so who would you put in or replace
or did wikipdia nail it
>>7923264
Confucius, Averroes and Buddha.
Heiddegger, Aristotle, Descartes.
>>7923264
Aristotle
Aquinas
Anselm
Kant
Spinoza
Marx
There's really no other list
Buddha, Confucious, and Averoes have like 0 fucking influence on fucking anything.
>>7923264
Aristotle
Hume
Kant
Frege
Russell
Carnap
>>7923264
Idk. Why don't you read all of those philosophers instead of wasting everyone's time including your own with this thread?
Socrates
Kant
Marx
Hume
Aquinas
Descartes
Quine
Dummett
Putnam
Davidson
Kripke
No one else matters
replace buddha with zhuang zhi
>>7923344
Davidson and Lewis.
>>7923264
Replace all of them with a picture of a group of men masturbating in a circle.
>>7923264
Replace Buddha with Aristotle, that's pretty much it. Also, Isn't this discussion better for /his/?
replace all those irrelevant non-whites with dead white men.
geez wikipedia, no need to be all wrong because of political correctness
>>7923323
>Confucius
>no influence on anything
Confucius shaped Chinese civilization. Confucianism had a hand in forming almost every norm and tradition in Chinese society and history. Almost every facet of Chinese society owes something to Confucius, not to mention having a massive part in the development of Japanese and Korean civilization. Idk much about it, but I think the same can be said of Buddha and India.
>>7923350
Lewis is nowhere near the calibre of those men. Dubious metaphysical hogwash no one really cares about; he is however one of the highest-cited anals in the town even though high citation-numbers do not necessarily imply quality. For the lights of many, it's mostly highly seductive and speculative bullshit.
Davidson was in fact the least technically competent philosopher out of the bunch. To rank the rest is a pretty tough call; all were eminent logicians.
>>7923425
Yes, but China as a whole is irrelevant. I mean, they're basically not people.
>>7923428
>By the lights of many
typo
>>7923264
I'd take the obligatory sandnigger out. He's just there for the diversity, while Buddha and Confucius are rightfully there on merit and influence. The Islamic Golden Meme is basically just babysitting Greek texts until Europe was ready to advance the World Spirit again.
>>7923438
lol back to pol
>>7923428
>Dubious metaphysical hogwash no one really cares about
You must be thinking of his modal realism - which really represents less than 1% of his output, but gets blown out of proportion by the casual student because it's "controversial".
Lewis is actually the least 'metaphysically extravagant' philosopher on the list, apart from Quine. His core premises is nominalism and Humeanism with respect to the laws of nature:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/#HumSup
(Unfortunately, combining the two leaves no place for modality except via worlds as concrete entities, so that's how he got backed into the MR corner.)
But in any case, he wrote about a vast range of topics that do not depend on any of these metaphysical positions, and always raised the level of clarity. That's why he is the most cited man in philosophy.
His papers are freely accessible online, by the way:
http://www.andrewmbailey.com/dkl/
Some good ones:
'Elusive Knowledge', 'New Work for a Theory of Universals', 'Scorekeeping in a Language Game', 'Causation', 'Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow', 'Parts of Classes', 'How to Define Theoretical Terms', 'Attitudes De Dicto and De Se', 'Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications', 'An Argument for the Identity Theory', 'Finkish Dispositions', 'General Semantics', 'Humean Supervenience Debugged', 'Putnam's Paradox', 'Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic', 'Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities', 'Survival and Identity', 'Causation as Influence'.
>>7923431
>this is what the west believes
It's lacking a frog (D-man?), and maybe a brit (Hume, Locke?). Someone from the Middle Ages/Church could come in handy too.
>>7923323
>Buddha
>0 fucking influence on fucking anything
Seriously nigga?
>>7923503
No, this is what everyone that doesn't spend their time pulling on their pecker to pictures of slant-eyed prepubescent-looking girls believe.
>>7923492
Not even /pol/ to be honest. There have just been no really important Muslim philosophers.
>>7923503
Its more like amerifats believe, they are scared to death of china.
>>7923531
>they are scared to death of china.
>amerifats
Not really, it's (((neo-cons))) that are worried about muh GDP meme, not actual americans.
>>7923396
>/his/
Spend half an hour lurking /his/ and you'll learn why that board is like a fusion of r4chan and tumblr.
>>7923518
Oh look - a pimply 15 year old who thinks he's an expert.
>>7923431
they make all the shit we're using tho, without them it would be a much less comfortable world. Their cuisine is also probably the most influential too, that's one of cultures main components. It'd be retarded to think there's no influence.
>>7923546
>they make all the shit we're using tho, without them it would be a much less comfortable world.
Yes, because it would be impossible to manufacture elsewhere what they're producing. Are you retarded?
>Their cuisine is also probably the most influential too, that's one of cultures main components.
Not something that's actively and meaningfully happening.
There's influence, but not something that's insurmountable.
>talking shit about the chinks
You'll be sorry in a minute, the middle kingdom has been the centre of civilisation for all of human history with a slight setback for the last few centuries because the roundeyes got their hands on certain technology a bit sooner.
Soon natural order will be restored and China will reign again.
>>7923543
>implying anyone on this board is above the age of 12 and has read a book
top fucking kek m9
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Kant
Nietzsche
*Token non-western philosopher* otherwise Hume, Hegel or Marx
>>7923264
Nailed it.
>>7923554
>>7923546
We were talking about the influence of Confucius, you talk about Chinese influence in terms of being surmountable or not? Seems as if you have some sort of racist hostility towards the Chinese. We've established that Confucius was integral to shaping the most superior civilizations of the east and therefore of the entire world. I don't think his influence can be overstated in that area. Brush it off if you like, but the west is not be-all-end-all.
>>7923546
Ah yes, all that cheap trash the proles of America need to feel alive after the factory shut down and moved to China, however will we live without that?
And their cuisine is not even influential, in terms of the culinary world. It's just that it's cheap, quickly made crap that's easy to shove down your gullet once everything stops making sense and you don't care about anything anymore.
>>7923566
Purely in terms of influence philosophical influence (ignoring stuff like Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China, etc.) I think it would probably make more sense to have Hegel, because without Hegel's dialectics there would never have been Marx's dialectics, and without Hegel there would also not have been the Left Hegelian movement to influence Marx.
>>7923264
Why has /lit/ all but forgotten about the only philosopher that matter recently?
>>7923578
I agree with this one
>>7923264
According to a survey of *actual* philosophers, here are the ones most identified with:
1. Hume (481)
2. Aristotle (416)
3. Kant (398)
4. Wittgenstein (364)
5. Quine (250)
6. Russell (211)
7. David Lewis (200)
8. Gottlob Frege (196)
http://philpapers.org/surveys/demographics.pl
>>7923501
>less than 1% of his output,
Why don't you give me some actual statistics, if you can at all read them, instead of nebulous, out-of-the-hat approximations?
>gets blown out of proportion by the casual student because it's "controversial".
Not really, but nice try making it seem that it does. It's by no means "blown out of proportion by the casual student"; it's what a lot of people, professional philosophers among them, think.
>actually the least
Measured by whom and by what possible criteria? Some anonymous poster on a Chinese image board?
>His core premises is nominalism and Humeanism with respect to the laws of nature
As it happens, as a figure in philosophy of mathematics he's pretty much a non-entity; and Humeanism, in that recent survey of contemporary philosophers, was in the minority.
>level of clarity.
That's probably the only take-away message from Lewis
>That's why he is the most cited man in philosophy.
No he isn't. The cause of his popularity is more or less analogously explained by the cause of the popularity of Chalmers: produce and introduce a seductive, but fundamentally a bullshit idea and sell it to the crowd, which is what he did. Writing "about a vast range of topics" does not necessarily make you "the most cited man in philosophy"; that's lazy thinking and a godawful inference.
>>7923576
Aye, you are probably right.
>>7923608
>The cause of his popularity is more or less analogously explained by the cause of the popularity of Chalmers: produce and introduce a seductive, but fundamentally a bullshit idea and sell it to the crowd, which is what he did
No, Lewis's stuff on modal realism is not well cited. Less than 1% of the citations concern his modal realism. In the case of Chalmers you are correct, though.
Look, as a fellow analytic here, I'm not interested in a drawn-out cage match about who's better than who. I made my case. If you don't like him, you don't like him.
>>7923507
Averroes is from the Middle Ages.
In all seriousness, these 6 philosophers have had a great impact on society in general, but not necessarily in academic philosophy.
Aristotle has made all sorts of contributions, and he merits his place. Kant should also be there, because his work was of interests to both the analytic and continental philosophy. I wouldn't put Nietzsche, Buddha, Confucius and Averroes there, though. I mean, They probably did it to add some diversity, but truth be told Buddha and Confucius are not strictly speaking philosophers. They were propaganda boys for ideology, as was Nietzsche to some extent. I think they could have been replaced by other people. They were too biased against the XX century.
>>7923646
Point taken.
>>7923703
>They can't be properly called philosophers.
>They're totes properly described by papa Karl's PoV.
This is why no one likes you pinkoes, you talk like fucking zealots.
>>7923703
Here's the thing though you could take a completely different argument to this issue. Buddha and Confucius are probably more influential, overall, than anyone else there.
Entire societies and lives are organized on their principles. You can't say the same for Kant or Plato for example. Chinese government and familial practices are shaped to this day by Confucious. The spiritual, social and ethical lives of South east Asians is driven by the ideas of the Buddha. Can we say Kant or Plato had the same influence? Doubtful.
>>7923973
Considering Plato was Aristotle's teachers, and his focus on empiricism which developped as a reaction to Plato's ideas and his teachings gave way to modern western society through the renaissance and science, and these affected the whole world, yes we can in Plato's case.
However, he didn't directly affect the world in the same way Kungfuzi or Gautama did, that's true; a better equivalent to them would be Jesus in social impact.
>>7923537
>t. assblasted stormfag who got told to fuck off
>>7924045
>Calling things by a different name is [boogeyman of the month] now.
Time and bandwidth are precious, don't waste it on platitudes, will you?
bump
>>7924098
thank u for doing it again
>>7924098
needless and a trait of people who rambled off pi when it came up
>>7924098
>don't waste it on platitudes, will you?
also please stop writing to yourself in public
>>7923323
>Confucius
>0 influence
Are you actually retarded?
>>7923264
I'll take Hume over Nietzsche, and maybe Aristotle over Plato.
>>7923598
Why are actual philosophers such plebs lit?
>>7924813
desu frederick would take you over hume
>>7923345
This man speaks the truth
>>7923264
kant is a mistake, but shows how retarded rationalists are, especially the moderns.
we do not know what plato thought, besides being some rationalist too.
what averroes did ?
>>7924813
>Hume over Nietzsche
wew I hope to never attend your lectures
>>7924983
Averroes basically said the Quran is truth and any logic must coincide with the Quran or else.
>>7924813
Hegel > Hume > Schopenhauer > Nietzsche
>>7923428
>To rank the rest is a pretty tough call; all were eminent logicians.
It is fairly easy: logic and any rationalism is a disease embraced by people who despise enough empiricism to choose to dwell into their mental proliferation, then trying to claim that their speculations are less speculative and nihilistic than what they are, typically in fantasizing about speculations which give access to truth, reality or even back to their fantasy of empirical world, but this time with a better hedonism for everybody (because pains must be hated and pleasure be loved).
>>7923323
It's just liberals trying to be multicultural.
>>7923374
Kek. This desu senpai. Philosophy is a spook.
Western Philosophy:
Aristotle 100
Plato 87
Immanuel Kant 74
René Descartes 51
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 46
Thomas Aquinas 39
John Locke 37
David Hume 36
Augustine 30
Baruch Spinoza 27
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 27
Socrates 26
Arthur Schopenhauer 24
George Berkeley 21
Friedrich Nietzsche 20
Thomas Hobbes 19
Bertrand Russell 18
Jean-Jacques Rousseau 17
>ctrl f
>no deleuze
>>7925561
lol
>>7923598
thats awful
>>7923521
Read more
>>7923264
Epictetus over any of these fags.
>>7925598
Modern philosophy is pure autism. What do you expect.
>>7925677
>analytical philosphy is pure autism
ftfy
>>7923264
Buddha isn't a philosopher, and Confucius and Averroes didn't have nearly a big enough influence in any relevant part of the world to be represented there. All 3 should be taken out.
In terms of popular influence alone, I'd probably replace them with Aristotle, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer.
By importance:
Plato
Kant
Hegel
Neitzsche
Wittgenstein
Foucault
Honestly wtf is this Nietzsche bandwagon I can name at least 15 philosophers who are more influential and coherent.
>>7925880
IS that Kripke in the middle?
>>7925898
>didn't have nearly a big enough influence in any relevant part of the world
>Confucius
You've got to be kidding.
>>7925598
>thats awful
...said the spotty teenager with no clue what he's talking about.
>>7926419
Nietzsche is larger in the public psyche than almost any other philosopher out there.
He is someone everyone can recognize as a philosopher, even if they know nothing about philosophy.
>>7926449
So the hunger games should be on the literature page?
>>7923323
Butthurt orientalists incoming
>>7923574
Of philosophy, the west is the end all be all. Without confucius, modern philosophy would be no different.
>>7926457
The Hunger Games isn't iconic like Nietzsche
>>7926449
Only in the sense in which Yogi Berra is the most important philosopher "in the public psyche".
>>7926488
I never claimed important but he is iconic, there is no denying that
>>7926493
Who gives a fuck? Aristotle and Plato are 10x more iconic
>>7926493
The problem is, he's not actually a philosopher.
>>7926500
your adorable
>>7924710
So a commentary on someone else's posts is a platitude to you?
>>7926708
You're angry
>>7923431
that's a truly horrible thing to say.
>>7923264
Why Averroes and not Avicenna? I got the impression Avicenna was the king of Islamic philosophy.
>>7923264
Buddha?
Isn't he more of a mythic cult figure? According to wikipedia no one even wrote any of his teachings down for four hundred fucking years. Averoes was clearly chosen a diversity token that wouldn't piss off Americans as much as Muhammed.
just about nailed it
if they're going for non-eurocentricism in the bottom row though they could probably try harder and pick someone not from the asian/middle eastern continent, maybe replace Averroes.
No mention of Jesus? Seriously?
>>7928585
i think they had to have existed to be included fuckboy
>>7928573
there are mythical stories and spiritual cosmologies that are blended into the various Buddhist traditions, but at its core it is really just an agnostic philosophy about becoming unattached and recognizing fundamental emptiness.
>>7923264
ftfy
>>7928573
I figure Averroes is to make up for no Aristotle, no math or geometry, and to contrast Kant, Confucius, and Nietzsche on rights and rhetoric. It's either that or add Mozi and nobody cares who he is anymore.
>>7928635
this is the only answer i really like itt
>>7923264
Does anyone actually freaking understand Plato? I just don't get wtf is going on here.
>>7925001
>this is the best quota sandnigger they could find
>>7926404
bingo, maybe drop plato DESU but people like the idea of greeks so much that aint gonna happen
>>7923325
>carnap
kek
>>7925001
This is so funny it hurts. You mixed up İmam al-Gazali with ibn-i Sina.
>>7923325
>Russell
>>7928858
Noble lie, stupid proles.
>>7923578
but there's a sam harris thread every other day or so
>>7928573
Wikipedia is edited by fucking morons, who knew.
>>7923264
For Western Philosophy?
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes
Kant, Husserl, Frege
Empiricism isn't well represented as well as the modern period but Kant and Descartes are too important.
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes
Kant, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard
>>7923264
Slavoj Zizek
Sam Harris
Julius Evola
Marx
Maurras
>>7923264
I'd list the thinkers in terms of triads which show the progression of themes of thought throughout the history of philosophy:
Plato/Aristotle/Plotinus
Augustine/Averroes/Aquinas
Descartes/Spinoza/Leibniz
Locke/Hume/Rousseau
Kant/Hegel/Marx
Further divided between analytic/continental.
Anals:
Frege/Russel/Wittgenstein
Quine/David Lewis/D. M. Armstrong
Conties:
Husserl/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty
Freud/Lacan/Zizek
and so on, and so on.
>>7924098
>proving hs point
>>7927555
still :3
reread my post
>>7930493
>Freud/Lacan/Zizek
Zizek is nowhere close to Lacan or Freud in terms of importance and contribuition to their fields.
>>7923431
What the fuck makes the West relevant and the East irrelevant
>>7923503
>China is important!!!111 There women are in my animus!!!111 so kawaii desu senpai
>>7930707
The West created most of the inventions, ideas and culture that are common world wide.
>>7930679
All three are pseuodointellectual clowns.
>>7930679
But he is the most relevant progenitor of their ideas today. Which is why I placed him there.
>>7930733
>Freud
>pseudo-intellectual
fucking triggered
>>7930755
Also, I should replace Husserl/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty with
Husserl/Heidegger/Derrida
>>7930776
Yes, I'm western. If you're Asian then you're probably more familiar with Western culture than the West is familiar with your's. The west is more global.
>>7927555
not really but now a bit because you would rather talk about me than reflecton y i mightve posted the reply i did
if your so terrified to wonder on yourself and your post and y u posted it that your immedate reaction is to talk about others than dont bother posting
>>7930788
You strike me as a drooling imbecile.
>>7930781
>still doesn't provide real evidence
alright, I mean, it is a tough point to prove
>If you're Asian then you're probably more familiar with Western culture than the West is familiar with your's
Seriously, like, are you just pulling this out of your ass? Where are you getting this info from, besides assumptions of cultural superiority you've been socialized with since you were born?
American schools are notorious for teaching jack shit about Eastern culture beyond the most basic world history, so I guess I can't blame you for your cultural myopia.
>>7928573
Wikipedia is left, they're against logic and reason so are you really that surprised?
>They can't even have a simple list on philosophy without being biased
UGHHHH
>>7923264
Every young college girl who smoked pot once claims to love Hunter Thompson. In reality, he's actually a fantastic writer. Don't let his "bad ass legend" image trick you into thinking he isn't extremely talented.
Mines is:
1. John Green
2. Dr. Seuss
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Hugh Hefner
5. Dolly Lama
6. Myself
>>7930801
you are either illiterate or didnt read my reply in which case this is a waste of a reply but the capcha is already filled so goodbye
>>7930993
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the lingo of 12-year-old Latina girls.
>>7923264
>Averroes and not Al-Ghazali
definitely haram.
>>7931011
youre telling me
>>7923431
>Yes
>,
>but
>China
>as
>a
>whole
>is
>irrelevant
>.
>I
>mean
>,
>they're
>basically
>not
>people
>.
>>7928621
But we don't know who actually came up with it. We have no idea who Buddha actually was if he even existed at all. He can't really be considered a historical figure any more than Romulus and Remus. Even with Jesus Christ it only took a century or so to get it in writing.
It's painfully obvious that wikipedia had to get the color balance just right and put in someone revered by our Oriental brethren
>>7930290
>>7930881
>>7931179
>. We have no idea who Buddha actually was if he even existed at all. He can't really be considered a historical figure any more than Romulus and Remus.
does not matter...
people say that he existed because ''we cannot imagine that he did not existed, given all the sudden texts about him''.
This reasoning is applied to everybody in the past.
>>7930732
>>The West created most of the inventions, ideas and culture that are common world wide.
This. All the West has done is improving humanity's hedonism. But the West did not create anything outside hedonism.
Land, Land, Land, Land, Land, and Land.
>>7923264
>Averros
>Muslim philosophy
>implying this should be placed next to any of the others
If you stand for this, you're the problem.
>>7923425
is that father dubs?
>>7923425
Chinese society is a disaster though
>>7930870
>American schools are notorious for teaching jack shit about Eastern culture beyond the most basic world history, so I guess I can't blame you for your cultural myopia.
Yeap we could not give less a toss about you lot.
And that is why you more about us than we you.
Jeez, you asians really do have lower IQs huh
