Hetherington - What makes a philosopher great? : thirteen arguments for twelve philosophers

What is the difference between a merely good philosopher and a great one? Lists of the great (and usually dead) philosophers presuppose an answer to this question but its far from obvious what the answer is. The distinguished contributors to this terrific volume advance our understanding of what great philosophy is and explain the greatness of some of the greatest philosophers.

Quassim Cassam, University of Warwick

An impressive assembly of scholars, each a top expert on their subject, addresses the title question of the volume. A fascinating collaboration, in which the contrasts will no doubt illuminate no less than the agreements.

Ernest Sosa, Rutgers University

Stephen Hetherington

Lloyd P. Gerson

Karyn Lai

David Bronstein

Jonardon Ganeri

Jeffrey Hause

Gary Hatfield

Karen Detlefsen

Don Garrett

Allen Wood

Nicholas F. Stang

Ken Gemes

Cheryl Misak

David Macarthur

The idea for this book arose, like many an idea, in the back of a taxi. I was in Taipei with Michael Slote and Chienkuo (Michael) Mi. Michael Slote and I were being hosted by Soochow University, courtesy of Michael Mi. Michael Slote was telling us about a paper of hisKant for Anti-Kantians, in his book Essays on the History of Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). In that paper, Michael describes some contributions that Kant made to ethics that even an anti-Kantian like myself ought to accept and acknowledge (p. 101). This struck me as being a step toward understanding why Kant was great as a moral philosopher: Michael Slote was telling us how even those philosophers who would never call themselves Kantians about moral philosophy have learned from Kantand have learned not merely interesting details, but potentially fundamental moves. Hearing this, I made one of those mental leaps so beloved by so many philosophers: I generalized, swiftly and optimisticallyin this case, from Kant on moral philosophy to philosophers in general. Lets think about philosophical greatness as such, if possible (I thought, enthusiastically).

Inescapably, this is a speculative book. I do notfor even one momentclaim that it is bound to reveal, clearly and incontestably, what philosophical greatness is, if indeed there is any such quality in the first place. But I dofor more than one momentbelieve that the idea of philosophical greatness is a tantalizing one. Wouldnt it be grand to gain some sense of what philosophical greatness is, if indeed it does or could exist? Shouldnt we at least try to gain that sense, if we are at least to examine or test the hypothesis that philosophical greatness ever is or could be manifested?

The book is not intended to be discussing every philosopher with some claim to being great. Perhaps there are great philosophers beyond the people discussed in this book. And I am confident that not everyone will agree that every philosopher discussed here is great. No matter; I have sought a suggestive sample of several prima facie candidates for philosophical greatness. Here is that sample, courtesy of some excellent contemporary scholars.

Andy Beck at Routledge was vital to this books existence and development. He was enthusiastic and constructive, offering excellent suggestions for shaping the book. The same is true of Routledges three anonymous reviewers. And welcome editorial assistance was provided by Vera Lochtefeld (Routledge) and Lindsay Yeates (University of New South Wales).

Gary Hatfield