Too Many British Philosophers

Are there too many British philosophers? And if so, why? If anything, the English are arguably amongst the greatest European philosophers of the past 500 years (along with the French and the Germans). But why so many of them? Why didn’t more of these philosophers become writers?

To paraphrase Schopenhauer, poets, composers and writers make their ideas accessible and communicable to the masses via their works. Philosophers on the other hand, are only understood by very few people. So, it’s much easier to become a famous and well known poet, composer or writer during one’s lifetime, than it’s to become a well known thinker.

Let’s face it, after Shakespeare, there was no one in England to outdone him as a dramatist. Shakespeare was the greatest poet, writer, and everything else...Greek Drama culminated to its highest level through his works. As a result, most of the English after him decided to become philosophers - what little there was left to say after Shakespeare, Milton said it. Shakespeare and Milton were so great, that there has been no one in the British Isles to match them in theater or poetry to date, though some have come relatively close. Nevertheless, England has had many great poets in the past, but only one Shakespeare and Milton.

Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626
Was one of England’s greatest polymath, and in fact, for a while, many thought he’d written the works of Shakespeare. Considered by many to have been the father of British Empiricism (The philosophical concept that knowledge comes from experience and not from reason.), he was an eloquent writer of essays, but he was no story teller. Nevertheless, Bacon was a contemporary of Shakespeare, so we can safely assume that he didn’t become a philosopher because he was intimidated by him. Today, he’s considered England’s first great philosopher.

John Locke 1632 - 1704
Arguably one of the 10 greatest philosophers of all times, as well as the greatest of all British Empiricists. Locke’s greatest achievement was the study of the human mind, especially, how it is that we come about knowing and understanding things. Locke was too methodical and rigid to have ever become an imaginative and interesting writer, but as a philosopher, few have equaled him to date - England or any place else.... Locke was also an important forerunner to the field of political science and contributed a great deal to that study. Philosophy, economics and political science would have never taken off in the world had it not been for Locke's study of the human mind - how do we know what we know - how can we prove what's real and what's not?

David Hume 1711 - 1776
Another British Empiricist. Hume advanced philosophy with his theories of human nature. What is rational and what is not? Do human beings die because it's a rational proposition that if human beings are mortals and mortals die all human beings will eventually die one day; or, do we know human beings will eventually die because this is what has always happened in the past? The future cannot be perceived or known, whether you want to accept this or not? So we cannot say that it's rational something will take place in the future, because the future hasn't gotten here and is unknown to us... Most of the times we know things, because it's what has always happened in the past (connecting the dots), not because something is rational or otherwise - "induction" was Hume's greatest contribution to philosophy and psychology, even if Hume never used that terminology per se... Today, Hume is considered to have been one of the most important forerunners to the field of modern psychology. Hume also influenced Kant to a great extent - Hume was too rigid to have been a great writer of fiction, but as a philosopher, many have said that he was the greatest to have ever written in the English language...

But, as you can see, many of the English became philosophers after Shakespeare and Milton. England wouldn’t become great again in drama or literature until the 19th/20th Century....