No Nobel Prize for Philosophy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
It strikes me as symptomatic of the modern world’s disdain for philosophy, as opposed to science, that nearly all the Nobel prizes go out for the sciences. There is, of course, one for literature, and one for peace efforts.

Several philosophers have received Nobel prizes, but not for their philosophy so much as their literary efforts. Jean Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell are notable examples.

I’m not saying there should be a prize for philosophy. Just noting that there doesn’t seem to be a truly prestigious recognition anywhere for the contributions of philosophers, not even life achievement awards, unless I stand corrected.

What do you think is the main reason for this neglect of the philosophers? 🤷
 
Charlemagne_III said:
It strikes me as symptomatic of the modern world’s disdain for philosophy, as opposed to science, that nearly all the Nobel prizes go out for the sciences. There is, of course, one for literature, and one for peace efforts.

Several philosophers have received Nobel prizes, but not for their philosophy so much as their literary efforts. Jean Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell are notable examples.

I’m not saying there should be a prize for philosophy. Just noting that there doesn’t seem to be a truly prestigious recognition anywhere for the contributions of philosophers, not even life achievement awards, unless I stand corrected.

What do you think is the main reason for this neglect of the philosophers? 🤷
Click to expand...
Political correctness. Also people campaign for these prizes and I guess philosophers just don’t have enough rich friends.

Linus2nd
 
I suppose there is a common sentiment, verbalized by Stephen Hawking in his “The Grand Design”: Philosophy is dead because it has not kept up with modern science, and physics in particular - it’s all relative, subjective.
 
The great philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas said it all long ago.

Since them, nobody has made what could be called an “advance” significant enough to deserve a Nobel Prize. Philosophers can’t even agree with each other about anything. They each want to set up their own little philosophic empire, whether what they say is true or not, and usually it’s not true. How do you give a prize for that?

The literature prize is given, I suppose, because the purpose of literature is to tell the truth about the human condition,
and if a writer finds a new way or ‘style’ in which to do this and other writers soon follow his example as we’ve seen happen many times,
that’s worth a prize.
 
empther said:
The great philosophers, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas said it all long ago.

Since them, nobody has made what could be called an “advance” significant enough to deserve a Nobel Prize. Philosophers can’t even agree with each other about anything. They each want to set up their own little philosophic empire, whether what they say is true or not, and usually it’s not true. How do you give a prize for that?

The literature prize is given, I suppose, because the purpose of literature is to tell the truth about the human condition,
and if a writer finds a new way or ‘style’ in which to do this and other writers soon follow his example as we’ve seen happen many times,
that’s worth a prize.
Click to expand...
It’s disappointing, I think, that Albert Camus got the Nobel Prize in Literature when his books basically convey the theme, “life is worthless, meaningless, and absurd.”
 
The categories of the Nobel prize were decided by Alfred Nobel when he signed his will in 1895. Those responsible do not have the authority to change the categories or designate new ones from the funds. The Economics prize is a newer invention, but it is a memorial prize funded by a gift from the Swedish Bank, and hence not part of the Nobel prizes as such.

So basically there is no Nobel prize in Philosophy because Nobel didn’t specify one. The wishes of the committees wouldn’t matter. But I would think the Literature prize could be awarded to a philosopher. I wouldn’t know if it has ever happened, though.
 
laircy said:
. . . “life is worthless, meaningless, and absurd.”
Click to expand...
Without God, it is. Modern atheists are nowhere close to being at the level of Camus.
The categories of the Nobel prize were decided by Alfred Nobel . . .
Click to expand...
. . . inventor of dynamite and maker of cannons and armaments.
 
The prizes go to people with, other than a high IQ, a certain sort of mind. Swap out literature and peace and put mathematics in their place. I’ve always thought that the peace and literature prizes were anomalous given the nature of the other prizes.

Give the literature and peace prizes some other name, then you can toss philosophy in with literature and peace. As an example, you could call it the Humanities Prize.

I’m pretty sure that within a not many years that the new philosophy prize, whatever its name is, will be totally dominated by politically correct wholly ideological choices just like the literature and peace prizes.
 
Aloysium said:
. . . inventor of dynamite and maker of cannons and armaments.
Click to expand...
Yes, he was an engineer with regrets who probably liked to read books.

I think the explanation is as easy as that; all the prizes (except peace and literature) are relevant to engineering. Reading a disdain for philosophy into it is stretching it, to be honest.
 
Aloysium said:
. . . inventor of dynamite and maker of cannons and armaments.
Click to expand...
That is exactly why we have the prizes.

Nobel was seeking to atone, in a way, for all of the death and destruction his invention brought into the world.

Given he lived in the 1800s, I’m not at all surprised he didn’t include philosophy. If there had been a moratorium on philosophers since 1799, I’m not sure we wouldn’t be better off.

These days, it seems any articulate writer with ideas about life can call himself a philosopher.

IMNAAHO!!!

God Bless, ICXC NIKA
 
Rin said:
. . . Reading a disdain for philosophy into it is stretching it, to be honest.
Click to expand...
Disdain? You are probably right. That he might have considered it a useless exercise? Possibly (recalling university engineering societies and knowing a few myself - all good people actually, but not much into anything other than practical thinking).
 
I feel like it’d be hard to give a nobel prize for philosophy. Here’s a reward for being the deepest thinker? This might be hard when there are so many different worldviews as well, what one person thinks is amazing and really deep another person might think the person is on drugs or crazy.
 
Rin said:
So basically there is no Nobel prize in Philosophy because Nobel didn’t specify one. The wishes of the committees wouldn’t matter. But I would think the Literature prize could be awarded to a philosopher. I wouldn’t know if it has ever happened, though.
Click to expand...
It happened at least once.

The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950
Earl (Bertrand Arthur William) Russell
“in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought”
 
There appear to be five Nobel Prize winners whose genre is philosophy.

I would have stretched the definition to include Samuel Beckett (1969) who won “for his writing, which - in new forms for the novel and drama - in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation”

The others, mentioned earlier were Russell (1950), Camus (1957) and Sartre (1964) - nothing since then (50 years!).

There seems to be a trend here.

Before that there were:
  • Henri Bergson (1927) “in recognition of his rich and vitalizing ideas and the brilliant skill with which they have been presented”. Born Jewish, he was going to convert to Catholicism, but did not apparently in protest of growing anti-semitism in Europe. He arranged for a priest to say prayers at his funeral.
  • Rudolf Christoph Eucken (1908) “in recognition of his earnest search for truth, his penetrating power of thought, his wide range of vision, and the warmth and strength in presentation with which in his numerous works he has vindicated and developed an idealistic philosophy of life”
Comparing the past to the present, a very different view of what society considers of value is demonstrated in these choices, and the more recent lack of choices.

Philosophy and the arts reflect the soul of their society. We also see in common art forms like the cinema, the presentation of futuristic dystopias, which very much seem to speak to where we are at the moment.
 
Aloysium said:
Without God, it is. Modern atheists are nowhere close to being at the level of Camus.
Click to expand...
True. In some odd way, reading The Stranger made me realize that more. Ultimately this is what atheism leads to.
 
Aloysium said:
  • Rudolf Christoph Eucken (1908) “in recognition of his earnest search for truth, his penetrating power of thought, his wide range of vision, and the warmth and strength in presentation with which in his numerous works he has vindicated and developed an idealistic philosophy of life”
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reference to this Nobel winner. 👍 I had never heard of him, but have sent for a volume of his collected essays through Amazon.

Seems that, unlike Henri Bergson, his name recognition has dwindled considerably in modern times. If possible. I’ll try to report on him in this thread when I’ve had a chance to assess his work as a writer on religion.
 
I’ve received a book of essays by the German Nobel prize winner of 1908, philosopher Rudolf Christoph Eucken.

It is in some ways a mixed bag, which helps to explain why he apparently has no strong following or even recognition today. He appreciates the truthfulness and necessity of religion, even the truthfulness and necessity of Christianity, but he seems not to value the institutional forms of either Catholicism or Protestantism (that, it seems, was enough to assure him the winning of the Nobel Prize).

His main complaint is that Catholicism is too fixed in ecclesiastical rigidity, and Protestantism is too all-over-the- place. So long as they are both at odds with each other, and do not struggle to merge in a great new dynamic that will confront the anti-religious sentiments of the modern age, Christianity will continue to lose ground and the anti-Christian forces of the world will ultimately prove themselves overpowering. Interestingly, so far as I can tell, he offers no particular mechanism by which this great new anti-institutional Christendom can be forged.

After offering many great insights about religion and human nature, he comes up baffled at the end. I do not recommend investing too much time in exploring this writer. A great talent in many respects wasted on speculations without end.

The online version of his book *Can We Still Be Christians *is here:

archive.org/stream/canwestillbechri00euckrich#page/206/mode/2up
 
laircy said:
True. In some odd way, reading The Stranger made me realize that more. Ultimately this is what atheism leads to.
Click to expand...
Camus and Sartre are honest atheists that’s it’s hard to not like them if you get what they’re saying.

They don’t have hatred towards God. In fact, they seem to almost want that there’s a God.

What can you make out of this?

Can one be a saint without God? That’s the problem, in fact the only problem, I’m up against today."
-Albert Camus, The Plague, Part 4

I suggest you read Sartre’s essay “Existentialism is a Humanism” which you can find here:

marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

Kreeft made a syllogism out of Jesus’ words:

Seek and you shall find
Therefore, seekers always find.
It’s in the seeking that we get merit, it’s for God to either give you knowledge of him/wisdom (much like when Peter was told his knowledge of Jesus as God came from the father)
But it could either be in this life or in the next.
  1. Non-seekers won’t find God and are unhappy and unwise.
  2. Seekers who don’t find God are unhappy but wise.
  3. Seekers who found God are both happy and wise.
Since we don’t just a soul, we can say that the 2nd possibility may apply to honest atheists.
 
Patty23 said:
Can one be a saint without God? That’s the problem, in fact the only problem, I’m up against today."
-Albert Camus, The Plague, Part 4
Click to expand...
The 1st and greatest Commandment is to love the Lord.

If you break the 1st and greatest Commandment, how do you get to be a saint? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top