Last Friday, Justin Weinberg ran a post at Daily Nous speculating on what the virtues of a philosopher are, and proposing the following as an initial list:
- Humility – knowledge of the limits of one’s knowledge, including one’s knowledge of those limits
- Curiosity – the propensity to be dissatisfied with one’s lack of understanding, but not discouraged by it
- Charity – the disposition to first seek the wisdom in what others say
- Courage – the strength to not mistake uncertainty for danger
- Grace – gratitude to those who help save us from ourselves
Readers then chimed in with their own thoughts. However, while such speculation may be fun, I cannot help but be skeptical of its epistemic value. Reality, after all, is no more obligated to conform to our untutored intuitions about philosophical virtue than it is obligated to conform to our intuitions about space and time, etc. The issue of which traits are in fact philosophical virtues is a partly conceptual question, and partly empirical. First, we need to settle what the proper aim(s) of philosophy are. Then we need to examine which traits or learned disposition are most conducive to achieving the aim(s) in question, using actual data rather than intuitions. So, let's think about these issues a bit more.
First, what are the proper aims of philosophy? One obvious problem is that different people have different conceptions. For some, I suppose the aim(s) of philosophy is truth (viz. true answers to philosophical questions). Others, however, might gloss the proper aim(s) of philosophy as 'understanding' (viz. Sellars' claim that, "The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term"). And so on. I'm not sure there is enough agreement on the aim(s) of philosophy to settle what philosophical virtues are. However, offhand, I think it's plausible that the aims of philosophy are not that different than the aims of science–as the sciences aim for truth, understanding, and so on.
So, let's take science as a rough model. How might we collect data on scientific virtues? Well, we would need to determine which dispositions in individual inquirers tend to lead to the discovery of scientific truth and generation of scientific understanding. I do not have such data, and am not sure that anyone does (does anyone know of any good studies here?). What I do have, though, is a fairly good grasp of scientific history. As I've mentioned before, one of my favorite pastimes is reading intellectual biographies on famous philosophers and scientists from history. What, if anything, do those sources suggest? What types of traits and dispositions did scientists who contributed immensely to discovery of scientific truth and understanding tend to have? Did they tend to have the kinds of traits Weinberg proposes?
I cannot purport to provide anything like firm answers to these questions. However, as luck would have it, I purchased, "The Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking", this past Saturday and decided it would be fun to put together a compendium of reports on the traits and dispositions of different theorists. I've also used a couple of other sources, and here is what I found:
Galileo
- 'ambitious…confrontational, witty, ironic, often sarcastic' (p. 5)
- 'an inclination to paranoia' (p. 9)
Isaac Newton
- 'The object of his study could become an obsession…leaving him without food or sleep, beyond fatigue, and on the verge of breakdown.' (p. 18)
- 'avoided his fellow students, his tutor, and most of the Cambridge curriculum…Probably with few regrets, he went his own way.' (p. 20)
- 'could not stand criticism' (p. 21)
- 'a secretive introvert' (p. 21)
- 'condescending' (p. 26)
- 'Newton was no exception to the rule that creative geniuses lead self-centered, eccentric lives. He was secretive, introverted, lacking a sense of humor, and prudish. He could not tolerate criticism, and could be mean and devious in the treatment of his critics. Throughout his life he was neurotic…" (p. 39)
Robert Mayer (founder of therodynamics)
- 'Rebellious and unpopular' (p. 52)
- 'stubbornness and sensitivity to criticism' (p. 52)
- 'great pride…[and] even more perseverance' (p. 54)
James Joule (kinetic theory of heat, etc)
- 'never very assertive' (p. 67)
- 'had three things in extraordinary measure–experimental skill, independence, and inspiration.' (p. 68)
- 'Joule's independence and confidence in his background and talents…[were] never shaken.' (p. 69)
- 'worked extremely hard, often to the detriment of his mental and physical health' (p. 75)
- 'intensely ambitious' (p. 76)
William Thomson ('Lord Kelvin')
- 'single-minded capacity for hard work.' (p. 79)
- 'contentious personality' (p. 91)
- 'The only aspect of Clausius' personality that can be inferred from comments of his contemporaries is his contentiousness. We read in letters of "old Clausius" or "that grouch Clausius." He was a lifelong rival of Helmholtz. Max Planck relates that he tried to correspond with Clausius…but Clausius did not answer his letters.' (p. 104)
- 'unpretentious, friendly, often humorous, and accommodating.' (p. 121)
- 'powers of concentration were extraordinary' (p. 121)
- 'extraordinarily internal…[and] never discussed his researches with students or colleagues' (p. 122)
- '"He was sure of himself, and trusted himself."' (p. 122)
- 'According to a story current in Berlin in the early 1900s, God decided one day to create a superman…But he had other business, and the job had to be put aside…The devil came along…and breathed life into it. "That was Walter Nernst".' (p. 124)
- 'could never conquer his impatience' (p. 125)
- 'immodesty, self-glorification, and sarcastic wit' (p. 131)
- 'The scientists in these chapters are a diverse group…But these outstanding scientists had at least two things in common: they all worked hard, sometimes obsessively, and with only a few exceptions, they came from middle-class backgrounds…The tendency to workaholism is a trait found in most people who achieve outstanding success…." (p. 137)
- 'tenacity and purpose' (p. 138)
- 'unpretentious, sincere, and satisfied with a humble lifestyle.' (p. 152)
- 'worked alone' (p. 152)
- 'patience and tenacity' (p. 155)
- 'generosity, a complete lack of selfishness, and a deep sense of duty' (p. 173)
- 'always considerate of colleagues' (p. 173)
- 'Restlessness was the story of his life and work' (p. 179)
- '"never exhibited his superiority"' (p. 180)
- 'an intellectual [Christopher] Columbus…who took…expeditions far beyond "the safe anchorage of established doctrine" into treacherous, uncharted seas.' (p. 203)
- 'disliked and opposed most of his formal education' (p. 203)
- 'disrespectful attitude' (p. 204)
- Thesis advisor Heinrich Weber: "You are a smart boy, Einstein…But you have one great fault: you do not let yourself be told anything." (p. 205)
- 'tenacity–certainly one of his strongest personality traits' (p. 224)
- 'as a theorist, his success came not from the brute strength of his mental processing power but from his imagination and creativity.' (Isaacson, p. 7)
- 'embrace[d] nonconformity. "Long live impudence!" he exulted…' (Isaacson, p. 7)
- 'His success came from questioning conventional wisdom, challenging authority, and marveling at mysteries that struck others as mundane (Isaacson, p. 7)
- 'lived by his conscience' (p. 239)
- 'venerated by junior colleagues' (p. 239)
- 'relentless insistence on clarity' (p. 244)
- 'blessed with a simple, durable optimism…[to] accept the most crushing failures" (p. 253)
- 'legendary disregard for his colleagues…sensitivities' (p. 257)
- '[known for his] biting comments on all levels of competence and importance' (p. 257)
- 'absolutely unstoppable in any task she undertook, no matter what the obstacles' (p. 295)
- 'had to have her independence' (p. 297)
- 'played it his own way' (p. 308)
- 'was not inclined towards modesty' (p. 308)
- 'volcanic' (p. 308)
- 'If anybody questioned him, he listened with interest, but would not answer it, and the conversation ended.' (p. 309)
- 'frightening and stentorian' (p. 310)
- 'Like his peers in our pantheon–Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, [etc.]–Rutherford could concentrate on a difficult, frustrating problem for long periods without losing acuity or enthusiasm…' (p. 329)
- 'chose her mentors and colleagues for their human qualities and worked with them as close friends' (p. 331)
- '"a physicist who never lost her humanity"' (p. 343)
- 'An essential element of Fermi's genius was his intellectual restlessness' (p. 360)
- 'rarely worked in collaboration' (p. 366)
- 'had no need to seek the approval of others' (p. 367)
- 'habit of working in isolation' (p. 368)
- 'no fear of doubt or uncertainty' (p. 377)
- '"a reckless buccaneer…who had the courage to look at any crazy problem"' (p. 382)
- 'always willing to challenge authority' (p. 382)
- 'Their minds were analytical; his was pictorial' (p. 388)
- 'did it his own way' (p. 401)
- 'tormented seminar speakers' (p. 401)
- 'curious about everything' (p. 402)
- 'habit of handing out put-downs to selected colleagues, usually those in competition with him' (p. 419)
- '[had] grand aspirations' (p. 423)
- '"arrogant and self-serving"' (p. 423)
- '"sure of himself"' (p. 429)
- 'Never gracious under criticism' (p. 430)
- 'intensely ambitious' (p. 430)
- 'competence and objectivity' (p. 448)
- 'called himself a "lonely wanderer in the byways of science"' (p. 451)
- 'strength of will and determination' (p. 454)
- 'sometimes arrogant manner' (p. 455)
- 'His daughter Lucy puts it a bit more darkly: "[He] will do what he wants to do at any cost to anybody else".' (p. 462)
- 'indestructible optimism' (p. 462)
What do these anecdotes tell us about the virtues of scientists? Perhaps nothing (as they are all, admittedly, anecdotes). Still, two things seem striking to me. First, there are some broad commonalities–the most notable of which seem to me to be hard work and independence. Secondly, however, what is also obviously striking is the diversity of people's traits. I don't mean to lionize or endorse bad behavior (which, as we see above, is all too common in science). Still, for all that, what we see in the history science (and, I think, in the history of philosophy!) is a truly diverse range of characters: some nice, many not so nice, some gregarious, others isolated introverts, some arrogant, some humble, etc. At the end of the day, it is not clear (to me, at any rate) which traits were scientific virtues, or which were vices, across the various cases. Indeed, my experience is that the more one reads intellectual history, the most unclear all of this is–as in some cases things normally considered "vices" seem to have contributed to individuals' scientific discoveries, whereas in other cases the opposite is the case.
Long story short, then, this is why I think we should be hesistant to make pronouncements–or speculate with any confidence–on what comprises scientific or philosophical "virtue." Human beings are a motley bunch, with great philosophical and scientific discoveries often coming from the strangest, most unexpected places. We should of course probably aim to be good people–but we should also not, I think, aim to 'overcivilize' each other by insisting that we have any good idea of what "philosophical virtues." As I will explain in future posts, many of the scientists mentioned above were not greeted with open arms by the scientific community–but were instead often regarded as disrespectful heretics. We are all quite different as thinkers and inquirers, and the crucial is for each person to discover what their own philosophical or scientific virtues and vices are–though that too is, as we all know, terribly difficult as well.