, among living philosophers, Taylor would have to be on the short list– and I don't say that only out of McGill loyalty. Habermas, too.

    One refinement of the hypothetical might be needed: would the prize be, like literature, for lifetime achievement? Or, like the scientific prizes, for one breakthrough? Which model would be appropriate?

    In case people are interested, I've gathered links to some of the coverage of Taylor's prize on my blog. It was especially big news because Taylor had already been much in the headlines; he'd recently been appointed to cochair a major Quebec commission on the accommodation and integration of religious minorities.

  3. Christopher Morris

    I dont wish to nominate anyone, merely to have us reflect how lucky we are that there is no Nobel Prize in Philosophy. Were there one it would work like the Nobel Prize in Literature — different schools and traditions would take their turn. The stuff that would be recognized would be recognized would make us all, even APA Pluralists, ill.

  4. I've played this game for fun with friends before ('greatest living philosopher' is really fun after a few beers!) and Jacob's questions are good ones: body of work, important single work, etc. Leaving that question somewhat open, I might nominate Derek Parfit, given the significance of Reasons and Persons to ethics, personal identity theory, and rationality theory. Given the number of people who are interested in discussing his as-yet-unpublished second book, I'm guessing a lot of people in the field are pretty interested in what he does next.

  5. I don't know about the Nobel Prize, but a friend has just emailed me to say that his next publication is going to be called 'Corporation Tax: The Spiritual Dimension'.

  6. I would nominate Hilary Putnam as well, for the same reasons Steven gives. Teaching his arguments against behaviorism and then for functionalism recently reminded me how well he represents all that is right with the analytic tradition. For philosophy, lifetime achievement seems more appropriate than single breakthrough. Off the top of my head, I can think of very few historical figures we remember and read for a single breakthrough rather than a body of work (except the people we remember for offering some memorable objection to some argument given by a big name).

    If Brian were asking this question a few years ago, I suspect David Lewis would be the winner, though Rawls would give him a run for his money.

  7. Who am I to nominate anyone but my definite choice would be John Perry. I have yet to read a mediocre paper or book by Prof. Perry. He is such a bright source of wisdom and influential ideas. And as if this is not enough, do not forget his extremely good 'public service' at Phil Talk!

  8. oops, forgot to say that my citation for Perry would be "for his outstanding contributions to the analysis of immortality, identity and self, language, truth, belief, knowledge, and information, with an orientation towards naturalistic explanations of attitudes of intelligent agents in a variety of situations."

  9. I agree with Christopher: we are fortunate in many ways not to have a Nobel Prize in Philosophy (although such a prize might also help raise our profession in the eyes of the global public).

    That said, if I had to nominate someone, my vote would be for Martha Nussbaum for her contributions to classics, narrative, the capabilities approach (with Sen), her work on the relationship between emotions and the law, religious freedom, etc. Most of us hope to come up with one nifty idea. Whatever one's criticisms of her positions, I am awe struck at how many major contributions she has been able to offer. I would choose her for a Nobel Prize in Philosophy…if such a prize existed.

  10. Call it a shameless plug, but my nomination would be for Harry Frankfurt for his emissarial work for the discipline as the author of On Bullshit.

  11. Of course, it should be noted that four philosophers have actually won the Nobel Prize (albeit for literature): Henri Bergson, Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, and Albert Camus.

  12. Jerry Fodor. It's his world, we're just living in it.

  13. Are self-nominations allowed?

  14. I'm afraid they are not, Jason, but I would be glad to nominate you in recognition of your seminal contributions to blogging about philosophy!

  15. Rudolf Eucken was also a philosopher who won the Nobel Prize for Literature (1908).

  16. Let me add one of my personal philosophical heroes, Michael Dummett. There's obviously a lot that could be said in his favor, but I take it his contributions to Frege scholarship and the new life he breathed into the realism/anti-realism debate from the 60's onwards are sufficient.

  17. Mark van Roojen

    Amarty Sen is a philosopher among other things and won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1998. (I think I didn't miss anything above when I decided to add this.)

  18. Jürgen Habermas – (perhaps) the last great synthesizer within Western Philosophy in the tradition of Kant, Hegel and Marx.

  19. Hasn't Amartya Sen also won a Nobel prize (for economics)?

    Though, if I remember rightly (possibly from previous discussions on this blog?)there's some kind of controversy over the 'Nobelishness' of the prize in economics.

  20. I would have to endorse the nominations for Putnam — partly for having made so many important contributions to so many important technical debates (e.g. functionalism, phil. of quantum mechanics), but also for his understanding of the history of philosophy and his — if you will — "spirit" of philosophy.

  21. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Kripke.

    That said, I would second the nomination for John Perry.

    And yes: a few years ago, Quine, Davidson, Bernard Williams, David Lewis, and Derrida would all have eclipsed everyone else. It's more wide open now, I think.

  22. Another Nobel winner for literature who was also a philosopher — T.S. Elliot did his PhD in philosophy at Harvard (wrote on Hegel I think).

  23. Brian Weatherson

    If the Economics prize counts as a Nobel, then I think John Harsanyi counts as a philosopher who won the Nobel prize too. He did his (first) PhD in philosophy, and his game theory work is at least on the borders of what counts as formal philosophy.

    Would any of the physics laureates count as philosophers I wonder?

  24. Oh c'mon! Anyone heard of Saul Kripke? Not only did N&N turn a lot upside down, and for the better, but after many years of thorough investigation his remarks on the topics still look incredibly well thought out. And I think he did some other work as well…something on modal logic maybe?

    Oh yeah, on top of that there was a Wittgenstein book in there somewhere–one that I could actually understand and see was important.

  25. re: T.S. Eliot. Sort of: His thesis on F.H. Bradley was accepted in 1916, but immediately thereafter travel conditions from London deteriorated, and as Eliot was planning to sail to the US, Bertrand Russell cabled Eliot's family, "Strongly advise cabling Tom against sailing under present peculiarly dangerous conditions unless immediate degree is worth risking life." Eliot canceled his trip to defend his thesis, and then never got around to it later.

  26. I am suprised no one here has mentioned MacIntyre as a possibility. Taylor or Nussbaum have already been mentioned. Perhaps John Searle. Now perhaps I have just not been keeping up, but it doesn't seem like anyone has been making the sort of contributions of the stature we saw at the beginning of the last century, where Whitehead, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein made there marks. Perhaps the Nobel ought to be reserved for someone of their intellectual power. Yet, again, perhaps this is just nostalgia.

Designed with WordPress