Skip to main content

British Philosophers Since 1066

Image result for Norman Conquest

Assuming you, dear reader, were asked to prepare a list of the 10 greatest philosophers produced by the British isles since the Norman Conquest.

Who would have to be on the list? We think of certain philosophers in clusters. For example, we think of the triad of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume at the heart of empiricism. But you may not want ALL of them on the list. There's so much ground to cover. If only one of them: which one?

Likewise, we think of Duns Scotus and Ockham as a pair, representing realism and nominalism respectively. But you might have to pick only one of them.

Or the great analytical philosophers of the early 20th century: they, too, come as a cluster. If you think of Moore, you also think of Russell. If you think of Russell, you also think of Whitehead. But ... only one?

The two great apologia for free speech in British history were those penned by Milton and Mill. Should we accordingly include both of those names? or only one? or neither?

I've just named ten names, all of men, and you might think I've surreptitiously created by top ten list already. But you'd be wrong. I've been talking about clusters. And I haven't mentioned women because the women one might put on such a list don't cluster. I think of Margaret Cavendish, Ada Lovelace, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch....

Many more names beg for inclusion. But so I won't be thought a tease, here is a defensible list of ten names, in chronological order:

St Anselm, Duns Scotus, Edward Coke, Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, Margaret Cavendish, George Berkeley, G.E. Moore, Philippa Foot, Galen Strawson.


  1. Christopher, are you being deliberately perverse in your list? Milton’s apologia for free speech doesn’t make him a philosopher. Mill would have been one of the greatest even without his apologia for free speech. Berkeley over Hume? Moore over Russell? There’s no contest in either case. I’ve never before heard Coke called a philosopher. Jeremy Bentham certainly belongs on the list. You seem to have forgotten both John Austins, and Gilbert Ryle. Finally, you can omit Wittgenstein because he was Austrian and wrote in German, but because he taught at Cambridge and because his impact has been huge in the English-speaking world, I would have included him.

    1. I should have said that Wittgenstein was originally Austrian. He took British citizenship after the Anschluss.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Well ... deliberately provocative, yes. Perverse, no. (The line can be a fine one.) To take your points in reverse order:

    1. I was very tempted to include Wittgenstein, but excused myself with the thought that I might some day give Austrians, or German-language natives, their own list.

    2. Austin(s) and Ryle. Really? I'm confused as to why you might include Austin -- the legal positivist -- but seem so inhospitable to the inclusion of Edward Coke -- surely the greater thinker in the jurisprudential line! But I'll get back to that. As to the other Austin, and Ryle, I'll just stick with "Really?" as above.

    3. I thought about it but couldn't put Jeremy Bentham on the list. Indeed, if you admire John Stuart Mill, you might recognize why. Even despite their similarities (and the fact that Mill grew up in Bentham's shadow intellectually), Mill recognized the fatal superficiality and naiveté of Bentham's mind.

    4. Coke! Yes indeed. Among legal and political philosophers, he is remembered as a great spokesman for the legitimacy of judge-made law, and for relating judge-made law to the idea that law is reason, a fact of nature. Law, for Coke, was emphatically not a matter of merely reading and applying edicts of a King or Acts of Parliament (as it is for Austin). Law, rather, is something that develops over centuries as precedents add on to other precedents and principles of reason emerge from them. Neither King nor Parliament nor both together can make reason unreasonable.

    5. Yes, Moore over Russell, or even Whitehead (though excluding Whitehead was the harder call). What I prize in Moore is not his self-defined role as a champion of "common sense," or his jabs at James and pragmatism. BUT Moore was great as an ethicist.

    He was a teleologist, like Bentham and Mill, but at the same time a pluralist. He didn't try to define a unitary inherent good and call it pleasure, or happiness, or anything else. He said that the joy of "personal affection" is an inherent good, and the joy of "what is beautiful in Art or Nature" is likewise. Given the disjunction in the latter statement, this may give us a total of three rather than two inherent goods. It logically follows that there can be no unidimensional scale. Also, I think Moore is very solid where ethics overlaps with epistemology, in the frankly intuitionist nature of his ethical views.

    6. Yes, Berkeley over Hume. Not just for the idea encapsulated in the famous limerick, but for a whole constellation of boldly conceived ideas. An extreme psychological nominalism, an innovative theory of vision, a fine understanding of the untenability of Locke's effort to separate primary from secondary attributes, even a surprising critique of the foundations of calculus -- all together require GB's presence on this list.

    7. Mill? Meh. In epistemology, his great contribution was a codification of Berkeley. It was Mill who called matter "the permanent possibility of sensation." So we're back to the tree in the Quad. And I've already included Berkeley, so I don't need the codifier. His role within the history of utilitarianism was chiefly as an in-house critic, which I've already mentioned. It is important, but it isn't enough to elevate him over ...

    8. Milton? JM's philosophical significance goes far beyond his Areopagitica. His works as Cromwell's Latin Secretary, a hack propagandist role in an extraordinary moment, produced the classic case for the permissibility of tyrannicide. And you'll have to resort to it yourself if you're ever stuck in Jurassic Park. (bada bing.)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

Philippa Gregory

My recent reading includes large helpings of Philippa Gregory's latest, THREE SISTERS, THREE QUEENS (2016), another of her fictionalized takes on love and betrayal among the royals of Renaissance Europe.

In this book, the focus is on the early Tudor dynasty, and especially on Margaret Tudor, the eldest daughter of Henry VII, founder thereof, and the older sister of the future Henry VIII. Margaret became Queen of Scotland with an arranged marriage to James IV. She reigned and ruled under the title of Dowager Queen after James' death at the Battle of Flodden in 1513.

So who, you ask, were the other two sisters of the novel's title? One is Margaret's blood sister, Mary Tudor, who was known as one of the great beauties of the age. Mary was the inspiration for the name her brother Henry gave to his older daughter. More important for Gregory's story, she wed the King of France (Louis XII) in 1514, and Anne Boleyn served as her maid of honor at that ceremony.

The third &…