Toxic Writing Sample Topics?

[applicant655321]

I am a recent graduate from a well-ranked terminal philosophy Master’s program (Tufts) which has a good placement record. However, so far, I’ve gotten nothing but rejections from schools. I was wondering what people’s thoughts are concerning whether or not there are certain writing sample topics that are simply a bad idea to write about given the current philosophical climate, and should probably be avoided by anyone interested in getting admitted into a PhD program.

 

My sample this time was in the philosophy of mind/cognitive science, about whether or not the empirical truth of a particular variety of simulationism (a.k.a. “simulation-theory”) would render eliminative materialism (a la the Churchlands/Stich/etc.) unintelligible. In my paper, I argue (1) that the particular variety of simulationism standardly advanced to support this argument is incompatible with recent empirical discoveries in developmental psychology, and (2) that even if this were not the case, there are important conceptual distinctions ignored by the simulationist which leaves the eliminativist thesis substantially unaffected.

 

Now, I would be lying if I said I wasn’t aware of the general distain contemporary philosophers of all stripes seem to have for eliminativism. (I met one person who referred to the view as the “galactic empire of philosophy of mind.”) My question is if people think it is likely that members on application committees would reject, or look unfavorably on, an applicant merely on the basis of the topic of their sample, even if the paper was clear, contained well-reasoned arguments, and demonstrated an engagement with a segment of the contemporary literature on a given topic.

 

To be clear, I don’t want to come off sounding like a victim, and I don’t want to sound like I think there is some conspiracy to keep eliminativist inclined philosophers of mind out of academia. Rather, I am wondering what people’s thought are concerning committees’ philosophical biases and to what extent they can influence (or even determine) the outcome of admission decisions.

 

If I decide to apply again next year, do people think should I plan on writing an entirely different paper, perhaps in an entirely different sub-field of philosophy?

 

(Finally, if anyone would be interested in actually skimming over my writing sample to get a sense of whether or not it’s just a crummy paper, feel free to PM me for a copy.)

[MattDest]

I voted 'maybe', because I suspect that there are possible writing sample topics that would be giant red flags to admissions committees. I don't think your topic is 'toxic', because I don't think the position one takes is nearly as important as how well one argues for it. Of course, there are some positions which are so absurd that a philosopher might be inclined to see someone advocating for it as badly mistaken. I don't think eliminativism is that type of position. 

 

Whether or not you should change the subject of your sample seems hard to know. It depends largely on whether you could have a better paper by then on another subject, or if you think you could improve this one, etc. 

[zblaesi]

I have a 3.95 GPA from NYU. I have letters from Sharon Street, Robert Hopkins, and Crispin Wright. I studied under Sharon Street for nearly a year, including via an independent study. She knew me very well and was always encouraging of my work. I became acquainted with Robert Hopkins through a grad seminar I took for credit. He warned me that the class would be difficult, but I finished with an A. He told me personally that he liked my contributions in class, that I was writing on a graduate level, and that it'd be surprising if I didn't get into more than one program. Presumably they both wrote me good letters. I only took one course with Crispin Wright, but I don't believe he would agree to write me a letter if he had nothing good to say. I'll admit it: my GRE scores are crap. But I was hoping that wouldn't play a huge role.

 

I applied to 15 programs, and I have 0 acceptances so far. I have to believe that my writing sample is the reason for that.

 

I developed my sample under Sharon Street for my independent study. My paper is basically a critique of Richard Joyce's linguistic step of moral error theory. I sketch his linguistic step as a hypothesis about the meanings of moral terms, and then I develop and defend a hypothesis according to which the meanings of moral terms are variable across speech communties and contexts. The result is that Joyce can't drive his hyperbolic claims about the widespread falsity of moral claims. I next draw a distinction between a "weak" and "hard" moral error theory, and argue that moral error theory should proceed along the former lines and target very specific concepts (or speech communities).

 

I've been told by an NYU grad student that my paper "defends an interesting, and not too ambitious, claim well. I’ve seen quite a few writing samples of successful applicants to NYU and many of them are obviously worse than yours." Richard Joyce has read it and told me it makes a good writing sample, and Michael Gill from UArizona read it and said it was excellent. (I got rejected from Arizona. Go figure.) It wasn't until Stephen Schiffer read my paper that I got largely negative reactions, and by that point, it was too late to make any major changes.

 

My concern is that my paper defends a conclusion that is - at the end of the day - not too interesting. But I was encouraged to write the paper because the result seems overlooked by most contemporary defenders of moral error theory. Derek Parfit also worried the paper isn't "distinctively philosophical," and I know there is a great deal of hate for experimental philosophy, which a portion of my paper relies on.

 

Ironically, I was developing a paper for Hopkins' seminar that was much more traditional and more philosophical. The paper was largely a critique of Nelson Goodman, but I spent some time sketching a unique theory by the end. I showed Hopkins both papers and he thought they were evenly matched. Parfit felt the same and encouraged me to use the metaethics paper. 

 

So, now I'm just a little lost. Is it possible that philosophers can be poor judges of what will ultimately make a good writing sample? Because I've gotten largely positive feedback, and now I wish I had consulted with Schiffer sooner.

 

I'm also trying to figure out which mistakes to avoid making the next time around. If any of you would like to check out my paper and give me your impression, it would be extremely helpful for the next season - if I decide to apply again.

Edited February 24, 2014 by zblaesi

[Platonist]

Actually I raised this issue in a thread a while ago, as I was worried about my writing sample. My writing sample is an attempt to argue against a contemporary tower figure (no less influential than John McDowell or Thomas Nagel) in this field, and the position I take is not going to be liked by most of philosophers (I argue that something should be justified a priori, instead of a posteriori, which most of philosophers would be uncomfortable with.) That probably plays a part in my not receiving an offer. 

 

So I am almost in the same boat with zblaesi. Some of my letter writers are pretty well-known philosophers and presumably their letters are good, if not stellar.

 

But on the other hand, I am not so sure if a good writing sample will necessarily be a defense of the position of POI.But it is pretty safe to say that a sample arguing against POI's position will cost your chance of getting in. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Platonist

[burroughs]

I'd be happy to read you sample, zblaesi, though I fear that I wouldn't have much to say that hasn't already been said.

 

Probably there are certain obvious topics (introducing the demi-urge can solve our metaphysical problems, fluid mechanics is robustly gendered) that are just about appropriate for a philosophy essay while nevertheless being, as has been put, toxic. So, we know there are some. The problem, then, would be that some philosophers take a paper defending (say) eliminativism to be another of these topics that are appropriate, but that give a sense of a philosopher as being unserious, inclined to spurious argument, & so forth. So. if someone who holds your topic to be trivially misguided reads your paper then, absent a quite magnificent exertion, they will judge it with that in mind. A really good paper on the demi-urge is still just a really good paper on the demi-urge.

 

A second problem will be that some philosophers just dislike certain arguments. Suppose that philosopher X really dislikes Mackie's argument from Queerness. Now, there are good reasons to dislike this argument, but (perhaps) some good reasons to like it too. It seems to me (at least) that a paper that uses that argument will appear worse to philosopher X, even though it may be defensible, and even though it may be appropriate to the argument.

 

These aren't really problems that you can get around with anonymity, or other tricks along that line. The problem just is that philosophers dislike certain arguments, and that it's doubtful that, reading so many applications, they all put the effort in to focus solely on quality (as if we knew what that was) and not on topic-choice, argument-form, use-of-hopefully. Anyway, I think that admissions would be disinclined to accept someone just on account of their topic if either a) that topic is taken by them to be a misguided one within philosophy or b ) most of the members of the committee strongly dislike a certain line of argument presented in most (all?) papers on a topic. The second one just about qualifies as being rejected on account of one's topic choice, I think.

 

Of course, there's also the chance that your paper is bad, that the committee is composed of poor judges or that there are a lot of better applicants. I suppose that a two or three line response to your application (although far too much work to be worth it to any sane committee) would be nice, just insofar as it would make these problems clearer. Absent that, I think that a certain conservatism within applications is appropriate.

Edited February 24, 2014 by burroughs

[Gnothi_Seauton]

Actually I raised this issue in a thread a while ago, as I was worried about my writing sample. My writing sample is an attempt to argue against a contemporary tower figure (no less influential than John McDowell or Thomas Nagel) in this field, and the position I take is not going to be liked by most of philosophers (I argue that something should be justified a priori, instead of a posteriori, which most of philosophers would be uncomfortable with.) That probably plays a part in my not receiving an offer. 

 

So I am almost in the same boat with zblaesi. Some of my letter writers are pretty well-known philosophers and presumably their letters are good, if not stellar.

 

But on the other hand, I am not so sure if a good writing sample will necessarily be a defense of the position of POI.But it is pretty safe to say that a sample arguing against POI's position will cost your chance of getting in. 

I think it's probably not true that most philosophers would be uncomfortable with something being defended as justifiable a priori.  See, http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl .  According to this survey, about 71% of philosophers believe in a priori knowledge.  Now, some might believe in very limited a priori knowledge, but still.  I have a hard time believing that arguing for something a priori, in and of itself, would be verboten among admissions committees.  (In his Philosophy Bites interview, Kit Fine specifically says that a priori investigation is the hallmark of metaphysical inquiry.)

 

On the topic at hand, I think some writing sample topics might find favor in fewer places than others, but I doubt that there's a topic so toxic that it would be poorly received anywhere (though that might be a straw man).  Some things might be poorly received at some places and not others.  Furthermore, whether something is viewed negatively at a particular school could vary from year to year as the composition of the admissions committee varies.  One poster mentioned a paper that depends in part on experimental philosophy.  If that paper were sent to Yale, its reception might depend upon whether Joshua Knobe happened to be sitting on the admissions committee that year.  I think what I would say is that there are safer and less safe writing sample topics, but I wouldn't characterize "less safe" as "toxic."  

[Establishment]

I have a 3.95 GPA from NYU. I have letters from Sharon Street, Robert Hopkins, and Crispin Wright. I studied under Sharon Street for nearly a year, including via an independent study. She knew me very well and was always encouraging of my work. I became acquainted with Robert Hopkins through a grad seminar I took for credit. He warned me that the class would be difficult, but I finished with an A. He told me personally that he liked my contributions in class, that I was writing on a graduate level, and that it'd be surprising if I didn't get into more than one program. Presumably they both wrote me good letters. I only took one course with Crispin Wright, but I don't believe he would agree to write me a letter if he had nothing good to say. I'll admit it: my GRE scores are crap. But I was hoping that wouldn't play a huge role.

 

I applied to 15 programs, and I have 0 acceptances so far. I have to believe that my writing sample is the reason for that.

 

I developed my sample under Sharon Street for my independent study. My paper is basically a critique of Richard Joyce's linguistic step of moral error theory. I sketch his linguistic step as a hypothesis about the meanings of moral terms, and then I develop and defend a hypothesis according to which the meanings of moral terms are variable across speech communties and contexts. The result is that Joyce can't drive his hyperbolic claims about the widespread falsity of moral claims. I next draw a distinction between a "weak" and "hard" moral error theory, and argue that moral error theory should proceed along the former lines and target very specific concepts (or speech communities).

 

I've been told by an NYU grad student that my paper "defends an interesting, and not too ambitious, claim well. I’ve seen quite a few writing samples of successful applicants to NYU and many of them are obviously worse than yours." Richard Joyce has read it and told me it makes a good writing sample, and Michael Gill from UArizona read it and said it was excellent. (I got rejected from Arizona. Go figure.) It wasn't until Stephen Schiffer read my paper that I got largely negative reactions, and by that point, it was too late to make any major changes.

 

My concern is that my paper defends a conclusion that is - at the end of the day - not too interesting. But I was encouraged to write the paper because the result seems overlooked by most contemporary defenders of moral error theory. Derek Parfit also worried the paper isn't "distinctively philosophical," and I know there is a great deal of hate for experimental philosophy, which a portion of my paper relies on.

 

Ironically, I was developing a paper for Hopkins' seminar that was much more traditional and more philosophical. The paper was largely a critique of Nelson Goodman, but I spent some time sketching a unique theory by the end. I showed Hopkins both papers and he thought they were evenly matched. Parfit felt the same and encouraged me to use the metaethics paper. 

 

So, now I'm just a little lost. Is it possible that philosophers can be poor judges of what will ultimately make a good writing sample? Because I've gotten largely positive feedback, and now I wish I had consulted with Schiffer sooner.

 

I'm also trying to figure out which mistakes to avoid making the next time around. If any of you would like to check out my paper and give me your impression, it would be extremely helpful for the next season - if I decide to apply again.

 

Welp, time for me to give up.

 

More seriously though, assuming all things being equal (i.e., your WS is as you say it is, etc.), it's possible that (1) you've just had rotten luck this season, (2) you could still have some acceptances from top programs incoming. Now, it's also true that philosophers do have various biases for the type of philosophy they like seeing done, both in terms of content and method and structure. This could explain your great feedback so far, but lackluster results.

 

But I wonder what you mean by Schiffer's largely negative reaction and how substantive his criticisms were.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

Oh, and I'd be happy to read samples if anyone would like peer feedback.  I probably won't know much about the subject, but maybe that's ideal:  a clearly written paper should be accessible to someone with little knowledge of the topic.

[maxhgns]

I suspect OOO is a toxic writing sample topic. 

[Platonist]

I think it's probably not true that most philosophers would be uncomfortable with something being defended as justifiable a priori.  See, http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl .  According to this survey, about 71% of philosophers believe in a priori knowledge.  Now, some might believe in very limited a priori knowledge, but still.  I have a hard time believing that arguing for something a priori, in and of itself, would be verboten among admissions committees.  (In his Philosophy Bites interview, Kit Fine specifically says that a priori investigation is the hallmark of metaphysical inquiry.)

 

On the topic at hand, I think some writing sample topics might find favor in fewer places than others, but I doubt that there's a topic so toxic that it would be poorly received anywhere (though that might be a straw man).  Some things might be poorly received at some places and not others.  Furthermore, whether something is viewed negatively at a particular school could vary from year to year as the composition of the admissions committee varies.  One poster mentioned a paper that depends in part on experimental philosophy.  If that paper were sent to Yale, its reception might depend upon whether Joshua Knobe happened to be sitting on the admissions committee that year.  I think what I would say is that there are safer and less safe writing sample topics, but I wouldn't characterize "less safe" as "toxic."  

 

I basically agree with your second point. I tend to believe that there are not "toxic" topics, but only "toxic" arguments, so to speak. 

 

About the first point, I am not so sure if it is right. To my knowledge, many philosophers in epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of mind, among others are hostile to the a priority line of thinking, under the increasing influence of broad naturalism. But I do know that it is not the case in metaphysics, logic, and philosophy of mathematics. In the latter three areas, a priority still be favored. Unfortunately, I neither applied to NYU (and thus there will be no chance for my writing sample to be read by Kit Fine), nor did I write the sample in metaphysics, logic, or philosophy of maths. So, I guess the unorthodox position that I take may not help me to get in, if it is not a decisive reason for my being rejected. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Platonist

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I basically agree with your second point. I tend to believe that there are not "toxic" topics, but only "toxic" arguments, so to speak. 

 

About the first point, I am not so sure if it is right. To my knowledge, many philosophers in epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of mind, among others are hostile to the a priority line of thinking, under the increasing influence of broad naturalism. But I do know that it is not the case in metaphysics, logic, and philosophy of mathematics. In the latter three areas, a priority still be favored. Unfortunately, I neither applied to NYU (and thus there will be no chance for my writing sample to be read by Kit Fine), nor did I write the sample in metaphysics, logic, or philosophy of maths. So, I guess the unorthodox position that I take may not help me to get in, if it is not a decisive reason for my being rejected. 

I still think there are plenty of philosophers within epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of mind who are open to arguments that proceed a priori, but perhaps you have a better feel for the extent to which strong empiricist forms of naturalism have taken hold than I do.  I don't pretend to be an expert!

Edited February 24, 2014 by Gnothi_Seauton

[Platonist]

I still think there are plenty of philosophers within epistemology, ethics, and philosophy of mind who are open to arguments that proceed a priori, but perhaps you have a better feel for the extent to which strong empiricist forms of naturalism have taken hold than I do.  

 

OK, Gnothi, you are probably right, and that would be a good news for me too.   I really hope my writing sample will not cost my chance. Congratulations on your multiple, high end, acceptances! 

[TheVineyard]

I wrote directly against one of the most famous philosophers alive, and attacked one of his/her most famous (and well-taken) arguments. Some schools love it and really take to it, and some don't like the style. The schools I have been accepted to or have shown interest in me pre-decision show a pattern of empirical-mindedness. In short, I believe my sample was high risk high reward, and the result bear that out.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Gnothi_Seauton]

OK, Gnothi, you are probably right, and that would be a good news for me too.   I really hope my writing sample will not cost my chance. Congratulations on your multiple, high end, acceptances! 

Thanks!  If it makes you feel better, my writing sample relies on a priori arguments as well, at least in the relatively mundane sense that I didn't bother doing any kind of empirical investigation to justify the moral principles that I endorsed.  I'm skeptical that any empirical investigation could justify such principles!

[Monadology]

Some historical papers may be toxic in virtue of being too niche. It's also possible a writing sample can be toxic if it doesn't match any of your declared interests.

 

Last year I applied for the first time from my terminal MA program. My writing sample ended up being a paper I wrote on Berkeley since it was the best paper I felt I had written at that time. A top scholar on Berkeley (and Early Modern generally) said it was an excellent paper and didn't think I should be worried about using it. 

 

Well, I got two wait-lists (FSU and IUB) but ended up being shut out. In retrospect, the top Berkeley scholar said, Berkeley might be too niche a topic given that I wasn't applying to historically-oriented programs nor pitching myself as interested specifically in history of philosophy. I suspect this is correct: FSU has a Berkeley scholar interested in the very same issues my paper was on. Berkeley may also be unpopular for other reasons (most philosophers misunderstand his actual positions and I often here people talk about him as if he is nuts and obviously wrong). It may also have had that impact because it didn't clearly line up with my AoIs: it was about Berkeley's account of notions which are how we understand spirits and their activities. Technically still agency related since it concerns practical knowledge, but few people would probably see it that way.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Monadology

[Platonist]

Thanks!  If it makes you feel better, my writing sample relies on a priori arguments as well, at least in the relatively mundane sense that I didn't bother doing any kind of empirical investigation to justify the moral principles that I endorsed.  I'm skeptical that any empirical investigation could justify such principles!

Yes, it indeed makes me feel much better. It is sort of a surprise that your writing sample relying on a priori arguments helped you to get into Duke and WUSTL. As far as I know, these two programs are dominated by ethical naturalism and the empirical approach respectively, as philosophers there tend to draw on insights from empirical sciences such as neuroscience, cognitive psychology, etc. Of course, our understanding of a priori principles for morality may be different. I would take Kant as a paradigmatic example for a priori moral principles. But I do not think you are a Kantian. Otherwise I would be really shocked Duke and WUSTL would take a Kantian student into their program. Thanks, Gnothi. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by Platonist

[zblaesi]

 If that paper were sent to Yale, its reception might depend upon whether Joshua Knobe happened to be sitting on the admissions committee that year.  I think what I would say is that there are safer and less safe writing sample topics, but I wouldn't characterize "less safe" as "toxic."  

 

Oh yeah. Knobe read my paper too and was stunned. I'm guessing he wasn't on the committee this year...

[Hilbert's timequake]

zblaesi, I suspect that though your application is excellent, there are a lot of other excellent applicants, so any worry could become substantial ("not distinctively philosophical", "the conclusion is not too interesting eventually"). Also, I wonder whether you only applied to the top programs, for it seems that overall you have a good chance for getting into a decent place.

[zblaesi]

zblaesi, I suspect that though your application is excellent, there are a lot of other excellent applicants, so any worry could become substantial ("not distinctively philosophical", "the conclusion is not too interesting eventually"). Also, I wonder whether you only applied to the top programs, for it seems that overall you have a good chance for getting into a decent place.

 

I applied to 15 different programs. All of them are top 30, except BU. But I'm not sure if I'd want to go to BU as opposed to waiting a year and applying again.

 

Ironically, Schiffer was adament that I apply to University of Texas, which I wasn't conidering, and I just got a waitlist notification from them today.

 

I still have this delusional hope that someone at NYU who knows my ability personally will fight for my application. It's possible. I just hope Schiffer isn't on the committee!

Edited February 24, 2014 by zblaesi

[TheVineyard]

I'm actually amazed that someone got into Duke with an a priori writing sample.

[philstudent1991]

I have a 3.95 GPA from NYU. I have letters from Sharon Street, Robert Hopkins, and Crispin Wright. I studied under Sharon Street for nearly a year, including via an independent study. She knew me very well and was always encouraging of my work. I became acquainted with Robert Hopkins through a grad seminar I took for credit. He warned me that the class would be difficult, but I finished with an A. He told me personally that he liked my contributions in class, that I was writing on a graduate level, and that it'd be surprising if I didn't get into more than one program. Presumably they both wrote me good letters. I only took one course with Crispin Wright, but I don't believe he would agree to write me a letter if he had nothing good to say. I'll admit it: my GRE scores are crap. But I was hoping that wouldn't play a huge role.

 

I applied to 15 programs, and I have 0 acceptances so far. I have to believe that my writing sample is the reason for that.

 

I developed my sample under Sharon Street for my independent study. My paper is basically a critique of Richard Joyce's linguistic step of moral error theory. I sketch his linguistic step as a hypothesis about the meanings of moral terms, and then I develop and defend a hypothesis according to which the meanings of moral terms are variable across speech communties and contexts. The result is that Joyce can't drive his hyperbolic claims about the widespread falsity of moral claims. I next draw a distinction between a "weak" and "hard" moral error theory, and argue that moral error theory should proceed along the former lines and target very specific concepts (or speech communities).

 

I've been told by an NYU grad student that my paper "defends an interesting, and not too ambitious, claim well. I’ve seen quite a few writing samples of successful applicants to NYU and many of them are obviously worse than yours." Richard Joyce has read it and told me it makes a good writing sample, and Michael Gill from UArizona read it and said it was excellent. (I got rejected from Arizona. Go figure.) It wasn't until Stephen Schiffer read my paper that I got largely negative reactions, and by that point, it was too late to make any major changes.

 

My concern is that my paper defends a conclusion that is - at the end of the day - not too interesting. But I was encouraged to write the paper because the result seems overlooked by most contemporary defenders of moral error theory. Derek Parfit also worried the paper isn't "distinctively philosophical," and I know there is a great deal of hate for experimental philosophy, which a portion of my paper relies on.

 

Ironically, I was developing a paper for Hopkins' seminar that was much more traditional and more philosophical. The paper was largely a critique of Nelson Goodman, but I spent some time sketching a unique theory by the end. I showed Hopkins both papers and he thought they were evenly matched. Parfit felt the same and encouraged me to use the metaethics paper. 

 

So, now I'm just a little lost. Is it possible that philosophers can be poor judges of what will ultimately make a good writing sample? Because I've gotten largely positive feedback, and now I wish I had consulted with Schiffer sooner.

 

I'm also trying to figure out which mistakes to avoid making the next time around. If any of you would like to check out my paper and give me your impression, it would be extremely helpful for the next season - if I decide to apply again.

I can't imagine that being a "toxic" writing sample. Who knows, maybe it was poorly done, but it doesn't sound like it, and it certainly doesn't sound like the topic itself was a poor choice.

[Table]

If you spend a large portion of your writing sample discussing empirical results, I think there's some risk that an admissions committee would feel that they hadn't seen enough of you "doing philosophy." 

 

 It is sort of a surprise that your writing sample relying on a priori arguments helped you to get into Duke and WUSTL. … But I do not think you are a Kantian. Otherwise I would be really shocked Duke and WUSTL would take a Kantian student into their program. 

 

Both departments have faculty members who work on Kant...

 

I would be pretty surprised if there are any departments that only accept students whose writing samples include some kind of empirical investigation. 

[turambar85]

I am interested in social and political philosophy and used a paper on Spinoza's TTP for my writing sample.  It brushes up against my interests (it *is* his political writing, after all), but I am not planning on focusing on Spinoza long-term.  Moreover, Spinoza is not exactly in vogue right now, so it might look doubly strange.  

 

I guess I'll find out soon whether or not the topic was "toxic".

[deverettf]

Is Spinoza really not in vogue right now?  My sense is that he's currently a pretty "hot" figure in early modern.  (Or do you mean that he's not popular in philosophy overall?)

[turambar85]

Is Spinoza really not in vogue right now?  My sense is that he's currently a pretty "hot" figure in early modern.  (Or do you mean that he's not popular in philosophy overall?)

 

There is some work being done on him...but I meant more "philosophy in general" and then "political philosophy".  And, even in modern, it isn't anything like Kant.  

 

And, even the popularity that Spinoza does have is more about his M & E anyway.