Vote for this Post
One of my favourite philosophers and most likely the greatest philosopher Canada has ever produced (Sorry George Grant fans) has won the Templeton prize.
I was introduced to his work in 1998, and have been reading it ever since; I find it to be unique in the world of contemporary philosophy. Even a cursory reading of something by Taylor will show that he has a a vast knowledge of Western Civilization and its literature. As you read, Taylor weaves the stories and ideas of the last 2500 years while simultaneously producing some of the most unique and original ideas I've ever read in academic philosophy. Yet, he writes to a wider audience as well. His Massey Lecture The Malaise Of Modernity,
is an accessible yet multifaceted account of the virtues and vices of the Modern World. Despite a long career in the academy he has always argued from a perspective that includes spirituality and God with the ubiquity of folks like Richard Dawkins, Taylor is an anomaly but an important one and one of the most brilliant.Here are some links
CANOE -- CNEWS - World: Cdn philosopher wins Templeton religion prize
"The reason why human beings are violent has something to do with their responding to or looking for answers for really deep questions about the meaning of life, the nature of the ultimate good, and what really gives worth to human life, and so on. As long as people are looking for answers to that then they're open to, among other things, selecting answers that have this property of pushing them to violence.
Canadian philosopher captures Templeton Prize | csmonitor.com
Taylor helped inspire some of his students to become leading political scientists and philosophers. "We'd be teaching a course in the history of Western philosophy, and Taylor would get so wrapped up in the author he was lecturing on, he'd pick the book up and say, 'Now just listen to what the author says here.' He'd be reading it out in Russian or Greek or whatever," says Jim Tully, professor of philosophy and political science at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, who taught with Taylor at McGill and edited a book critiquing his work. "I think what moved the students was his intensity of engagement. It certainly moved me."Bloomberg.com: Canada
``Throughout his career, Charles Taylor has staked an often lonely position that insists on the inclusion of spiritual dimensions in discussions of public policy, history, linguistics, literature and every other facet of humanities and the social sciences,'' said John M. Templeton Jr., the foundation's president, in a statement.
Charles Taylor Bibliography - Research - Department of Politics & International Relations - University of Kent
Technorati Tags: Charles Taylor, Templeton Prize, Canada, Philosophy, Philosopher, Modernity
powered by performancing firefox
10 comments:
Calling the Templeton prize prestigious is a bit bizarre but I guess in some circles (ie Religious ones) it would be. I am unfamiliar with Taylor and I cannot say that winning a Templeton prize places him high on my to read list but it is nice to see Canadian academics get recognize even I object to their hypotheses.
Well, when you consider the fact that it comes with $US 1 500 000.00 it is prestigious enough and it is awarded at Buckingham Palace. Taylor is also the first Canadian to win the prize.
I don't know what is on your to read list, but if it does include philosophical and/or theoretical works then The Malaise of Modernity should be on it. I didn't pick up on Taylor's religious bent until I really got into his work. In most of his writing where the audience is public sphere debate, he simply writes from the perspective of someone who permits the possibility of God and acknowledges how foundational religious identity is and how important 'meaning of life' questions are.
I like Taylor. I also like that he squared off against Trudeau for the NDP in the 1965. Though he lost, he showed that a philosopher could still make a reasonable run at Federal politics.
Though I do not agree with some of his methodology (he fits best within the 'continental' tradition of philosophy, whereas I'm an analytic philosopher), his contributions to epistemology (especially in response to Quinean Naturalized Epistemology) and his significant and oft-quoted contributions in political theory as a leading communitarian make him one of Canada's greatest intellectual lights. As far as Canadian philosophers go, he is one of the best ever, and is well respected within the philosophical community. While Will Kymlicka is giving him a run for his money in terms of contributions to contemporary political theory, I think Taylor will stand the test of time in terms of being among the most influential philosophers to provide substantive opposition to Rawlsian liberalism.
I was thinking of mentioning his run for the NDP, I'm glad you brought it up.
I did my undergrad reading a lot of Taylor. A professor of mine worked with Taylor doing translation. I also attended a class under Kymlicka. Though I like Kymlicka's work, Taylor is so very broad of scope that he is a true Philosopher, Kymlicka when I knew him was a Political Philosopher - if such distinctions can be made.
Regarding Taylor's methodology I always found him to straddle the continental/analytic divide. True his methods were more continental, but his topics were often of interest to the analytic crowd.
When it comes to his political work, the moniker that he was a continentalist is just irrelevant. He writes about issues of such relevance and with such insight as to make him force to be reckoned with.
As for Raws, if I recall correctly, he doesn't consider himself to be a "communitarian" and in an article about the Asian Values debate at the beginning of this century he almost says that he is a Rawlsian!
"As for Raws, if I recall correctly, he doesn't consider himself to be a "communitarian" and in an article about the Asian Values debate at the beginning of this century he almost says that he is a Rawlsian!"
This is interesting - most of his work in political philosophy that I am familiar with is usually classifed under the communitarian label, along with Michael Sandel and Michael Walzer. I'd certainly be interested in hearing what he himself thinks of such labels.
As far as his methods being continental but his work being of considerable interest to analytic philosophers, I think this is one of the things that makes him great - it takes a special kind of philosopher to be a friend of both camps. For whatever reason, contientalists and analytics seem to have nothing but animosity for each other. I think it is rather sad, as I'm sure that the continentals have so much to teach us analytics. But Heidiegger.. I dunno.. heh
I totally agree with you.
Taylor is thrown in the communitarian camp, but (again if memory serves me)he resists the label. Kok-Chor Tan's PhD thesis/book Toleration Diversity and Global Justice has an interesting first or second chapter regarding the Communitarian - Liberal debate. He basically says that Communitarians are making an ontological argument (re the atomistic/ungrounded individual) and liberals are making a moral argument. It convinced me at the time. I think Taylor recognised the distinction and was also a lot happier with Political Liberalism & Law of Peoples. (Of course more hardcore liberals were disapointed with PL).
I was about to comment in my own thread that I'd been told that PL wasn't worth reading anyway, that if I wanted Rawls, I should just read ToJ and "political, not metaphysical". Perhaps the fact that liberals don;t like it explains why.
I've also heard people express their disappointment with Law of Peoples - might you have any ideas why?
(as an aside - did you get a graduate degree in philosophy? if so, where? when? send me an email at pthurley(at)artsmail.uwaterloo.ca if you don't wish to divulge this info online, and if you care to share with me.
Peter,
In cracking open my copy of Political Liberalism while responding to your post about impartiality. I found a footnote that had enjoyed reading a while ago. It is a footnote by Rawls about Taylor. It is the only acknowledgement of Taylor by Rawls to my knowledge. It is quite complimentary and also discusses Arendt who is a favourite of mine as well. See PL p 206.
I look forward to your return to blogging.
cheers,
Peter
For those interested in more from Charles Taylor, I recommend checking out his interview over at The Other Journal. He discusses the ideas in his newest book, A Secular Age, as well as interacting with the ideas currently referred to as 'the new atheism.' It's a great read.
Part 1: http://theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=375
Part 2:http://theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=376
Post a Comment