Charles Taylor
March 21, 2007, 9:26 am
Posted by John McGreevy
Charles Taylor is 1.5 million dollars richer as of last week. For what it’s worth I argue here that Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre are the postwar era’s most influential Anglophone Catholic intellectuals. Taylor spoke at Notre Dame just before receiving the award and I was able to attend. He discussed his forthcoming book on secularization, emphasizing the importance of the 1960s in this process even as he resists any linear line of secularization a la Max Weber. MacIntyre introduced Taylor by noting that to read Taylor’s Sources of the Self and the books discussed therein, is to receive a better liberal arts education than that offered by most colleges. (He didn’t exclude Notre Dame!)
“Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre are the postwar era’s most influential Anglophone Catholic intellectuals.”
I could not agree more. Not just most influential, though, but also the most interesting.
Taylor was interviewed by Jim Lehrer on “The News Hour” yesterday, but there was no mention of his Catholicism.
Speaking of influence,
1) MacIntire and Taylor may well be the most influential Anglophone Catholic intellectuals among academics. If we measure influence in the “real world” William F. Buckley deserves mention. Also Garry Wills.
2) And who influenced Charles Taylor? Many people, including some of the same writers who influenced a certain well-known theologian now resident in Vatican City. This from the fact sheet on the Templeton site:
“1952: (For Taylor) …the first seeds of interest in theology are sewn among widespread discussion in Quebec on the writings of major theologians – including Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar – who helped shape the second Vatican Council.”
http://www.templetonprize.org/ct_factsheet.html
1) And who influenced Charles Taylor? Some of the same writers who influenced a certain well-known theologian now resident in Vatican City. This from the fact sheet for Taylor on the Templeton site:
“1952: (For Taylor)… the first seeds of interest in theology are sewn among widespread discussion in Quebec on the writings of major theologians – including Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar – who helped shape the second Vatican Council.”
http://www.templetonprize.org/ct_factsheet.html
2) Among the most influential Anglophone Catholic intellectuals William F. Buckley (though largely ignored in the academy) might deserve mention. Also Garry Wills.
Patrick’s right about Wills but what strikes me more about him is his versatility, not the enduring quality of his ideas. Buckley’s interesting: undoubtedly very important for US history but I’m not sure there’s a book or idea that we can really attach to him. And I actually think he’s no longer ignored either: modern conservatism is a hot topic (legitimately so) among historians these days and I know of at least one major Buckley study in the works.
Taylor, more than MacIntyre in my view, is open to interlocutors coming from a wide spectrum of intellectual orientations. I find that particularly attractive. And if his forthcoming book on secularization is any way near as sweeping and rich as his”Sources of the Self,” it will be a major work
Much to agree with in that post. I would contend that MacIntyre is in a class of his own, however. Which takes nothing away from Taylor’s brilliance. The book on Hegel is still his finest work (does it still stand up 30 years after I read it? anybody?). When reading Taylor’s forays into religious questions one gets the sense that he doesn’t have the range of MacIntyre.
Bill Buckley is a lightweight.
The list should include Richard John Neuhaus, hands down the most influential commentator on the intellectual life of the Church in North America. And it’s not even close.
I would add John Noonan. I think his practice accords with MacIntyre’s theory– it exemplifies reasoning within a tradition. He’s also a federal judge, and influential in that sphere as well.
Read his Persons and Masks of the Law: the Holmes Lectures at Harvard. Read his “The Horses of the Night” in the Stanford Law Review–about the execution of Robert Alton Harris–the first execution in over a decade in CA.
If we are making a comprehensive list of influential Catholic philosophers of the last half century, you should definitely add John Finnis.
Hello All,
I think the discussion here has bifurcated somewhat, with some addressing (1) who should be regarded as especially important contemporary Catholic philosophers, and some addressing (2) who should be regarded as Catholics especially influential in particular discussions of specific political issues. As a professional philosopher myself I would like to comment on the former only. But for the moment I can think of only one individual who lies in the intersection of (1) and (2). That’s Professor Robert George of Princeton.
Eduardo just beat me to it. I agree that John Finnis must be included on the (1) list, along with MacIntyre. To my chagrin I have not studied the work of Taylor (only some secondary commentary), but that may say more about the philosophy profession in the United States than it says about Professor Taylor’s importance. Indeed, while I think that Finnis, MacIntyre and Taylor have all made indelible impacts on intellectual life and academia in the United States, my impression is that their work is appreciated more outside of most American philosophy departments than in them. In my opinion, most American philosophers simply don’t take the Catholic natural law tradition seriously, and hence don’t study Finnis and George that much. (I think Finnis’ and George’s main impact in academia has been in schools of law.) As for MacIntyre, I think he gets less credit than her deserves from most American philosophers because mine is a profession that dismisses work out of hand that contains clear mistakes. MacIntyre is a trailblazer in philosophy. He raises remarkable questions, has an amazing appreciation of history and has the courage to argue for bold and unpopular proposals. And his work contains frequent, and sometimes quite elementary, mistakes in scholarship and gaps in argumentation. I think this could not be otherwise, since MacIntyre’s works are so ambitious and touch upon so many different intellectual figures and arguments. But MacIntyre’s approach to philosophy is not one that scores points with most of my professional colleagues. (Perhaps I should add that, much as I respect Finnis’ and MacIntyre’s works and much as I have learned from both of them, I also frequently disagree with both of them.)
A few years ago I had the opportunity to read both Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and Taylor’s Sources of the Self in a short period of time. In my non-expert opinion they are the two most penetrating books on modern society that we have and gain immensely when viewed together. Both authors reach positive evaluations of modernity but only after clearly recognizing the profound loss of meaning that occurs in the transition to modernity and the subtle dangers of a soft majority despotism in our present state.
Tocqueville, though clearly influenced by other writers, seems to generate his insights as an isolated observer and from his own resources; Taylor is in continual conversation with commentators from many periods and cultures. I just looked again at the index to Taylor’s book (available at the Amazon link above). I estimate that he refers to roughly 600 individuals, from Homer to Rorty. MacIntyre is correct – one could gain a superior education just by reading this one book and the authors discussed there.
And it’s worth paying attention to Taylor’s observations on musicians as well. As Tocqueville paid attention to American theatrical performances, Taylor discusses musical creations. Here’s one passage I found memorable:
“In Mahler’s Third Symphony we have one of the great expressions in music of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. In the first movement, in particular, we sense the force of the will emanating in nature. But as we reach the higher levels and our redemption from the will, this comes to be portrayed in Christian terms. The consciousness of the insatiable and unstoppable will is the consciousness of sin; and the miracle which takes us beyond is a redemption of love. Once more, as with Wagner and the young Nietzsche but even more markedly, Mahler seems to be saying that the development of the will through its fragmented phase was for the sake of this crowning achievement, in which we accede to the vision of oneness with the All.”
MacIntyre and Noonan have been tremendously influential in theology departments. Finnis not as much, George less so. Part of it has to do with how one understands natural law. Both are deeply indebted to Germain Grisez. Someone like Ralph MacInerny (in philosophy) and the vast majority of professional Catholic moralists would not find Grisez’s method a sound approach to natural law–apart from conclusions. They would opt for a more virtue centered approach.
I’m bothered a bit about the list of Anglophone intellectuals who are especially influential in Catholic academic circles. I myself have gotten into this game, but now the game seems rather “tribal” or “intramural.”
Can we be read as praising “our own” and ignoring the intellectual achievements of people who happen not to be Catholic? Neither MacIntyre nor Taylor fall into that trap. In fact, MacIntyre once said that the philosopher and economist Amartya Sen is the smartest person he has ever known.
Of course, one thing that a number of the people mentioned here have in common is their position on Natural Law. (Taylor, to my knowledge, is not in this group.) But that’s a pretty restrictive criterion.
I would hope that someone like Jarislov (sp?) Pelikan would be as big in Catholic intellectual circles as any of the people we have hitherto mentioned.
To the making of lists of the most whatever there is no end and it is rare that everyone will accept all those proposed for such a list. There is also the question of who is qualifed to nominate for such a list. I sense an infinte regress.