Is America Philosophical?

9 posts

Niccolo and Donkey
Is America Philosophical?

The Chronicle Review

Carlin Romano

May 20, 2012


America the Philosophical ? It sounds like Canada the Exhibitionist or France the Unassuming : a mental miscue, a delusional academic tic. Everyone knows that Americans don't take philosophy seriously, don't pay any attention to it, and couldn't name a contemporary academic philosopher if their passports depended on it. As historian Richard Hofstadter dryly observed in his Pulitzer Prize-winning Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963), ''In the United States the play of the mind is perhaps the only form of play that is not looked upon with the most tender indulgence.''

But if the title phenomenon of Hofstadter's classic indeed boasts ''a long, historical background,'' the peculiar attitude directed at philosophy in America is more quizzical than hostile, closer to good-humored wariness than contempt. Philosophy doesn't threaten or bother the practical on-the-go American. The American middle manager confronted with a devoted philosophy type is most likely to yank out the old cliché ''What are you going to do, open a philosophy store?'' and leave it at that. If, of course, the information has been accurately downloaded. Tell your seatmate on a short-haul flight that you're ''in philosophy'' and the reply is likely to be, ''Oh, that's great. My niece is in psychology, too.''

The infrequent philosophy blips on America's media screens suggest that philosophy doesn't register on the American psyche with the gravitas professors in the field deem warranted. When a blip does occur, it drives that impression only deeper.

"Page Six" of the New York Post —the ongoing Ground Zero of American gossip even in the age of TMZ—once featured Lauren Hutton, the nation's fashion model sub specie aeternitatis , anointing Camille Paglia as ''the greatest living American philosopher'' (high praise for someone another newspaper likes to introduce with the phrase "pro-porn feminist"). When a wrestler named Nick Baines declared, after entering the University of Northern Iowa to get his B.A., that he planned to become a professor of philosophy, The Des Moines Register treated him as an oddity. Local philosophers, historically wiser, noted that Plato, ne Aristocles, actually pulled a similar career move—he adopted his better-known name, which meant "broad shoulders," while competing in the Isthmian Games.

Summing up the American media mind-set, it seems, was a publicity release from a New York publishing house, hyping a two-book deal with Dennis Rodman, America's faded, body-pierced, outré , cross-dressing, ex-basketball bad boy. It offered a sweeping historical perspective on its previously unheralded new thinker in ascending font:





Does America take philosophy seriously? One might as well ask whether America takes monarchy seriously. Joking about philosophy in the United States or just ignoring it comes with the territory, like learning the Pledge of Allegiance. Hard-boiled, concrete-minded descendants of everyone from the Pilgrims to the slaves to the boat people, we pick it up along the way, like mistrusting politicians, refinancing mortgages, or choosing whiz-bang smartphones.

It's the way we're supposed to think about a discipline described by Ambrose Bierce (who promptly disappeared into the desert) as ''a route of many roads, leading from nowhere to nothing,'' and by historian Henry Adams as a field that offers "unintelligible answers to insoluble problems.''
Tocqueville, that touchstone for all synoptic thinking about America, thought the peculiar attitude of its residents toward philosophy so obvious that he began the second volume of Democracy in America by noting it: ''I think that in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United States. The Americans have no philosophical school of their own, and they care but little for all the schools into which Europe is divided."

Even Tocqueville, however, nodded. For all his general insight into the fledgling United States, he, like many French intellectuals, saw American thought through the prism of European assumptions. The conclusion he drew from that putative intellectual state of affairs—that ''in most of the operations of the mind each American appeals only to the individual effort of his own understanding''—was false then and is even more false now. His misstep came in using the word "only." He should have written that each American "also" appeals "to the individual effort of his own understanding."

For the surprising little secret of our ardently capitalist, famously materialist, heavily iPodded, iPadded, and iPhoned society is that America in the early 21st century towers as the most philosophical culture in the history of the world, an unprecedented marketplace of truth and argument that far surpasses ancient Greece, Cartesian France, 19th-century Germany, or any other place one can name over the past three millennia. The openness of its dialogue, the quantity of its arguments, the diversity of its viewpoints, the cockiness with which its citizens express their opinions, the vastness of its First Amendment freedoms, the intensity of its hunt for evidence and information, the widespread rejection of truths imposed by authority or tradition alone, the resistance to false claims of justification and legitimacy, the embrace of Net communication with an alacrity that intimidates the world: All corroborate that fact.

Mistaking American ribbing of philosophy for what the British call rubbishing, as evidence of a nonphilosophical culture, is only one of the errors traditionally committed by intellectuals in understanding the United States. Even the best philosophical societies, after all, stick it to philosophy once in a while, as Aristophanes caricatured Socrates and his Athenian logic-choppers in The Clouds (423 BC). American irreverence, far from posing a threat to philosophical activity, fuels and incarnates it.

Has the talk show declined from Socrates to Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart? Maybe, but mixing entertainment and argument isn't why. Are those inside-the-Beltway cable-babble shows really talk- over shows? Sure, but read some of Plato's dialogues and you'll see Socrates stepping on the lines of other speakers. In fact, the proliferation and popularity of American radio and television "talk" stars—from Howard Stern to Charlie Rose, Oprah Winfrey, Stephen Colbert, and Stewart—bear a resemblance, albeit imperfect, to the rise of influential celebrity rhetoricians in ancient Greece, even if today's talkers seek more to persuade and entertain (as well as provide forums) than to teach others the arts of persuasion. The story of philosophy in America is not a short subject about a narrow tributary of high Judeo-Christian culture, once commonly restricted to the university and priesthood, that failed to empty into the great river of American thought. When seen properly and whole, philosophy in the U.S.A. is more like a big-budget, special-effects movie— The Big Muddy That Flooded America! But it's important to refine and make plain the scope of this metaphorical claim.

To exalt America as the world's philosophical culture par excellence is not just to argue that American philosophers have occasionally swayed everyday society, sometimes in a trickle-down manner, sometimes directly, though a few examples are worth repeating. Just as we acknowledge that, outside America, the work in logic of non-American philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and Gottlob Frege aided the development of the computer and artificial intelligence, we know that Emerson spurred American intellectual independence, and John Dewey co-founded the American Civil Liberties Union, with huge consequences for the republic. We recognize that William James catalyzed psychology into a full-fledged discipline, and that Alain Locke helped spark the Harlem Renaissance that began the explosion of black artistic self-expression in the 20th century. Closer to the present, the theory of justice of John Rawls, the economics-accented jurisprudence of Richard Posner, the end-of-art-history musings of aesthetician and critic Arthur Danto, affect politics, judicial reasoning, and curatorial practice, respectively.

America the Philosophical means more than that.

It is similarly more than the boom in so-called applied ethics, which over the past 30 years has seen American philosophers taking jobs in corporations, hospitals, service academies, prisons, and other places outside the academy to bring fresh thinking to the moral dilemmas of those institutions. It is more than the effort of individual academic philosophers, such as gay social critic Richard Mohr, or complicated feminist figures, such as Martha Nussbaum and Paglia herself, to draw attention to terrain traditionally bypassed by the discipline's establishment, and to extend their philosophical work to activism on issues, as Nussbaum has done in regard to poor women in India.

Finally, America the Philosophical is more than a phenomenon it encompasses, but to which it cannot be reduced: the transformation by which America, once urged by Emerson to stand on its own intellectual feet, has become a net exporter rather than importer of professional academic philosophy, an intellectual bank whose bottom line is in the black.

The development is not new. As far back as the mid-1980s, The Economist observed that ''British philosophy now consists of sophisticated commentary on the bright ideas of Americans.'' In Germany, leading philosophers such as Jürgen Habermas direct their theorizing toward ideas developed by the American pragmatists. In France, Jacques Bouveresse, best known for his maverick promotion of Anglo-American analytic philosophy in the land of sometimes murky ''masters of thought,'' was elected to the prestigious philosophy chair at the Collège de France. In Scandinavia, in Southeast Asia, in South America, professors evoke the names of American giants—Rorty, Danto, Quine, Rawls, Nussbaum—as they once did those of the French, English, and Germans.

No, more than all that, acquiescing in America the Philosophical requires seeing America in the new millennium as directly, ebulliently, and ordinarily philosophical in a way that remains unappreciated by philosophers, media, and the general public alike. It is to see Americans as almost uniquely able, given their rude independence of mind, to pierce through the chief metaphorical scam of desiccated, moribund, yet still breathing Socratic philosophy: the ''justification language game'' of academic epistemologists that purports to tell the rest of us the precise meaning of concepts by reasoning through a pocketful of examples. It is to see the United States as the exemplar of a new paradigm of philosophy—albeit one with roots in the pragmatically accented view of the ancient Greek thinker Isocrates (436-338 BC)—suited to the 21st century, and keyed to accelerating trends of globalization in economics, politics, culture, ethics, and communication.

This is not an easy picture to swallow, either within our borders or without. To promote America at home as the world's pre-eminent philosophical culture is to clash with almost every cliché of American intellectual history, including Tocqueville's and Hofstadter's. To exalt it overseas is not only revisionary but offensive, certain to be received as one more example of American cultural jingoism and imperialism, the cerebral equivalent of trying to dominate the film market in France and Japan, or impose our notions of governance on China. Moreover, both here and abroad, it appears to ignore significant evidence for the traditional image of America the Unphilosophical. Consider some of that, then.

In the world of American politics, philosophers play almost no part. A few who did, such as drive-time radio jock and former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, shed their togas fairly early for bare-knuckled politics. Some, like neoconservative icon Leo Strauss, get counted as players only on an extended trickle-down theory because critics insist that they're beyond-the-grave influences on contemporary figures such as Bush-era neocons. Still others—one thinks of William Galston, a former deputy assistant to President Clinton—have come near the actual machinery of policy. But they remain anomalies.

Elsewhere in the world, by contrast, philosophers more directly influence and enter politics, sometimes dominating it. In Italy, philosopher Massimo Cacciari, twice the mayor of Venice, looms large on the political scene, and philosopher, novelist, and journalist Umberto Eco serves as cultural touchstone of the nation. In England, philosopher Roger Scruton, who played consultant to Margaret Thatcher, still loudly voices Tory concerns. In France, the likes of Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut, and Alain Badiou follow in the media-provocateur footsteps of Sartre and Foucault. In Peru, the Shining Path terrorists, founded by philosophy lecturer Abimael Guzman (sure enough, while on leave from his department), almost brought the country to its knees.

Is America more philosophical than those lands?

In the world of American print media, a similar lack of standing remains the norm. An American philosopher's best shot at coverage is an obituary, though few can expect to get what newspaper people call the "skyline"—a headline over the masthead, as French star Jacques Derrida nabbed in the Suddeutsche Zeitung . The New York Times rarely grants philosophers print acreage, and few write regularly for newspapers. Despite a seemingly bottomless appetite for guests, neither the nation's better TV talk shows nor its tabloid trash fests have ever hosted America's great philosophers, even in a pandering format (''Philosophers Who Sleep With Their Ideological Opponents!!!''). When 9/11 terrorized Americans into deep thought on good versus evil, a looming clash of civilizations, and the limits of freedom, academic philosophers were noticeably absent from the airwaves, as they have been throughout the ongoing mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, the situation across the Atlantic differs sharply. In England, philosophers such as A.C. Grayling and Scruton write regularly for the newspapers, author Alain de Botton hosts a television series about great thinkers, and two general-interest magazines, Philosophy Now , a bimonthly, and The Philosophers' Magazine , a quarterly, compete for readers. In France, yet another glossy philosophy magazine, Philosophie, can be found at kiosks at Orly, and the French tradition of inviting philosophers on talk shows looms so large that one scholar, Tamara Chaplin, devoted an entire study— Turning on the Mind: French Philosophers on Television —to the subject.
America the Philosophical? Mais non .

In the world of broader American publishing, literature, art, and culture, serious references to philosophy barely register compared with their frequency elsewhere. While a philosopher occasionally breaks out with a book, such as Harry G. Frankfurt in 2005 with his On Bullshit , it's almost always a fluke. Frankfurt's brief, casual essay, smartly repackaged by Princeton University Press with a brash title, appealed to those eager to knock off a serious book without too much investment. The combination of title and microsize accounted for the book's allure more than Frankfurt's reasoning, which, the retired Princeton University Spinoza scholar charmingly told one interviewer, he no longer considered cogent.

In England, on the other hand, one can identify a whole genre of art devoted to the celebrated Cambridge philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein alone. Monty Python immortalized him among a new audience by extolling his beer-drinking prowess, Derek Jarman highlighted his homosexuality in a film, and Dame Iris Murdoch plunked Wittgenstein spinoffs into her novels for years. Elsewhere in English culture, Tom Stoppard weaves brilliant theater around philosophical repartee, and the pop group Scritti Politti reprises ''I'm in Love With Jacques Derrida.'' In France, Eric Rohmer made philosophical conversations such as the one in My Night at Maud's a signature of elite French cinema, an art form in which the male protagonist is as likely to be a Sorbonne philosophy professor as a cop. The more philosophical the novelist in France, from Voltaire and Sartre to Michel Tournier and Michel Houellebecq, the quicker the rise to stardom.

Indeed, in fiction throughout Europe and much of the world, attention to philosophy signals literary seriousness without the implication that it estranges readers. Milan Kundera assumed the crown of philosophical novelist from Camus in the 1970s and 80s, and new champions such as Eco and Roberto Bolaño pop up regularly, even outside the largest philosophical cultures. Across Europe, Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaarder, a novel about philosophy by a Norwegian high-school teacher, became an enduring best seller on the order of John Grisham but did less well in America.
Once again, the comparisons to America seem embarrassing rather than supportive of the United States as a powerhouse philosophical culture. Attention to yet a fourth area—education—further challenges the notion of America the Philosophical.

In the United States, philosophy remains, despite its image as a bedrock of the Western humanistic tradition, a subject required of almost no one before college, of few during college (except at Catholic institutions), a major whose popularity is often thought to be eclipsed by business and computer-studies options. In the late 1970s, prestigious Rockefeller University simply disbanded its first-rate philosophy department when a cost crunch hit. In the early 1990s, City College of New York came close to eliminating its philosophy department altogether as insufficiently ''vocational.'' While pro-philosophy counterexamples exist in the world of education—for instance, the healthy support given the subject by committed philanthropists such as George Soros, Laurance Rockefeller, and Sir John Templeton—philosophy largely lives hand-to-mouth. By contrast, in France, all high-school students study philosophy and take a nationwide exam in it, forever familiarizing them with the basics. As for Germany, the country in which philosophy has traditionally enjoyed its greatest prestige, it even names Intercity trains for philosophers: On a clear or unclear day, you can see the Hannah Arendt or Theodor Adorno pull out of Frankfurt.
Niccolo and Donkey

1. Institutionalized American philosophy seems to favor the intellectual of the physico-mathematical variety, rather than the literary-humanistic one. People like Quine, etc., don't really have that many continental counterparts and where they do (e.g., Lorenzen, Kuno Lorenz in Germany), they are not so prominent. (To clarify this distinction, Karl Marx is definitely of the "literary-humanistic" kind, as well as Richard Rorty. You can see why this is not a good thing.) A consequence of this is that the occupation of "philosophy" (formal philosophy) requires a non-philosophical basis... as well it should have.

2. There is more interdisciplinary interaction in the USA (e.g., in the Santa Fe institute) between topics that may be called "philosophical" and those that belong in cognitive science or linguistics, or even engineering. This is as it should be, since no "topic" nor even "conception" is exclusively "philosophical" as opposed to scientific. One can talk about a philosophical view that cannot be settled by the test of experience, or even an idea that is too fuzzy to be part of actual science, but then even in the second case it can become formalized (like previous genetic conceptions of vis viva , simultaneity and probability). This very important connection between science and "philosophy" used to be recognized in the Germany of Wundt or Mach - it no longer is.

3. It's utterly irrelevant what the majority may think, since the majority have more important things (from their vantage point) to think about. Even if they don't, they tend to expend about as much responsibility in matters of "philosophy" as anyone may do in a game of bridge. Americans in particular are more ignorant of actual science than they are of "philosophy"... and yet the development of American science is going quite well, since that is the business of a technical elite.

Bronze Age Pervert
What you're talking about is modern academic philosophy which is as much philosophy as modern academic art is "art" and art teachers "genius artists."

There is no distinction between a physico-mathematical and literary-humanistic philosophy, there's just philosophy, which is a tradition and way of life that ended with Nietzsche. There haven't been any philosophers since 1900...

Indeed there isn't, shouldn't be and couldn't be. I was distinguishing between the kind of "intellectual" in terms of a person's intellectual background outside of philosophy. That's a very simple distinction based on a simple criterion... and of course there can be people who cover multiple categories (like Leibnitz).

Of course, one's intellectual background does affect one's style of thinking, interests and so on... Nietzsche was a philologist (of the German mold), Hegel was a theologian, Aristotle and Kant were natural scientists (Kant originated the nebular hypothesis before Laplace), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and William James were physicians, Leibnitz, Peirce, Husserl were mathematicians, Peirce was an experimental physicist, etc.

I consider Nietzsche as not quite the kind of "philosopher" (notice that now I'm speaking of the kinds of philosophical activity rather than the kinds of people who do it) in the same sense as Aristotle, although he represents a type (even if he wasn't himself) something probably just as important. His importance - if he has any at all - is necessarily similar to that of H. L. Mencken or even David C. Stove today - it involves visceral stimulation of the critical senses and immunizing oneself against insanity (the kind that Richard Rorty etc. represents). It doesn't involve any originality in terms of what theory or arguments are actually propounded - in fact, there are no complicated notions at all, just appeals to "common knowledge" (i.e., that which is familiar to all but actually understood by very few).

As actual philosophical activity is very diverse (and necessarily is, if philosophy is defined broadly enough by a simple criterion), not just in terms of individual thoughts but how they make up any possible whole (e.g., is he dividing problems into sub-problems?), the question arises as to whether there is some msyterious single quality behind all of it. I say: this is irrelevant, just like the question of whether there is a single genius or multiple "geniuses".

Weininger (and not just him - this is hardly an original idea) held that there was a single "genius", in both Beethoven and Kant. I say: this kind of concern with "genius" itself is idiotic, not the least because genius isn't even (& is quite far from) the most important thing. What makes Beethoven or Newton great is not even so much their "genius" - not anything that has to do with the feeble power of human intelligence or personality - but a combination of their very high technical ability, persistence and then on the other hand some simple conceptions (the simple, rigid and fixed techniques of composition) that make an entire subject (like formal music) possible. And it actually has to do more with the subject itself - mathematics and music are intrinsically beautiful, much more so than visual art. A "genius" without any technical ability is just an idiotic bore, completely intolerable and vastly inferior to any "normal" person.

Another reason why it's stupid is that I can come up off the top of my head a dozen very simple definitions of "genius" that are much more general than what Weininger does - for example, genius is just any kind of creative ability that does not have a "dead end". H. L. Mencken wasn't a genius (and neither was Weinginer), since all he ever did was just string up a couple of basic notions and then jarring analogies (ha ha, "phunny"!) before it finally got tedious in the end. By the way, this is necessarily not just our procedure but Weinginer's - he is much more certain of the "fact" that certain things definitely are not works of genius, than he is in his fumbling characterizations of what "genius" actually constitutes. And his book is wrong on that first point. Take, for example, his dismissal of painting or musical performance as opposed to drawing or composition - of course, we can just as easily claim that the former involves another new dimension of creation, of which Weinginer can understand nothing. And this is in fact the case: i.e, how minute changes in the details of something (like the performance of a fixed composition) can subtly affect the whole. And it's also part of something more general - that is, an ability to coordinate the whole with the parts, and something that actual musical composers like Bach etc. thought was especially important. Of this, Weininger knows nothing (and there can't be any argument that correct this), and all of his other "arguments" are completely pointless since they amount to no more than just saying: this doesn't reduce to the kind of "genius" that I am defining as resultants of a single impulse.

And so on.

I thought of making a separate thread for this, but it's really no more than a comment: The USA and Russia (since Peter I) are an interesting contrast. They are literally diametric opposites in almost every single respect, and this is best illustrated by the area of "philosophy" or speculative thought.

The USA had the greatest philosophical schools in history (in Harvard alone - James, Royce, Santayana, Quine), as well as the most original thinkers (Peirce, W. V. O. Quine), while Russia had virtually nothing in comparison (I will quote something about this below). The American intellectual elite is truly great, while the average American is a ... tard. The average Russian is probably better educated (not that this is saying much), but there were no great general thinkers in Russian history - nobody remotely comparable to C. S. Peirce, Josiah Willard Gibbs (physicist, chemist, mathematician), or even Claude Shannon.

This extends to almost every field of ratiocination, even in something as simple as a game of chess - the USA had the greatest chess player in history, Morphy, while Russia had the largest chess "school".

The exception to that is of course mathematics - the USA was extremely weak in mathematics in general - and even today, the prestige of the faculties of Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley etc. largely rests on non-Americans. Russia was (since the time of Chebyshev, Lobachevsky) extremely strong in all parts of mathematics. Even within math itself, the American strengths were just in logic and algebraic topology - two of the areas that Russia did not concentrate on as much. This is directly reflected in the differences in technology - I don't think the USA would have ever developed things like nonlinear phase conjugation , or the mathematical methods of nonlinear estimation via neural nets (btw, the publication of this book led to a recent revolution in the area) - its approach was towards more of the device physics / metrology / fabrication techniques route (i.e., I guess narrower).

As for art - the USA had no art of its own, and much of what was actually worthwhile was the creation of blacks (e.g., Jazz music). The achievements of Russia here are so obvious that there is no need for me to repeat them.

Anyway, here is Kolakowski on Russian "filoshophy":

- from Vol 2 of Kolakowski's magnum opus , in the chapter "The Beginnings of Russian Marxism"

Of course both the USA and Russia have a common characteristic, which is that they will both end up in the dustbin of history (to use Trotsky's phrase) in a few decades. So as great as their achievements were in the past two centuries, they will be essentially dead civilizations - like those of the Babylonians, Athenians, etc. That's just how nature works.
Bob Dylan Roof

Great posts, Thoughts.

Yes, I believe this is the best way to subdivide philosophers without veering into the stultifying atmosphere of modern academic categorizations.

I wouldn't go this far. From an academic standpoint, one of Nietzsche's most important innovations consisted in supplementing and correcting the ad hoc reductive evolutionary explanations of human social phenomena by turning to philology, history, and a more incisive psychology. One need only consider the typically naive, unfalsifiable Anglo-utilitarian reductions performed by evolutionary psychologists/sociobiologists like E.O. Wilson, Dawkins, Dennett, Hamilton, &c. to understand just how badly Nietzsche's approach is needed.

I also believe Nietzsche presaged some of the very radical turns taken by Anglo-Analytical philosophers, particularly in the domain of what is now called the philosophy of mind. I'll add some material here later.
America has original art - its just not quite comparable to that of Europe or Russia.

Its been said that the American artistic forms are cinema and the novel - this is quite evident, especially with respect to the former. Film is all in dialog with American precedent and preferences, wherever it is produced, and this is not (despite what nostalgics may claim) simply the corrosion of ''sovereign'' art by globalism and the capitalist ethos.

Citizen Kane, for example, wasn't merely derivative. Not even its strongest detractors claim that it was. It was the culmination of the American ethos of ''art'', which is basically at odds with everything that came before it. That doesn't however mean it isn't originally American.
Yes, I should have been more accurate on that point. American "classics" do exist, they just aren't comparable to Beethoven, Tolstoy, etc.

Good points about Nietzsche - some of what he wrote probably falls under my characterization but not the best part of it.

The "best part" of any thinker is really the only relevant part in the final analysis. The best parts of Husserl are his 1906-7 lectures on pure logic in the Materialien subseries of Husserliana, in which he presents his case much more clearly than in the Logical Investigations , and before he lost his head in Ideen I . The best part of Ortega y Gasset were probably scattered remarks that he made in joint publications, not the stuff that is more widely known (e.g., The Revolt of the Masses ). The best parts of Leibnitz were in his Nachlass ( still being translated from Latin to German). The same applies to Wittgenstein.


One last point: of course the entire distinction between "Western" philosophy, "Indian", "Chinese" etc. is just a special case of the distinction I made above (the "intellectual background"). The big difference between China and the Greco-Persian/Arab-European tradition can be traced directly to the fact that the Sinic "philosophers" were mostly literati and were also unaware of certain things (entire disciplines of exact thought). It's just a more extreme case of having slightly different intellectual backgrounds. Kolakowski expressed exactly this fact as applied to Russia (in the quote above), but he didn't realize the generality of it.

There is the fact that (I think) the Chinese and Indians lacked synthesizing or intuitive intellects on the level of Gauss, Galois, Clerk Maxwell, Poincare, etc. but that is of little relevance to the single most important developments. I've mentioned Tycho & Kepler in another thread, which was a combination of luck and extreme persistence (and a good example of how astrology was at least as important for the development of science as "Christianity"). If we remove luck, and cooperation between more than one individual, we get Aristotle as the most important intellect. Now the fundamental building blocks of Aristotelianism - matter, form, act and power - were very simple notions. These derive more from the fact that Aristotle (a product of the Macedonian aristocracy) was a naturalist, and he took the impulse towards classification into philosophy itself. (In most of the secondary literature I've read, the author just makes a passing mention that Aristotle was some sort of "scientist" and that probably had some influence on his "philosophy", although if we are speaking of the intellectual background proper the entire point is what kind of work he did.) The Aristotelian system was successful, pervasive and became part of "common sense" exactly because the component ideas were simple, powerful and difficult to undermine, despite being rough around the edges.

Some of the biggest developments within science also happen to consist of the application of methods from one area to another (like statistical mechanics).

"Chinese philosophy" is an elaborate exercise in what would have happened to the West if Aristotle never arrived in Athens, the concepts of "matter" and "form" were never established, the problem of realism vs. nominalism was never able to arise (the concept of "li" in Cheng Hao actually prevents it from even being formulated), and everyone kept using direct (but steadily more involuted) analogies with natural phenomena like with Heraclitus and the Presocratics (and the first question the Ionians asked was: "what was the world made of?" - of this, there is the extreme vagueness of the very notion of matter combined with the patent absurdity of the question), and the intellectual upbringing of the elite consisted in historiography rather than Euclid.