# Who are the US intellectual heavyweights these days re contending social & political philosophies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2012, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795 "2012-05-13T19:07:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/21 "2012-05-19T19:11:59Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I clicked the thread to mention Noam Chomsky, and I’m glad someone beat me to it to deflect some of the trite ridicule. Any Doper tired of the sound of one hand clapping might do well to take time off from GD and read one of his political books. > > Although best noted for his linguistics, Mr. Chomsky is an important thinker on other matters. I don’t see how Chomsky should get any more praise than, say, Steven Spielberg. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/22 "2012-05-19T19:57:42Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > I don’t see how Chomsky should get any more praise than, say, Steven Spielberg. :rolleyes: The question here is not whether Chomsky deserves “praise,” it is whether is a political-intellectual heavyweight, which nobody would even think of claiming for Spielberg. Nobody would deny that Karl Marx was a political-intellectual heavyweight, but you’ll find scant “praise” for him around here, even by those of us who consider his thoughts and legacy worthy of serious discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/23 "2012-05-20T06:26:15Z")
I think Paul Krugman should qualify. He writes a lot about “tweaks to the machine” as you call it simply because he’s resigned to the fact that that’s the best outcome he can hope for at the moment; things would be very different if he had his druthers. For the sake of balance, I’m trying to think of a good conservative that fits the bill, but I think conservativism in America is in such a huge state of flux right now that it really can’t have someone of that caliber until it calms down. Or, perhaps, it will take someone of that caliber _to_ calm it down. ---
**Author:** ![Gobineau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5fc32e/32.png) [@Gobineau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gobineau)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/24 "2012-05-20T18:28:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Plato was an aristocrat, and his philosophy sucks. Bad argument. I claimed an aristocratic environment whichs entails leisure and what Nietzsche called “the pathos of distance” was a _necessary_ condition, not a sufficient one. And that’s leaving aside any judgment on Plato’s philosophical merits. Obviously, many intelligent people have reached a different conclusion on that matter. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/25 "2012-05-20T18:36:35Z")
> [@Gobineau](#): > > Obviously, many intelligent people have reached a different conclusion on that matter. Appeal to authority/popularity. ---
**Author:** ![Gobineau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5fc32e/32.png) [@Gobineau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gobineau)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/26 "2012-05-20T18:41:42Z")
> [@](#): > > John Locke, Edmund Burke, and Adam Smith. None of them Americans. > [@](#): > > New philosophical thought (rather than refining and improving old ones) only occurs when there is a fundamental flaw or crisis in the current philosophy. And I was not referring solely to political philosophy, but philosophy in general. Arguably, America has yet to produce a single philosopher of the first rank. People such as Rawls, Kripke, and Donald Davidson are intelligent fellows, but their philosophy just does not have the profound effect on Western civilization that thinkers like Machiavelli, Kant, Rousseau, Marx, and Nietzsche did. This is as much due to the limitations of Anglo-American analytic philosophy as to any personal shortcomings on their part. But this brand of analytical philosophy is very much a product of the utilitarian, materialist, egalitarian state of mind I mentioned. Hence William James’s definition of truth as “what helps us get by” and the current suggestions that philosophy needs to become science-lite in order to justify its existence. I should note that your comment also betrays a very American attitude: the conviction that there really are no\* fundamental \*flaws in the American system or way of life. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/27 "2012-05-20T18:52:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :rolleyes: The question here is not whether Chomsky deserves “praise,” it is whether is a political-intellectual heavyweight, which nobody would even think of claiming for Spielberg. Nobody would deny that Karl Marx was a political-intellectual heavyweight, but you’ll find scant “praise” for him around here, even by those of us who consider his thoughts and legacy worthy of serious discussion. I guess you just don’t have an appreciation for the arts. No amount of rolley-eyes is going to change my point: there are intellectual heavyweights - it just doesn’t look the same. Besides, even in the days of Plato, who was reading Plato? Who? Realistically speaking, more people were probably influenced by Spielberg’s politics than Chomsky’s. It’s just a matter of lenses, **BrianGlutton**. ---
**Author:** ![Gobineau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5fc32e/32.png) [@Gobineau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gobineau)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/28 "2012-05-20T18:53:41Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Appeal to authority/popularity. Poor reading comprehension skills. I said I was “leaving that aside.” I was not positing that as an argument, because I was well aware of the flaws. My refutation of the previous poster consisted solely in exposing his own choppy logic. Secondly, appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. Since we are dealing with philosophy, taking into consideration the opinion of dozens of the most renowned philosophers (and renowned based on their importance to and respect earned from other philosophers) is not a fallacy. It would not be enough to conclude without a doubt that Plato’s philosophy is deserving of its reputation (and I never made that claim!), but neither could it be brushed aside as irrelevant. In short: Your attempt at clever fails. Hit the books. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/29 "2012-05-20T19:14:05Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Besides, even in the days of Plato, who was reading Plato? Who? Enough that he was able to found a [school](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy) and attract students – and the school lasted almost nine hundred years. He must have had readers. Also, in the late Roman Empire there was a [Neo-Platonist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Platonism) school of philosophy, which means the original Platonist school must have been influential enough to draw on. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/30 "2012-05-20T19:16:20Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Realistically speaking, more people were probably influenced by Spielberg’s politics than Chomsky’s. **Not** because he ever wrote a political book, or could. Shakespeare might have been influential in the way you’re describing, but that does not make him a political intellectual heavyweight. Not even Jonathan Swift could claim that, and he **did** write political books of a kind, not all of them purporting to be fiction. Chomsky might not rank with Plato as a pure philosopher, but as a **political** thinker he is not only better, but far more serious. (_The Republic_ is not in the nature of a serious proposal for any political change.) ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/31 "2012-05-20T19:23:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Enough that he was able to found a [school](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy) and attract students – and the school lasted almost nine hundred years. He must have had readers. Also, in the late Roman Empire there was a [Neo-Platonist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Platonism) school of philosophy, which means the original Platonist school must have been influential enough to draw on. :smack: In the general population - including women, slaves, and peasants. Not limited to the rich folk. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **Not** because he ever wrote a political book, or could. Shakespeare might have been influential in the way you’re describing, but that does not make him a political intellectual heavyweight. Not even Jonathan Swift could claim that, and he **did** write political books of a kind, not all of them purporting to be fiction. > > Chomsky might not rank with Plato as a pure philosopher, **but as a political thinker he is not only better, but far more serious**. (_The Republic_ is not in the nature of a serious proposal for any political change.) _How_ is Chomsky a) a better philosopher and b) more serious? I’m seriously quizzical here, and not just because I don’t agree with Chomsky’s politics. I don’t agree with all of Plato’s, either, obviously, what with it being very outdated and all. And the OP said ‘political or social’. In the age of democracy, you can’t separate the two. What goes on in the social life of Americans is largely related to their politics. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/32 "2012-05-20T19:50:30Z")
> [@Gobineau](#): > > Hit the books. Ad hominem. The only arguments you had in support of Plato’s philosophical merits were fallacious. Your criterion for a philosopher’s rank is their effect on Western civilisation. In what way has Nietzsche influenced Western civilisation? ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/33 "2012-05-20T20:29:59Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > In what way has Nietzsche influenced Western civilisation? Is this a serious question? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/34 "2012-05-20T20:43:34Z")
One problem is that we are currently in the middle of a radical technological series of paradigm shifts in the body politic. It started with Nixon/Kennedy, and hit _an_ apex with Obama’s internet based campaign, coupled with the 24 hour news cycle. I have found that philosophy is most creative and fruitful when there exists a status quo to examine, which is most assuredly not the current state, and has not been for the last twelve years, at a minimum. American social philosophers do exist, they simply have been writing science fiction as much as anything. I give you, for example, the works of William Gibson and Robert Heinlein. Currently, the one I’m most interested in is a Brit, Charles Stross, who examines the concept of a post-singularity humanity in interesting ways. For a good period of time, from 1990 on, academia simply did not understand the transformative capacity of what was happening in the world. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/35 "2012-05-20T20:43:55Z")
> [@florez](#): > > Is this a serious question? A good one. The Nazis and other fascists might have admired Nietzsche, but they clearly did not understand him (insofar as anybody can). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/36 "2012-05-20T20:47:34Z")
OTOH, Nietzsche certainly was influential on fascists. As [John J. Reilly](http://www.johnreilly.info/fah.htm) writes in his review of [_Fascism: A History,_](http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-A-History-Roger-Eatwell/dp/071399147X) by Roger Eatwell: > [@](#): > > Fascism would not have been possible without Friedrich Nietzsche. There has been no lack of anti-theistic philosophers both before and after Nietzsche, but he is almost alone in honestly facing the consequences of living in a world in which everything is permitted. Most thinkers have sought to preserve some fragment of the intellectual structure that depended from the hypothesis of the Christian God, and so they appeal to reason or history or science. Nietzsche would have none of it. If the skies are really empty, then there are no imperatives. There is, however, life, which in the case of human beings expresses itself not just as biology but as the will. Now Nietzsche, unlike Schopenhauer and unlike many of his own followers, recognized the will is itself a composite entity. It is not a primary physical force, and it is not a god. It does, however, actually exist, and its exercise is all the meaning that life can ever have. > > The proposition that the meaning of life is the exercise of the will leads to two kinds of conclusions. The most obvious, and the most popular, is the cult of cruelty. Naturally, the street-fighters who normally figure in the public activities of successful fascist parties are rarely well-read in the literature of philosophical nihilism. Nevertheless, even the nihilist violence of the German SA and the Italian “squadristi” chimes with high theory. Fascism promotes ruthlessness for the same reason that it promotes conspiracy theories: for a fascist, nothing is going to happen unless some will makes it happen. One suspects this consideration is also a factor in the usual fascist suspicion of free markets. > > The other conclusion to which an ontology of the will leads is the transformation of politics into art. Whole societies become instruments for the expression of the will of elites, or often of a single great individual. In fascist theory, this is all that politics ever was, no matter what purportedly disinterested purposes the ruling elites of the past believed they served. The difference that Nietzsche made was that this reality could become conscious. Of course, when you think about it . . . the exercise of the will **is** all the meaning life can ever have; an existentialist would probably agree (while phrasing it differently); but understanding that does not make one a fascist. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/37 "2012-05-20T20:53:46Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I have found that philosophy is most creative and fruitful when there exists a status quo to examine, which is most assuredly not the current state, and has not been for the last twelve years, at a minimum. Well, be careful, there. Aristotle wrote at a time when there was a long-established status quo to examine – a (Hellenic) world of independent cities – and his politics are all about that. But (despite having tutored Alexander) Aristotle was persistently oblivious to the fact that that status quo he wrote about was about to die, indeed was already dying, rendering his political philosophy utterly irrelevant for the next thousand years and more. Russell’s _History of Western Philosophy_ is well worth reading on this point. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/38 "2012-05-20T20:57:28Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > :smack: In the general population - including women, slaves, and peasants. Not limited to the rich folk. **No** political intellectual was influential on the general population anywhere at any time until Martin Luther, if he even counts. They were almost all illiterate before the printing press. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/39 "2012-05-20T21:03:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > **No** political intellectual was influential on the general population anywhere at any time until Martin Luther, if he even counts. They were almost all illiterate before the printing press. Thank you, Captain Obvious. > [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > Is that a bad thing? I’d say we do have social commentators who do make a difference, but think of it this way: > > 1. More people are educated. It’s harder to come out on top if every bum has a B.A. in Political Science. > 2. Have people in academia ever really directly influenced the masses? Even today, who reads Plato for fun? Not many. > 3. Times have changed. Newspapers, PACs, media, etc. have taken on those roles. > 4. I’d wager that government (e.g., SCOTUS, civil rights legislation, etc.), is still a big influence. > 5. Martin Luther King, Adlai Stevenson, Ghandi, Charles Dickens…Hell, even Oprah is a notable social commentator. > > Of course these people exist. They just aren’t limited to white guys at the lectern. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795/40 "2012-05-20T21:04:36Z")
> [@Farmer\_Jane](#): > > _How_ is Chomsky a) a better philosopher and b) more serious? Chomsky is not a **philosopher** at all. But he is a political intellectual who writes books intended to have immediate political influence, which Plato did not. Not that Plato was indifferent to real-world politics of his time – but his idea was not to influence the masses, it was to get influence on some man with power, like [Dionysius of Syracuse,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_II_of_Syracuse) and try to make a philosopher-king of him. (That didn’t work out too well.) (If the story interests you, read the historical novel [_The Mask of Apollo,_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask_of_Apollo) by Mary Renault.) Marcus Aurelius **was** a philosopher-king, probably well-versed in Plato (though his school was Stoic). That made him a more ethical and dutiful Roman Emperor (compared to practically all the others), but not a different kind of emperor in any political sense. He did not change anything fundamental about the Empire’s government or society. And Plato’s vision in _The Republic_ is inapplicable to anything larger than a small town anyway. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-are-the-us-intellectual-heavyweights-these-days-re-contending-social-political-philosophies/621795.md?page=3)