The Sociology of Philosophies

(Wang) #1
upstream they connect to an average of 12 significant philosophers. The
ordinary major philosophers (non-stars) in both places have about the same
kinds of connections. We do see, though, that secondary philosophers in Greece
have rather better connections deep in their networks (4 links) than the secon-
dary Chinese; in fact, Greek secondary philosophers have about the same
number of deep links as ordinary major philosophers. This is because so many
secondary philosophers are close downstream from the dominant Greeks, with
their huge connections; secondary figures such as Crates the Cynic, Speusippus,
or Antisthenes benefit from tying into the lineages behind Plato or Socrates.
This high density of Greek philosophical networks in several periods is only
partly matched in China, with the high network density around the time of
the Chi-hsia Academy, and again with the “Dark Learning” group, the Ch’an
lineages, and the Neo-Confucians.
The result of this continued density across the generations is that the
important Greek philosophers inherit the intellectual capital and stimulation
of a very large indirect community. Plato is within 2 links of Gorgias, and 4
links of Protagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides, and Pythagoras. Epicurus is 4
links from Democritus but also from Socrates; Arcesilaus, the skeptical re-
former of the Academy, is 2 links from both Aristotle and Zeno the Stoic, and
within 4 links of Socrates. Aristotle’s deep network includes 6 major and 12
secondary philosophers; that of Chrysippus, the most acute of the Stoics,
includes 7 majors and 10 secondaries. Eminence, it seems, breeds eminence,
and the more densely the better.

The Importance of Personal Ties


What does it mean that eminent philosophers have the most ties vertically and
horizontally, especially with other eminent philosophers? We might suspect
some methodological artifacts. Perhaps we know of more connections of major
philosophers with minor figures simply because more information is preserved
about the stars, including the names of their pupils and associates. But recall
that “minor” figures in the charts were typically rather notable persons in their
own day, of independent if local standing. Figures whom we know about only
because they are mentioned in the context of some other figure are not “minor”
but incidental, a separate category not at issue here.
More serious is the possibility that what we consider to be the creative
eminence of philosophers is merely the result of their having had a great many
personal followers. The followers retrospectively create the eminence. Isn’t it
tautological to define persons as eminent when they are well connected in their

68 • (^) The Skeleton of Theory

Free download pdf