Why I am so clever
Leiter says, regarding Gardner's description of scientific and mathematical cranks, that "with a few suitable modifications, we can all think of some philosophers to whom [it] applies". Presumably he himself has a few in mind! It is no doubt eminently (and unusually?) politic of him not to mention anyone in particular, but for my part I wonder of whom he was thinking when he wrote that—since the only person I can think of, when we get to the criteria, at least, rather than the description, is Nietzsche. Well, for all that, perhaps Nietzsche was a crank. It needn't be solely a derogatory term.
(Nagel's review of O'Shaughnessy's last book says that he "is a remarkably gifted and solitary philosopher who pays almost no attention to anyone else … It has seven hundred closely printed pages of dense argument, with hardly any references to the vast literature on these topics", claims consistent at least with the first volume of The Will. But not a crank!)
Comments
on 2010-04-06 18:10:27.0, beamish commented:
Well, for all that, perhaps Nietzsche was a crank. It needn't be solely a derogatory term.
Because if a term applies to Nietzsche, it can't be derogatory? Surely, there are some derogatory terms that apply to Nietzsche. Nobody's perfect.
and, further, on 2010-04-07 22:19:38.0, ben commented:
Yes, precisely!
and, further, on 2010-04-08 16:32:31.0, essear commented:
Surely being wrong should be part of the criteria for being a crank? Gardner's criteria as stated come surprisingly close to applying to one of the best scientists I know. But he's not a crank, just an asshole.