Over the course of his career, MacIntyre went from an extreme left Marxist to an extreme right Thomist, and the only constant was his hatred of liberalism. He really couldn't stand the idea that people could believe in rationalism, feel the moral force of individual rights, or make purpose and meaning for themselves, all without appealing to an authoritarian source of control.
Well that was partly what After Virtue was about: arguing it wasn't possible to have an objective moral system without the supernatural.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue
And he's not the only one to hold this view (many atheists do as well):
* https://global.oup.com/academic/product/atheist-overreach-97...
You're left with either Nietzsche's arbitrary will, or virtues (à la Aristotle). For the latter, MacIntyre attempted to develop a system of morality (? ethics?) based on human biology:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/655623.Dependent_Rationa...
Once can certainly tell oneself that there is a certain purpose or meaning to one's life, but if you're a materialist, then (the argument goes (AIUI)) it's not true.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
The arrangement of atoms is arbitrary and without meaning, and to call some arrangement(s) "good" or "bad" or better / worse is a value judgement that is just as arbitrary and meaningless.
> And he's not the only one to hold this view (many atheists do as well):
The author Christian Smith is apparently a Roman Catholic. What do you mean?
Links to three books which I've read recently (some owned, some library), and a link to an overview of the topic which they cover.
> The author Christian Smith is apparently a Roman Catholic. What do you mean?
Whether he is or not, the book in question has numerous footnotes to people / philosophers who are atheists.
“Many atheists do” (they are in the footnotes of this book written by a Catholic). That’s misleading.
Lenin wrote like someone who hates liberalism. Stephen Miller gives that vibe from the right, though I doubt he can write anything coherent at all.
No, he's not. Not at all. Rorty has been and always will be more important, and more famous, than MacIntyre. This is not to insult MacIntyre, who was important within philosophical circles but not so much in the general public, except perhaps within religious groups, with which I'm not well acquainted.
Rorty's breadth of influence was also greater than MacIntyre's, ranging from "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" to "Achieving Our Country", addressing vastly different subjects and audiences.
[0] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691217529/wh...
I do agree that it seems very weird to call Rorty "largely forgotten".
(One pair of data points, from the person whose knowledge of such things I know best, namely myself. I am not a philosopher in any sense beyond that of having a bunch of books on philosophy. If you asked me out of the blue to name a book by MacIntyre, I would definitely remember "After Virtue", might remember "Whose Justice? Which Rationality?", and would not be able to think of any more. I could give you a crappy one-or-two-sentence summary of what AV is about (which would e.g. largely fail to distinguish his ideas about ethics from Anscombe's) but couldn't tell you much more about his work. If you asked me out of the blue to name a book by Rorty, I probably wouldn't be able to but would probably recognize a couple of his. I could tell you I thought he did important work in the general area of epistemology but not more than that. So to me MacIntyre is a bit more famous than Rorty. But my sense is that that's a bit unrepresentative among not-really-philosophers, and probably quite a lot unrepresentative among actual philosophers.)
What you mean is that you know MacIntyre better than Rorty. To be famous is literally to be known about by many people, so there's no such thing as "famous to me".
I don't judge fame by my own familiarity, otherwise many obscure people would be "famous" and many famous people "unknown".
> But my sense is that that's a bit unrepresentative among not-really-philosophers, and probably quite a lot unrepresentative among actual philosophers.
Indeed.
I mean, if you want to complain about people making judgements of relative fame on insufficient evidence, fair enough. But I'm having trouble figuring out why my comment is the one that requires that complaint, when the other three people in this thread passing judgement on the relative fame of Rorty and MacIntyre (1) in no instance give any more evidence than I did, and (2) in fact give no indication at all of where their opinion comes from.
(I actually don't think I quite do mean "that [I] know MacIntyre better than Rorty", though I agree that that's the specific thing I gave a bit of kinda-quantitative evidence about. I think what I actually meant is more like "I have heard more about MacIntyre than about Rorty". That correlates well with who I know more about, for obvious reasons, and in this case it matches up OK, but there are philosophers I know more about than either but who I would consider less famous even with the yes-I-know-strictly-incorrect "to me" qualifier; for instance, I have read zero books by M. or R. but one by Peter van Inwagen, but I have hardly ever heard other people talking about him and I think I encountered his work while browsing bookshop shelves. I know Inwagen better than MacIntyre but I hear about MacIntyre much more often. Again, I admit that you couldn't reasonably have got that distinction from what I actually wrote; to whatever extent I'm offering a correction it's a correction of my previous unclarity, not of any perceived misunderstanding on your part.)
My point is that the anecdotal data of one person is completely worthless. And for what it's worth (nothing), my own personal anecdotal data is the opposite of yours, so we cancel each other out. I would also note that the commenters on a MacIntyre obituary are an extremely biased sample.
> the other three people in this thread passing judgement on the relative fame of Rorty and MacIntyre (1) in no instance give any more evidence than I did, and (2) in fact give no indication at all of where their opinion comes from.
It's true that I've offered no empirical evidence for my claim. My objection to you is that you offered your own personal experience as a data point, whereas I did not, and indeed deny that my experience is data: "I don't judge fame by my own familiarity". I actually have no wish to get into a long argument about the relative fame of two persons and was mainly just reacting to the ridiculous, "20 years after Rorty's death, he's largely forgotten", which by the way was not supported with evidence either (and was not even numerically accurate, because Rorty died 18 years ago). In any case, another commenter did mention how Rorty has entered into the wider culture in at least one respect: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44074114
(Zero plus zero plus zero plus ... plus zero equals zero. But if you ask 1000 people and they all say "I've heard of X but not of Y" or "I've heard of them both but heard more about X than about Y" then you have, in fact, got pretty good evidence that X is more famous than Y. Even if they're in the comments on an article about X, which of course I agree will give you a biased sample.)
Anyway, I think this argument is taking up something like 10x more space than it actually deserves and don't propose to continue it further.
It's less than zero. It's negative. Taking a very biased, unrepresentive anecedote and presenting it as positive evidence for some conclusion is fallacious and misleading. It's worse than presenting no data at all. You should have no confidence in a broad conclusion based on an anecdote.
> But if you ask 1000 people and they all say "I've heard of X but not of Y" or "I've heard of them both but heard more about X than about Y" then you have, in fact, got pretty good evidence that X is more famous than Y. Even if they're in the comments on an article about X, which of course I agree will give you a biased sample.
I couldn't disagree more. If you ask 1000 randomly selected people, that's pretty good evidence, but it's not good evidence if the sample is highly biased.