The latest installment in Salon's Atoms and Eden series on science and religion is an interview with Ken Wilber. Steve Paulson says that Wilber "may be the most important living philosopher you've never heard of." I admit up front that my familiarity with Wilber's work is limited (I've never read any of his books), but of all the people I've known who considered Wilber to be worthwhile, only one was someone whom I respected intellectually. Now that I've laid out my biases, maybe somebody who is into Wilber can tell me whether I'm mistaken to be so dismissive towards him. I would similarly encourage anyone who wishes to confirm me in my suspicions.
I started to read Wilber's "A Theory of Everything," but was so unimpressed after the first couple chapters that I had to put it down.
I teach introductory philosophy courses, mostly at the community college level. I often have students who have read one or more of Wilber's books, and they have questions about them, so I have read a couple of his books, some interviews, etc.
To me, he most closely resembles someone like Huston Smith, but without the scholarly credentials, and the many years of academic life at places like MIT. That is, he seems to be advocating for a form of Traditionalism, replete with his own version of the "great chain of being."
His books don't really contain much in the way of traditional argumentation in the form that readers of this blog would recognize. I gather that thinkers like this are deeply distrustful of academia, and are suspicious of any philosopher since, say, Leibniz.
Frankly, I really don't know how to engage someone like Wilber. The line of reasoning(?) runs something like this:
Umm, I don't think so. The admittedly odd combination of a traditional episcopal upbringing, including the obligatory sherry and cake on the lawn, coupled with UNC-Chapel Hill philosophical training, make this approach unappealing to me. Worse, when you start to analyze it statement by statement, it consists almost entirely of scientific error and new age nonsense.
I read a lot of Wilber's books when I was in my 20s. He is a TERRIBLE philosopher according to just about all the criteria we judge philosophers by. He's the kind of person who thinks physicalism means that there are no minds.
In spite of that, I think he is worth reading. He has some really interesting ideas on the connection between psychological development and spiritual experiences generated through serious training in a meditation discipline. The rest you can ignore pretty safely.