Essayist Joseph Epstein asks a question about philosophers:
“What is it about the study of philosophy that tends to make brilliant minds stupid when it comes down to what are known as actual cases? Consider Martin Heidegger, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, the four great names in twentieth-century philosophy: the first was a Nazi, the second died certain that America was responsible for all the world’s evil, the third was a Stalinist long after any justification for being so could be adduced, and the fourth lived on the borders of madness most of his life. Contemplation of the lives of philosophers is enough to drive one to the study of sociology.”[1]
That list gives one pause. Thoughts?
Source: Joseph Epstein, Essays in Biography, Axios Press, 2012, p. 52.
Related: The episodes on Heidegger, Sartre, and Russell in the Philosophers, Explained series:
Why does the essayist/questioner think that they were stupid? Or perhaps more accurately the question is, why does the essayist/questioner think that their political views were inconsistent with their more fundamental philosophical views?
Their conclusions were consistent with their fundamental philosophical views. Their big mistake was not checking their conclusions against reality. When their conclusions turned out to be wrong, they just assumed that reality was at fault. That is why Sartre remained a Stalinist long after the details of Stalin’s mass murders were made public, and why Heidegger never repented his Nazi past.
Hmmm.
As far as I can tell, nearly all humans are stupid when it comes to politics (myself included), so why would we expect philosophers to be any different?
Also, I don’t know if you consider Hayek a philosopher, but I think he was extremely astute regarding politics, so just listing 4 random philosophers and making the claim of political stupidity may just be cherry picking.
These are philosophers from the last 100 years. Perhaps it is more of a commentary on the current state of accepted inquiry (academia). A kind of scholasticism that will not impress much several centuries from now…
The history of 20th century philosophy is, in large part, one of examining the failings of Victorian-era European culture and its collapse into bloodbath, of examining the reasons for that descent into madness, and extrapolating the conclusions into philosophical guidelines for future use.
It should not be surprising that most of the hypotheses might have been incorrect. It should not be surprising that academics cling to their career-making theories long after they’ve gone stale. And, given that the interplay of human events only becomes clear after decades have passed, it should not be surprising that it has taken a century to even begin sorting out the good from the bad.
I confess politics bores the crap outta me. Bob Marks may have nailed it.
The day to day minutiae, speeches, scandals, corruption in politics are very predictable, hence boring. Political theory on the other hand is fascinating. Yet the former is the result of the latter, hence anyone interested in the latter can’t really afford to be so blithely dismissive.
“Believe nothing unless it’s officially denied.”
– Washington aphorism
In the case of Heidegger, going to educational psychology rather than sociology would be more useful. You could realize that constructive engagement with distorted minds (students inspired by nazi spectacle, misreading of Hölderlin as nationalist, and distortion of Greek thinking as root of nazi essentialism) is what the therapeutic mind does.
Commonly in modern philosophy, language analysis is aimed to disabuse a person of thoughtless presumptions. Believing that Heidegger was a nazi just shows what kind of mind such a believer is.