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. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  2. Mark's avatar
  3. Mark Robert Taylor's avatar

    At the risk of self-advertising:… You claim “AI is unusual in degree, not in kind” and “It is not clear…

  4. F.E. Guerra-Pujol's avatar

    Apropos of Sagar’s wish to foist the A.I. industry by its own petard, this article appeared in print in yesterday’s…

  5. Claudio's avatar

    I teach both large courses, like Jurisprudence and Critical Legal Thinking (a.k.a Legal Argumentation), and small seminar-based courses at Edinburgh…

  6. Charles Pigden's avatar

    Surely there is an answer to the problem of AI cheating which averts the existential threat. . It’s not great,…

  7. Mark's avatar

    I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…

Modern philosophers who have had the most pernicious influence on philosophy

Brian Leiter

I closed the poll after 510 votes because it got linked by one non-philosophy site; as it is, it isn't clear to me that everyone voting was answering the question asked (about pernicious influence on philosophy), but perhaps we'll find out in discussion.  In any case, here were the top 20

1. Martin Heidegger  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. G.W.F. Hegel  loses to Martin Heidegger by 211–124
3. Michel Foucault  loses to Martin Heidegger by 253–81, loses to G.W.F. Hegel by 197–112
4. Ludwig Wittgenstein  loses to Martin Heidegger by 259–112, loses to Michel Foucault by 184–145
5. Theodor Adorno  loses to Martin Heidegger by 240–68, loses to Ludwig Wittgenstein by 176–120
6. Rene Descartes  loses to Martin Heidegger by 263–100, loses to Theodor Adorno by 150–113
7. Friedrich Nietzsche  loses to Martin Heidegger by 262–92, loses to Rene Descartes by 158–153
8. Immanuel Kant  loses to Martin Heidegger by 273–85, loses to Friedrich Nietzsche by 163–155
9. Karl Marx  loses to Martin Heidegger by 267–73, loses to Immanuel Kant by 160–122
10. Soren Kierkegaard  loses to Martin Heidegger by 285–41, loses to Immanuel Kant by 157–111
11. Jean-Paul Sartre  loses to Martin Heidegger by 270–59, loses to Karl Marx by 141–122
12. Henri Bergson  loses to Martin Heidegger by 259–45, loses to Jean-Paul Sartre by 125–90
13. Edmund Husserl  loses to Martin Heidegger by 286–36, loses to Henri Bergson by 122–85
14. W.V.O. Quine  loses to Martin Heidegger by 273–87, loses to Edmund Husserl by 127–121
15. Karl Popper  loses to Martin Heidegger by 276–73, loses to W.V.O. Quine by 135–104
16. Rudolf Carnap  loses to Martin Heidegger by 272–67, loses to Karl Popper by 119–105
17. David K. Lewis  loses to Martin Heidegger by 269–72, loses to Rudolf Carnap by 114–108
18. G.E.M. Anscombe  loses to Martin Heidegger by 267–49, loses to David K. Lewis by 110–96
19. John Dewey  loses to Martin Heidegger by 265–52, loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 101–90
20. George Berkeley  loses to Martin Heidegger by 273–54, loses to G.E.M. Anscombe by 97–86
Runners-up:   J.L. Austin  loses to Martin Heidegger by 266–55, loses to David K. Lewis by 117–96
                     Donald Davidson  loses to Martin Heidegger by 278–60, loses to J.L. Austin by 115–84

I confess the results are genuinely puzzling.  Mindless hate for Continental figures?  Maybe.  Three of my favorite philosophers are in the top ten (Foucault, Nietzsche, Marx), though I can agree that Foucault did have some pernicious influence on other philosophers.   But Nietzsche?  Maybe if influence based on misunderstanding counts.  Heidegger, Hegel, Wittgenstein, and (I think) Kant were all in my "top ten" for most pernicious influence, but I imagine my reasons may not have been the typical ones.  But Descartes?  He seems to be in odd company here!  I would have expected both Quine and D.K. Lewis to rate more highly, because they both are representative of a kind of philosophy that has both strong adherents and strong detractors.  Perhaps they weren't deemed to be important and influential enough to qualify as having a pernicious influence?

The strength of "dislike" as measured by ranking a philosopher #1 for pernicious influence varies quite a bit, and doesn't entirely track the top 20 ranking.  Heidegger, to be sure, leads with 105 #1 votes, and Wittgenstein and Hegel are next up with 49 #1 votes each.  But Kant (#8 overall) is not far behind with 37 #1 votes, well ahead of Nietzsche (17 #1 votes), Marx (29 #1 votes), Foucault (12 #1 votes), and Adorno (also 12 #1 votes).  Indeed, it is surelys triking that "top ten" philosophers like Nietzsche, Foucault and Adorno got fewer #1 votes than Quine (24 #1 votes), David K. Lewis (20 #1 votes), and Descartes (33 #1 votes).  David Hume, who was nowhere near the top 20, received 10 #1 votes as most "pernicious."  Others who appeared in the "top 20" who received relatively little intense hate:  Sartre (6 #1 votes), Kierkegaard and Popper (8 #1 votes each), and Anscombe (no #1 votes).  Of course, perhaps these are judgments that these figures, while "pernicious" in their influence, aren't influential enough to warrant a #1 ranking. 

Comments are open for readers to explain their votes.  Signed comments will be preferred. I'll weigh in with my own explanation after awhile.

Leave a Reply to Roger Eichorn Cancel reply

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

21 responses to “Modern philosophers who have had the most pernicious influence on philosophy”

  1. Presskorn

    Descartes' odd company, I think, could be explained by the continentally minded votes that probably, after all, did weigh in against the analytical majority of votes. Continental fans of Heidegger and Wittgenstein will tend to think that Descartes' dualism, whose influence cannot be denied, is the tragedy of modern philosophy. The numbers could prove me right or wrong here, i.e. I would expect a low co-incidence between dislike for Descartes and dislike for Wittgenstein and Heidegger.

    Reply
  2. Jon Mitchell

    Personally, like Brian, i find these results antithetical to my own interests and views about a whole number of these philosophers. With regards §1 (and perhaps a number of the others), I think the onus would be on those who consistently ranked Heidegger as having 'the most pernicious influence on philosophy' to explain why they did so.

    My sense, of at least the sense i have got from anyone who has ever spent much time or concerted effort reading Heidegger, is that his philosophy, whilst not without its problems, has a lot of very interesting and ultimately rewarding aspects. For instance how many of those who ranked him as §1 pernicious influence could genuinely claim to have actually read, let alone sympathetically tried to understand 'Being and Time' or 'What is called thinking'. And moreover, to have done so with at least a working knowledge of Phenomenology as expressed in Husserl. Whilst speculative my sense is that, like with Nietzsche and Marx, there is perhaps a certain caricature of Heidegger that exists in the minds of those whose philosophical predilections lie elsewhere. Perhaps coupled with the problematic link with the Nazi's then this perhaps accounts for this ranking. Like Brian says with Nietzsche, 'if influence based on misunderstanding counts', then perhaps Heidegger is oddly seen as the actually grandfather (rather than Nietzsche) of a whole host of post-structuralist hog-wash and cod philosophy, however my sense has always been that this association, like with Nietzsche, is problematic and often based on some very idiosyncratic readings of Heidegger.

    Moreover, is this 'pernicious influence' supposed to reflect current 'bad trends' in Philosophy or, as one expects, does this reflect rather a certain smugness amongst both modern strictly compartmentalized philosophers and hog-wash Deleuzians and alike that we have 'got beyond' figures like Heidegger, Nietzsche, Marx etc. If the judgement is being made on influence more concretely within philosophy departments then it seems none of these figures have much sway any more (if they ever really did).

    Unfortunately, i think it becomes fashionable to hate certain philosophers, usually in fact because at some point one or more of those in the top ten of this list gained more widespread philosophical popularity outside the academy. Sartre in fact is a typical example, he became too popular in the late 50's and early 60's after which point he was for a very long while cast off as being naive, as some closet Cartesian, a not a 'genuine' philosopher etc. It appears these things come full circle though, since in the last 5 or ten years, after it seemed that Sartre could really not become any more 'unpopular', he actually has started to be reintroduced as having genuine philosophical contributions by a number of prominent philosophers (Poellner, Sebastien Gardner to mention but two).

    Reply
  3. Phil Rees

    For the benefit of non academic philosophers, could we get some kind of statistics as to whose views this poll represents – in terms of US versus European, academic versus non-academic, etc.

    BL COMMENT: Alas, such statistics are not available. The majority of the readership is from the U.S., Canada, and Britain, with smaller but still sizable percentages from Australasia, France, Germany, and elsewhere.

    Reply
  4. James Camien McGuiggan

    First of all, thanks very much for running this poll!

    I also suspect the explanation is to do with misunderstanding. I wonder if a more illuminating poll would be to ask readers to vote for the philosopher who has had the most illuminating or helpful effect on current trends in philosophy. Then you can be sure that whoever people vote for will be someone they've understood, insofar as people tend to better understand those whom they find illuminating and true and so on.

    Reply
  5. Jbogart

    I do not see why the "onus would be on those who consistently ranked Heidegger as having 'the most pernicious influence on philosophy' to explain why they did so." Why would ranking Heidegger #1 be different from ranking Frege #1?

    BL COMMENT: I think in general those who denominated some philosopher as having the most pernicious influence might offer an explanation. (I'm not sure Frege actually got any #1 votes, as an aside.)

    Reply
  6. Dean C. Rowan

    I did not vote, because I am in no way qualified to vote. Nevertheless, I have an opinion about the question surveyed. It seems to me the question invites exactly this sort of response, because if you exclude as you did charlatans from the population of candidates, you're left with "real" philosophers whose work generates controversy, because it is either frequently misunderstood or dogmatically misapplied, not least by charlatans. This leaves a back door for the reemergence of the excluded charlatans. Thus, Nietzsche's harmful influence can be attributed to Derrida et al. Back in 1992 a young up-and-coming scholar in both law and philosophy published a piece in the Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities that took to task legal scholars who practice a superficial sort of interdisciplinary scholarship. That scholarship would invoke a famous philosopher (Nietzsche, Rorty [whose absence here is remarkable], Foucault, etc.) without doing the hard work of understanding how these thinkers are currently received among philosophers. Instead, a citation to and flip reading of Nietzsche gives the legal scholar an exaggerated authority, at least as perceived by other legal scholars who are also unfamiliar with current philosophical opinions of Nietzsche's work. (The author of the 1992 piece refers to this name-dropping as "pretense of intellectual sophistication" and "a cocktail party affectation.") In short, these philosophers had a pernicious influence on legal scholarship. Why shouldn't the same occur within philosophy itself?

    BL COMMENT: I appreciate Dean Rowan remembering my old article! But in the Nietzsche case, the misreadings were just sophomoric by the Harvard Law School professor in question. Rorty had not ranked well in the prior surveys, which is why I neglected to include him here. I also suspect that Rorty's pernicious influence, which was substantial, was almost entirely *outside* philosophy.

    Reply
  7. David Shope

    @Jbogart

    The relevant norms are implied in these remarks:

    "For instance how many of those who ranked him as §1 pernicious influence could genuinely claim to have actually read, let alone sympathetically tried to understand 'Being and Time' or 'What is called thinking'. And moreover, to have done so with at least a working knowledge of Phenomenology as expressed in Husserl."

    I think the idea is that in the case of Heidegger, there is good reason to be skeptical that many people, much less many people who think very negatively of him, have actually given a good-faith effort to understand him, understood him, and then decided that his philosophy has pernicious influence.

    One might think one needn't understand Heidegger to deem his philosophy's influence pernicious. One can look at the influence itself and judge how pernicious his influence was as a result. But then the problem is that many of the philosophers that Heidegger influenced (e.g. Derrida, Foucault, Sartre) themselves are demanding to understand and are not often read charitably and in good faith to the point of comprehension.

    One way to *still* not understand Heidegger *or* his influences and have legitimate cause to deem them pernicious is, presumably, to suggest that Heidegger helped instigate a lot of obscure and unnecessarily unclear philosophy and that this stylistic influence is pernicious. Jon Mitchell's point may still apply here: one can only judge the level of obscurity if one is familiar with the philosophical context in which Heidegger wrote and many people, including detractors, are not familiar with that context. One thing that is interesting about the poll results is that many of the top-voted philosophers have reputations for being stylistically difficult or opaque.

    There are probably other philosophers that we would have to be skeptical that there was enough good-faith comprehension of to vote #1 (perhaps Frege is one, perhaps all philosophers on the poll are). I think Brian is correct that generally it would be good for anyone who voted to explain their #1 pick, so it's probably over-determined anyway.

    On another note: Descartes might be highly rated by naturalist philosophers of mind and neo-Aristotelians, it's not just continental philosophy that often has a bone to pick with him.

    Reply
  8. Lucius Sorrentino

    I'd certainly be interested to know why "Heidegger, Hegel, Wittgenstein, and (I think) Kant were all in my 'top ten' for most pernicious influence".

    I also don't understand the inclusion of Henri Bergson, Edmund Husserl or G.E.M. Anscombe as having had a pernicious influence on philosophy. Also, from the looks of it, there certainly seems to be a prima facie bias against continental philosophers, for whatever reason.

    Reply
  9. Roger Eichorn

    I like a good list as much as the next guy. I devour year-end best-of lists, even though I think the very idea behind them is misguided (the will to measure everything with a single yardstick). At best, they're fodder for discussion or reflection. Often, I find they're more interesting for what they say about the list-maker(s) than for what they say about their subject(s). I think this is true here.

    This particular list, I suspect, represents an exercise in pointing to influential philosophers whom the list-makers do not refer to in their own work — most likely because they've never read much of said philosopher, and certainly not charitably (i.e., not as one tends to read a philosopher whom one has been introduced to in an informed, sympathetic way).

    Now, of course the list is supposed to be about these philosophers' _influence_, not their actual work. But, first, I doubt the two have been (or can be) clearly distinguished. Second, it's decidedly difficult to pin down 'influence' (or 'perniciousness,' for that matter). Say what you will about Heidegger, but his influence has been so immense and wide-ranging that it's hard even to be clear on how to measure or assess that influence. To label it all 'pernicious' without further ado just seems silly to me (if not itself pernicious). The same goes for Hegel, and many others on this list. But that's the nature of the beast: misguided if taken seriously, but interesting as a jumping-off point for discussion or reflection.

    (What I mean by "misguided when taken seriously" is, e.g., the idea that young philosophers would be advised to look at this list and calibrate their reading and their interests accordingly. That would be deeply unfortunate, it seems to me. Every philosopher on this list is interesting, important, and — all else being equal — worthy of a philosopher's time and attention.)

    BL COMMENT: I would be astonished if anyone looked at this list as a guide to what they should or should not read! What this does tell us is something about prevalent attitudes, especially in Anglophone philosophy, about different figures in the modern traditions.

    Reply
  10. Joseph Streeter

    It's perhaps a little off topic, but I'm interested in how far we can hold philosopher's responsible for the perniciousness of their influence. In his interview with 3am magazine, Tim Crane seems to suggest that Wittgenstein's influence was pernicious (he describes a lot of contemporary Wittgensteinian work as 'dogmatic and ideological), but he also acknowledges finding 'a lot of what Wittgenstein says very interesting and stimulating,' and to having been 'inspired by many of his insights.' So it seems clear that he does not regard Wittgenstein's philosophy as pernicious per se, although I suppose he may think it so in certain respects. Crane suggests that contemporary Wittgensteinians exaggerate the degree to which Wittgenstein had himself worked out answers to the problems he posed, but I can see how Wittgenstein's writings might themselves encourage a certain dogmatism in readers.

    Reply
  11. Michael Wedin

    One needs to distinguish between the most pernicious influence and the most insidious content. Thus, I agree that Wittgenstein is high on the first register, because of his reception in broader circles, but not at all high on the second. Indeed, I think serious and extended work on his published pair of works (TLP and PI) is to be encouraged. They're important contributions.

    The same cannot be said for Heidegger and Foucault. Nor am I much of a fan of Adorno or, apologies to Brian, Neitzsche, all of whose works I've read without extracting much of philosophical value. Making "philosophical sense" of some of these characters seems to require a big too much interpetation.

    Quine's influence is not pernicious, despite the fact that he is not universally beloved, simply because the highly analytical nature of his work is not easily appropriated in wider intellectual climes. Mention Quine in polite intellectual society and you'll get little more than an odd stare.

    BL COMMENT: It's not too late Michael, read my book on Nietzsche, so you can see what you missed!

    Reply
  12. s. wallerstein

    Are people aware that Karl Popper was one of the founders of the Mont Pelerin society in 1947?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

    Given that, I don't know why Popper was not ranked perhaps number two after Heidegger. I assume that Heidegger is so unpopular because of his Nazism.

    While I would not claim that the ultra-neoliberal free market capitalism preached by the Mont Pelerin society is as noxious as Nazism, it hardly has exercised a benign influence on our societies.

    Reply
  13. Jeremy Fantl

    Brian, do you have the data on which philosophers got the most votes at #42 (least pernicious)?

    BL COMMENT: Follow the link to the site, you can check there. But since #42 is the default rank, it can be misleading–if someone only voted for a handful of philosophers, most will get #42. But this would also tell us something about philosophers who, as it were, caught everyone's 'eye' and so were ranked somewhere ahead of others.

    Reply
  14. Jbogart

    @Shope
    The assumption that those who ranked Heidegger's work high on the pernicious scale have not read him is just speculation. I do not see why you or Mitchell assume your colleagues acted in bad faith, or are small-minded nits. If one could only vote on the pernicious effect of the philosophers whose major works one had read, read sympathetically, and in the context of reading the direct precursors and influences, there would be a pretty small population of qualified voters, setting aside the motivational problem one would face and setting aside that there is no obvious reason why those would be requirements to assess the influence, pernicious or benevolent, of Heidegger or Descartes or Quine, etc., on philosophy. Assessing the influence is not assessing the work.

    Reply
  15. Jon Mitchell

    @Jbogart

    @Jbogart
    With regards your first post:
    ‘I do not see why the "onus would be on those who consistently ranked Heidegger as having 'the most pernicious influence on philosophy' to explain why they did so." Why would ranking Heidegger #1 be different from ranking Frege #1?’

    I think its reasonable enough, even for just curiosities sake, to have at least some of those who ranked Heidegger 1 to explain the rationale for doing so, as would be the same if Frege was ranked §1. Also insofar as Heidegger was overall ranked §1 then it seems there appear to be some shared criteria on the basis on which a lot of people are making the same assessment. The requirement for reasons is only particular to Heidegger insofar as he came out on top, not particular to Heidegger because it is Heidegger.

    With regards your second post:

    I think a couple of moving parts are at play here, so it may be helpful to break down exactly what I meant with regards some of these issues. There seems to be an ambiguity, highlighted by one or two or the other comments above, in terms of what exactly is at stake here, or what is reasonably thought to follow from making the assessment that a particular philosopher has had a ‘pernicious influence on philosophy’. It seems two quite different claims might be being run together (and I myself might have in fact ran them together a little in my original post), which are 1. Pernicious influence on other particular philosophers in which it is at undecided whether or not the buck falls with the original philosopher and 2. Pernicious influence on philosophy in some more general sense, in which it seems that what is at stake is some relevant feature of the content of the work of that philosopher.
    (1) So for instance, as someone who thinks Nietzsche is unparalleled in terms of his philosophical insight, I bemoan the misuse and misunderstanding (to my mind at least) of his philosophy in post-structuralist circles. In this sense I think Nietzsche could be said to have had a pernicious influence, but that the fault lies with the hackneyed interpreters, rather than any fault on Nietzsche’s part. In this instance ‘assessing the influence is not assessing the work’ (as you say). However, I expect no one finds this kind of assessment of ‘pernicious influence’ really that interesting. If such a poll carries any weight then I expect we think it might in fact tell us something interesting both the reception this figure has had and also about the philosopher in question (hence the perfectly sane request for a rationale for a top ranking).
    (2). So, in the second sense I think we are all inclined to think, as presumably are those who ranked Heidegger at §1, that in doing so they are making some kind of assessment about the quality or style of his work, such that its influence has been pernicious because there is something about that philosophers work that is itself pernicious in a way that reflects upon the philosopher in question. Such that when we talk about ‘influence’ in general, it would seem very odd make a claim to assess such a thing without making some kind of assessment. In this instance I certainly think that ‘assessing the influence is assessing the work’. I assess the ‘influence’ Cartesian mind-body dualism has had on understanding in philosophy of mind as ‘pernicious’ presumably on the basis on an assessment of the spurious nature of some of its key assumptions. Likewise, quite famously Popper ‘assessed the influence’ (a nice way of putting something of philosophical hatchet job) of Plato, Hegel and Marx’ to be very pernicious, not merely because some of their doctrines had been taken up by totalitarian and autocratic states but because there was something inherent in their philosophical outlooks (and in Hegel’s case Popper argued philosophical style also) which made them have a pernicious influence (likewise Adorno’s famous hatchet job on Heidegger and Existentialism). The ‘pernicious influence’ was in all these cases linked back to an assessment of the work of the philosopher(s) in question. I expect it is assessments of these kinds we are really interested in, since there is most at stake in them in terms of people’s philosophical preferences and predilections. In such cases I believe what I said in my first post about having actually read, with a modicum of the sense that one could come to change one’s pre-formed opinion on a philosopher prior to such a reading, to be a relevant response. It is assessments of this kind which surely must be justified and reason-based by the person who makes them.

    Reply
  16. David Shope

    @Jbogart
    I never speculated that those who voted Heidegger highly have not read him. I stated that there is probably reason to be skeptical that most of them met certain requirements for asserting that someone is the most perniciously influential philosopher of all time and you apparently agree that there would only be a very small pool of voters that would meet those requirements.

    I never called anyone "small-minded nits" or accused them of "bad faith." I also acknowledged that there is a distinction between assessing influence and assessing work. In fact, I spent two paragraphs discussing it.

    Reply
  17. Michael B

    I find these polls interesting because of, not despite, the self-selection issues around who may be responding.

    But some – not all – of these comments are nice illustrations of what happens when you look for your hypothesis in the data (and why you should not do that).

    Reply
  18. Frustrated

    I am not remotely surprised by the results. I am trained as an "analytic" philosopher in a department with that inclination. I understand that you're at Chicago where things are different, Brian, but the majority of American philosophers have a rabid distaste for all things "continental" despite never having taken the time to read it. (Of course, the reason for this is that reading good "continental" philosophy is difficult. It requires an understanding of history and it requires the reader to take the time to reflect on what is being said. Far too bothersome.)

    BL COMMENT: Actually, the situation is much better now than it was 20 years ago, but it is true that there is still lots of parochialism in Anglophone philosophy.

    Reply
  19. Alois Hegel

    I think people did not understand the question. They understood it as asking 'Philosophers who had have the most influence on philosophy'. Or in short 'Greatest Philosophers of all times'

    BL COMMENT: Hope springs eternal!

    Reply
  20. Alexander B

    I wonder whether people took the poll serious enough in order to discuss the result seriously. Did they thought about appropriate criteria for being pernicious in philosophy? Is it spreading of (in the voter's view) wrong ideas? Is it obstruction of clear thinking?
    What I am really surprised about is the high rank of Wittgenstein. It makes me think that some voters equalled "pernicious" with "disturbs the philosophical daily grind" (which, at least if is done as thoughtfully as it was done by Wittgenstein, I consider rather a mark of sanitary influence…).

    Reply
  21. CJ

    3 reasons for voting for Heidegger:

    1) He helped kill neo-Kantianism, the death of which was a significant loss to philosophy.

    2) He helped direct phenomenology as a movement away from some of the more interesting things to be found in Husserl, to the extent that the latter is still under-appreciated today.

    3) Though he didn't, of course, invent the pernicious philosophical tradition of claiming to be the first person in history who gets what's really important, his version of that claim has been unusually influential.

    (I suppose there is an implicit 4th claim: that he didn't have enough positive effects to make up for these three negatives.)

    For the record, I haven't read any of Heidegger's own works, but: (a) I have a policy of not reading philosophy in languages other than my first language (English) if possible, unless I have already read a lot of secondary lit in English to prepare; (b) I have read a certain amount about Heidegger, albeit not with any great seriousness; (c) I don't think my three claims rest on an understanding of Heidegger's work, more on an awareness of his place in modern history.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress