The Sociology of Philosophies

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