Who's the most important philosopher of the 20th century?
We should generally be skeptical of rank-ordering philosophers (or anything), especially without some clear criteria.
Do you mean most influential at present?
A poll of Anglo-American philosophy professors found that (not surprisingly) Wittgenstein was the most important philosopher of the 20th century.
Thus we see that ones answer to this question is probably a reflection of their philosophical views.
Cultural Marx.
>>556076
Ahah.
>>556046
Either Wittgenstein or Heidegger.
>>556076
i don't say this often but,
>PURE IDEOLOGY
1. Russel
2. Wittgenstein
.
.
.
.
99999. Mildly talented post grads.
Top 10 Philosophers of the 20th century:
1. Mildly talented postgrad
2. Mildly talented postgrad
3. Bertrand Russell
4. Mildly talented undergrad
5. Mildly talented grad (tied)
5. Mildly talented grad (tied)
6. Slavoj Zizek
7. Lacan
8. Wittgenstein
9. Derrida
10. Guy Debord
>>556140
>How do you Russell is more important that Wittgenstein?
Swag.
>>556046
What's so special about Wittgenstein ?
>>556344
he killed philosophy. he didn't want to, he tried to resurrect it, but the damage was done.
>>556344
The whole "philosophy as a language game framework" renders philosophizing moot within that framework.
I have never read Wittgenstein beyond snippets, but you asked that in this thread instead of Googling, so I am giving you an answer that summarizes my own Google-level shit understanding.
If someone corrects me, with both get to learn today.
John Rawls
>>556922
Rawls is trash.
>>556046
Good ol' Crazy-Eyes Sartre.
But to answer the question, possibly Rand. As much as I dislike it, I feel her philosophy is insidiously interwoven into the economic and political fabric of modern America.
>important
Influential? Most likely to be remembered? Most cited?
>>556159
Alfred North Whitehead is far more important than Russell
>>556046
So, if I wanted to minor in philosophy, would finding a school with largely analytical philosophy-influenced professors keep me away from the worst SJW bullshit? I feel like all that stuff is pretty inextricably tied with continental philosophy.
>>556971
Really? All I can think of is Alan Greenspan.
If anything Rand is famous for having a notable influence on teenage boys and not much outside that.
>>556985
Not sure where you got that notion. Continental philosophy isn't studied in great detail in the English speaking world.
>>556985
No
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femapproach-analytic/
>>556046
Friendly reminder that there are no important philosophers of any century other than the ones that contributed to scientific method.
There are two schools of thought about the nature of the Universe.
1. The scientific method, which involves making claims and trying to prove them true or false based on observation, evidence and experimentation.
2. Making stuff up.
You can try and attack the first school of thought by gleefully labelling it positivism, empiricism, naturalism, materialism or any other "ism" you like. It won't make it stop working or nuclear power stations to stop working or planes to fall out of the sky, simply put, it works.
You can assault the scientific method with epistemological attacks and metaphysical complaints until the end of the Universe, it won't stop the scientific method working or make your own epistemologial or metaphysical postion more sound. It ain't going to make medicines stop working no matter how hard you bleat and squeal.
Philosophers should stick to ethics and art and shizzle like that. That's what you are good for, don't even bother making claims about the nature of the Universe.
The "making up stuff-ism" school of philosphical thought has no sounder basis that cannot be attacked based on metaphysics or epistemology and more importantly it doesn't even work.
>>557043
>>556344
Very few philosophers found an entire school of thought. A few dozen, maybe. So far in Western history, only three philosophers can be said to have founded two in their lifetimes: Plato, Leibniz and Wittgenstein (Plato may be credited with three, depending on who you ask). So kind of a big deal right out the gate.
More specifically is the sheer scope of his influence. Google can help you in that regard. There's a youtube clip (somewhat biographical but nevertheless a decent introduction) that's about an hour long, worth a listen next time you're hoovering or whatever.
>>557043
>>557073
Please
>>557073
>bare assertions merit refutation
This is why you should have paid more attention senpai. You wouldn't make silly mistakes like that.
>>557085
Go read some philosophy and then try again.
>>557088
In other words you have failed once again.
>>557085
>These don't seem like very good epistemological or metphysical arguments for the "making stuff up" school of thought that you adhere to.
Petitio prinicipii.
>Would you please take the focus off me as I find I'm unable to justify my bare assertions, help a brother out, eh?
Fresh out of fucks bruv. Fix your own shit.
>>557093
My defence is that "it works".
Your propistion is that "making stuff up is okay".
You could at least try and make some stuff up to defend making stuff up rather than attacking me.
>>557101
>My defence is that "it works".
You haven't been attacked, so this can be disregarded.
>Your propistion is that "making stuff up is okay".
I have not offered a proposition.
You are really, really bad at this, even by the standards of people generally disposed to dismiss philosophy. Like, I guarantee you there are people reading this right now who agree with you and are facepalming at how shit you are.
Y'all cut your bullshit, daammn.
"hell is other people" - Jean-Paul Sartre.
>>557130
>i'm running away now
'Bye.
>>556191
LMAO Holly shit, where did you get that buddy ?
>>557043
implying that trying to treat understand and discuss social dynamic and interpersonal issues are not science .
>Jezuz chill out dude !
Dewey?
Foucault?
Heidegger?
>>556133
>slavoj zizek
