Status & Higher Learning, 354-2020 (Thesis 9.1)

Subject: The economic means, social networks and cultural milieus characterizing philosophers’ upbringings.

Purpose: Identify the environment in which people grow to contribute lasting works of philosophy.

Hypothesis 1: If (heathy) social networks function to filter talent upwards, then nonprivileged (political), modest-to-impoverished (economic) and common (social) individuals always contribute to the study of philosophy.

Hypothesis 2: If educational material, literacy and printing capacities improved as time progressed, then philosophers increasingly came from nonprivileged (political), modest-to-impoverished (economic) and common (social) circumstances.

Hypothesis 3: If the likelihood that an individual contributes to the study of philosophy is increased by the enhanced amount of time, means and access to study they manage during their upbringing, then philosophers will always come from privileged (political), wealthy (economic) and extraordinary (social) circumstances.

Methodology: Survey secondary biographical accounts of philosophers’ circumstances. Limit the survey to philosophers in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). Deduce the political, economic and social circumstances that characterize each philosopher’s upbringing. Tier the circumstances further into subcategories that reflect the approximate amount of time, means and access to study each philosopher managed.

There are three large categories considered: political, economic and social. [1] Each category is broken into subcategories that define the circumstances of the experience. Each subcategory is characterized by the amount of time, access and means to study that the inhabitant of those circumstances manages.

Political: There are two main political categories of note: privileged (royal, noble, lesser noble, aristocratic) and unprivileged. [2]

Privilege is the reservation of land, office, grants or special tax status for select people by an authorized governing body. [3] For example, the ancien regime French nobility enjoyed privileges like tax exemption and rights to (sinecure) ministerial offices. [4] In contrast, a successful merchant enjoys rich circumstances, but is subject to taxes and is not guaranteed government office. Therefore, he is unprivileged. However, successful merchants and bankers often purchased privileges if the government was amenable to the exchange. The French ancien regime operated in this way in the 17th and 18th centuries. [5]

While the wealthy unprivileged child enjoys much, he is likely to burden more tasks than the noble. His father expects him to work the family business. Business requires a lot of attention. For this reason, the noble stand apart from the wealthy. It comes down to a difference of time.

Economic: There are four economic profiles of note: poor, modest, rich and wealthy. The benefits of possessing economic means are clear. The power of capital (and land) is the capacity to direct people and things. There is one challenge here though: designating the wealth of someone in the 1500s can be guesswork. [6]

If the author of the SEP article states that the philosopher's parents were poor, modest/middling, rich or wealthy, I do not second guess it. But when little or nothing is said to that effect, I have to deduce and categorize based on hints.

The wealthy are described as prosperous, distinguished, “leading” or “of many means.” Wealth is deduced from a family living in a castle or who, in that prior generation, became a part of the gentry- the landed nobility. They are also characterized by ownership of large business ventures like mines and banks.

The modest are employed in professional capacities like law, medicine, lower-education schooling, business and trades. The rich are those who are similarly employed, but achieve exceptional success. The poor are usually farmers (peasants and serfs) or professionals described as ruined or insecure.

The markers of poverty did not change much throughout history. A farmer is poor unless he is landed or otherwise described as successful. Additionally, people who live in small poor villages could not be more than poor.

In some more complicated cases there are stories of squandered wealth and failed fathers. These make the designation unclear. What does losing a fortune look like? Do they still have remnants of good fortune like a large library or friends in high society? In that case, they are impoverished (economic), but perhaps still connected to an enhanced social network as a lesser noble (political). The same difficulty applies to children of deceased parents. Some narratives are unclear about how much the circumstances truly changed after the death(s).

Social: There are four social networks of note: spiritual, civil, academic and common. These social networks are connected to institutions like the church, government and university. Connected persons enjoy benefits like patronage, grants, scholarships and stipends. Therefore, access to these institutions (through social networks) help provide time, means and access to study. When social networks are healthy, even commoners- albeit individuals of incredible talents- have upward access to these institutions through common social network filters.

I define a social network as a group of individuals (and entities) competing and cooperating within a hierarchical ruled-based consortium to produce a political, economic and/or social end.

For example, a guild is organized into a strict hierarchy that designates roles and responsibilities based on time and grade: novice, apprentice, journeyman and master. The guild is designed to instill organizational pride, diffidence to tradition and upward mobility. The guild is a conservative hierarchical model that does not emplace precocious individuals in positions of higher responsibility. Nevertheless, there is a clear measure of time, means and access afforded the members. A member is incentivized to support the organization through thick and thin. The U.S. military is similarly designed.

It would be a mistake not to acknowledge the increased opportunities that children of socially-connected parents enjoy. A priest, governor's advisor, or professor is connected to the institutions of the church, government, university or some combination of the three. This connection can be materially valuable (access to books and tutors) as well as sentimentally valuable (culturally). Indeed, children of parents in such capacities tend to enjoy a cultural milieu of higher learning.

Examples of How the Criteria Applies:

Peter Abelard (1079–21 April 1142)

"Abelard was born into the lesser nobility around 1079 in Le Pallet…"

Designation: privileged.

Abelard is a good starting example, because he is one of a few philosophers whose origins are known. Throughout the Middle Ages, substantive childhood biographies are few and far in between. If the philosopher's childhood biography is known it was most likely because they were noble or exceptionally wealthy. If the philosopher's childhood biography is not known, then they were not noble and not wealthy, i.e. unprivileged and modest/poor. In this case, Abelard's biography is known and it clearly states that he came from a lesser noble family. Therefore, Abelard is regarded as privileged.

Peter John Olivi (1248–1298)

“He entered the Franciscan order at the age of twelve, studied in Paris from 1267 to about 1272 (during the final years of Bonaventure’s generalate) without becoming a master of theology, and spent the remainder of his life teaching at various Franciscan houses of study in southern France, with a stay in Florence from 1287–89…”

Designation: poor or modest, common, unprivileged.

We do not know if Olivi’s parents were professionals or peasants. I assume that Olividi's origins are similar to those who also lack biographical information throughout the Middle Ages (not exhaustive): Giles of Rome (d. 13th c.), St. Anselm of Canterbury (b. 1033), John of Salisbury (b. 1115), Dietrich of Freiberg (b. 1250), James of Viterbo (b. 1255), Francis of Marchia (b. 1285), William of Ockham (b. 1287) and Adam of Wodeham (b. 1295).

Martin Luther (1483–1546)

“Luther was born on 10 November 1483 in Eisleben in the Holy Roman Empire, not into the peasantry as he liked to claim, but into a relatively prosperous mining family. His father, Hans, gave him a good education, intending for him to become a lawyer and thus assist the family business.”

Designation: rich, common, unprivileged.

Martin Luther tried to hide his rich childhood, because in some Christian circles poverty is piety. This is not unlike today, where a good upbringing is shameful and a poor upbringing is laudable. The rags to riches protagonist is the hero that Americans admire the most. This sentiment is ingrained in the American ethos. Luther's family was rich and was brought up to navigate a complex world of Holy Roman imperium, Papal decree and innumerable principalities. His circumstances were favorable for the study of philosophy.

Consider:

Madeleine de Scudéry (1607–1701)

“... born into a minor Norman aristocratic family, often dismissed as bourgeois by her critics. Her later efforts to conquer the aristocratic and court society of Paris often appeared tied to insecurity concerning her familial rank. Orphaned at the age of six, Scudéry entered into the care of her uncle, an ecclesiastic who provided her with an extensive education.”

Designation: wealthy, spiritual, privileged.

In this case, Scudéry’s lesser noble status was too lowly for French high society. This is a case in which the philosopher enjoyed time, means and access to study, but whose potential might have been dampened by the hard lines of society. All told, she nonetheless enjoyed extraordinary circumstances to contribute lasting works of philosophy.

Juan Luis Vives (1493–1540) (Alt. source)

“His parents were Jewish cloth merchants who had converted to Catholicism and who strove to live with the insecurities of their precarious situation. His father, Luis Vives Valeriola (1453–1524), had been prosecuted in 1477 for secretly practicing Judaism. A second trial took place in 1522 and ended two years later when he was burned at the stake. His mother, Blanquina March (1473–1508), became a Christian in 1491, one year before the decree expelling Jews from Spain. She died in 1508 of the plague. Twenty years after her death, she was charged with having visited a clandestine synagogue. Her remains were exhumed and publicly burned.”

Designation: modest, common, unprivileged.

The fate of Vives’ parents is nothing short of tragedy. The father is lost to religious persecution. The mother is lost to the plague and her remains were desecrated in the name of zealotry.

Unlike the stereotype that philosophers are stuffy and boring, Vives lived an exciting life. In fact, many philosophers lived exciting lives. For example, Hugo Grotius (b. 1583) was a “Prison escapee, high-stakes politician, shipwreck survivor,” and was hailed “the miracle of Holland” by King Henry IV of France. Many philosophers led interesting lives.

René Descartes (1596–1650)

"His father Joachim, a lawyer who lived in Châtellerault (22 kilometers southwest of La Haye, across the Creuse River in the Poitou region), was away at the Parliament of Brittany in Rennes."

Designation: rich, civil, privileged.

Descartes’ father was a successful lawyer and a member of parliament, which earned him lesser noble status.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716)

“His family was Lutheran and belonged to the educated elite on both sides: his father, Friedrich Leibniz, was a jurist and professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Leipzig, and his mother, Catharina Schmuck, the daughter of a professor of Law. Leibniz's father died in 1652, and his subsequent education was directed by his mother, uncle, and according to his own reports, himself. He was given access to his father's extensive library at a young age and proceeded to pore over its contents, particularly the volumes of ancient history and the Church Fathers.”

Designation: rich, academic, unprivileged.

Leibniz enjoyed a family milieu of higher learning. Both his parents were elite thinkers. He also enjoyed a notably large library like Damaris Masham (b. 1658), Catharine Macaulay (b. 1731), George Boole (b. 1815) and Gilbert Ryle (b. 1900).

Of that list Masham is especially noteworthy:

“... unlike most women of her time, Damaris Cudworth had the relative advantages of a family and a friendship that enabled her to develop her interest in philosophy.”

“Her letters to Locke and her correspondence with Leibniz show that her interest in philosophy went far beyond what she eventually published.”

Designation: rich, academic, unprivileged.

Masham is the sixth woman philosopher on the SEP, chronologically. She did not have the opportunity to participate in the university, but she nonetheless contributed to the study of philosophy. She enjoyed a wonderfully scintillating network of intellectuals to help enrich her philosophy. This goes to show that a good network coupled with time and means can offset the loss of access to institutions. That does not make the exclusion right.

Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel (1770–1831) (Alt source)

“Hegel was the son of a revenue officer. He had already learned the elements of Latin from his mother by the time he entered the Stuttgart grammar school, where he remained for his education until he was 18.”

Designation: modest, civil, unprivileged.

GFW Hegel enjoyed the security of modest means and civil connections without the privilege of higher status. His mother taught him Latin.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860):

“... Dutch heritage, and the philosopher’s father, Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer (1747–1805), was a successful merchant and shipowner who groomed his son to assume control of the family’s business. A future in the international business trade was envisioned from the day Arthur was born…”

Designation: rich, common, unprivileged.

Modest, rich and wealthy businessmen expect their children to assume the responsibilities of the family business (Pierre Duhem, for example). At 19, Schopenhauer went against his father’s wishes and pursued a life of study at university. He enjoyed the means and access to study, but he did not quite have an extraordinary network as I define it. His mother Johanna was a published writer.

Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801–1887):

“His father, Samuel Traugott Fischer (1765–1806), and indeed grandfather, were pastors in the village; and his mother, Dorothea Fechner (1744–1806), was also from a pastoral family...

[The father] His death left the family destitute.”

Designation: poor, spiritual, unprivileged.

Although the Fechner family was poor, they enjoyed a network of pastors. I make the assumption that a “pastoral family” is well-learned in myth and metaphysics. His family cultural milieu is exceptional and his family’s social network is undeniably geared toward higher learning. That deserves recognition.

William Whewell (1794-1866)

“the eldest child of a master-carpenter in Lancaster. The headmaster of his local grammar school, a parish priest, recognized Whewell’s intellectual abilities and persuaded his father to allow him to attend the Heversham Grammar School in Westmorland, some twelve miles to the north, where he would be able to qualify for a closed exhibition to Trinity College, Cambridge.”

Designation: modest, common, unprivileged.

Whewell’s father is a professional of a respectable trade. I cannot define the family as rich, because achieving mastery of a trade does not necessarily mean he is distinguished or exceptionally well-off. Whewell is a great example of when the common threads of social networks work well. His local priest identified his talents and connected him with the time, means and access to study.

The United States is really good at connecting talented people with the time, means and access to study. The government dispenses with scholarships, stipends and grants to extraordinarily talented people from all socio-economic backgrounds. A society that does not do this in some fashion is failing to exhaust its capacity to greatness.

Maximilian Carl Emil “Max” Weber (1864–1920)

“born in the Prussian city of Erfurt to a family of notable heritage. His father, Max Sr., came from a Westphalian family of merchants and industrialists in the textile business and went on to become a lawyer and National Liberal parliamentarian in Wilhelmine politics. His mother, Helene, came from the Fallenstein and Souchay families, both of the long illustrious Huguenot line, which had for generations produced public servants and academicians. His younger brother, Alfred, was an influential political economist and sociologist, too. Evidently, Max Weber was brought up in a prosperous, cosmopolitan, and highly cultivated family milieu that was well-plugged into the political, social, and cultural establishment of the German Bürgertum [Roth 2000].”

Designation: Wealthy, civil-academic and privileged.

Max Weber enjoyed an exceptional amount of time, access and means to study. His family was long-established and well-connected. There is no doubt that Weber enjoyed one of the most elite upbringings among the SEP philosophers. Note, he had much to say about power, cultural superiority and good governance.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872-1970) (Alt source)

"Russell was born into an aristocratic family."

"Russell was not sent to school but received his early education from a number of Swiss and German governesses and, finally, English tutors."

Designation: Wealthy, civil and privileged.

Bertrand Russell's grandfather was twice the prime minister of the United Kingdom. He enjoyed the aristocratic title of third Earl Russell. His family's wealth was immense. Russell's circumstances promoted the pursuit of philosophy. His work is wildly influential.

Note on SEP Omissions:

Sigmund Freud is cited very frequently as a significant influence on other philosophers, but he does not have his own article. It could not be because he is a psychologist by trade. However, William James, the father of psychology, has his own article. Freud’s wrote about human nature as much as Hobbes and Locke. The same goes for Karl Jung.

Next Up:

The following article will review the survey data.

Footnotes:

1) Including culture. I understand culture as propriety and filial piety. The pervading archetypes/exemplars of a child’s life impact their aspirations.

2) Citizen is also a title of significance. It avails a measure of privilege that the noncitizen does not enjoy.

3)F.A. Hayek. The Road To Serfdom: text and documents. Ed by Bruce Caldwell. The University of Chicago Press: Routledge, London. 2007. Originally published 1944. 117-118.

4) Often in exchange for large sums of money. The French monarchy used these funds to finance its debts.

5) The term aristocracy is included to serve one purpose. It is interchangeable with high society, caste and nobility. It is the best catchall for the modern situation. Although it is unconstitutional for the United States to grant privileges, and thus create a nobility, who are we kidding? Taxes are not paid at equal rates as the Founders planned. The U.S. government collects taxes from some people to give it to other people. Patronage, scholarships, stipends and grants are dispensed among Americans and non-Americans, right and left, young and old. Privilege exists and the place to start the discussion is with the title, citizen.

6) Depending only on the virtues and characteristics of the one who has the means.

7) Today, we understand someone's wealth in terms of one's net worth. For example, Forbes reports that Bill Gates' net worth is $118.8 billion U.S. dollars in 2020. In a Nation that prohibits privilege (but dispenses with contingent privileges), wealth is paramount. And unfortunately, Forbes does not have a historic list of the 369 philosophers that I surveyed.