In response to a similar list posted on a blog by Brian Leiter which I found to be disturbingly skewed from the perspective of the analytic tradition in philosophy, I have decided to make my own list of the top 20 most important philosophers of the modern era. I’ll give a brief reason as to why they’re included and ranked as-is after their listing:
1. Immanuel Kant: My listing here doesn’t deviate at all with the list posted by Leiter. I don’t think there’s any reason to debate Kant’s place at #1 on any list.
2. Martin Heidegger: Heidegger is the only philosopher in the modern era who comes close to having as comprehensive a philosophical system as Kant. This is the first and possibly most substantial deviation I have from Leiter’s list. Notice Heidegger doesn’t even make that list. Unbelievable!
3. Edmund Husserl: The father of phenomenology is also not mentioned on Leiter’s list. That list isn’t even trying to hide its incredulous analytic bias. Phenomenology is kind of an important movement in the modern philosophical era– and without it, it’s probably doubtful you have a Heidegger.
4. Isaac Newton: One of the most influential thinkers and natural philosophers in history, let alone the modern era. Since he isn’t classically taught as a philosopher, per se, I can’t fault Leiter’s list for perhaps not even putting him up for consideration. I can only assume that’s the reason Newton wasn’t included.
5. David Hume: The most important and advanced of the British Empiricists, impossible to ignore his influence on anglophone philosophy, let alone on the #1 philosopher on this list, Kant (it’s also no surprise he gets placed #2 on Leiter’s posted list– so this isn’t a controversial ranking). Hume also gets points for essentially defining what it means to be intellectually honest (this is entirely my own categorization).
6. Karl Popper: Totally underappreciated. Philosopher with incredible scope, from philosophy of science to political philosophy. I’d say that he was the most important philosopher of the 20th century aside from Heidegger (Husserl lived most of his life in the 19th century). He’s essentially the uber-Hume. I think history will rank him much higher in influence and import than the credit he seems to get today (I imagine most people’s lists would not include him there). Also not mentioned on Leiter’s list.
7. Søren Kierkegaard: “The father of existentialism” is a fair label– though I think you could include Nietzsche in on the label too. His influence as a precursor for postmodern thought shouldn’t be understated either. Made Leiter’s list at #15– far too low.
8. Ludwig Wittgenstein: I struggle with how to rank Wittgenstein. I think his personal journey through philosophy essentially amounts to getting it totally wrong and then ultimately crawling his way back to square one. His genius is unquestioned and his work has been an unmatched catalysis for creative thought in the 20th century. I list him more for his later work than his earlier stuff; I’m certain that Leiter, who ranks him at #4, prefers him for the early work.
9. John Locke: Locke’s influence is pretty undeniable. As the first British Empiricist, he influenced Hume and Berkeley. His notions of the social contract and the self influenced everyone from Rousseau to Kant. Leiter’s list had him at #5, undoubtedly for most of these reasons. I’m fine with throwing him in wherever.
10. Friedrich Nietzsche: Like Kierkegaard, big early influence in existentialism and postmodernism, critical thought, etc. His influence as a cult-like figure is also worth noting. Leiter ranked him at #13, so not a big difference.
11. Jean-Paul Sartre: Sartre didn’t make Leiter’s list either. It’s a joke to me that someone like Kripke makes Leiter’s list, but not Sartre. Sartre’s influence in philosophy is well-established and he should also be noted as a cult-like figure. He basically defined existentialism (insofar as he coined the term, I mean). He loses some points because the vast majority of his major work is just a derivative of Heidegger’s– which Heidegger essentially took for rubbish. I disagree with Heidegger though: Sartre is a personal favorite. So he prominently makes the list!
12. Rene Descartes: I wouldn’t mind if someone wished to rank Descartes higher. His importance in the modern era is paramount– most historians mark Descartes as the “Father of Modern Philosophy”. So he probably at least deserves mention in the top 5, right? I ranked him lower because I think you could as easily paint Descartes as the villain of the modern era as anything else. His influence was more for the sake of rebuttal. Thus, it’s unfortunate that he is often the starting point for discussion of philosophical issues in the modern era, since in my opinion his thought lacks sophistication. Leiter ranked Descartes more predictably at #3, though.
13. Karl Marx: I don’t think it’s uncalled for to consider Marx the most important political and social philosopher of the modern era. You might make a strong case for Rousseau, Hobbes or maybe if you stretch it, Mill or Rawls too. Though Marx’s thought seems to have moved history in a way that still can’t be measured. Leiter put him at #14, so no big difference there.
14. Baruch Spinoza: Evoked by Wittgenstein, revered by Hegel and highly regarded by Nietzsche, Spinoza’s place on this list could be much higher. He might be the modern era’s most important early rationalist. Leiter placed him at #11.
15. Maurice Merleau-Ponty: Appreciation for his philosophical contributions are growing rapidly; and this is a personal favorite. Not really surprising that he’s not included on Leiter’s list.
16. Arthur Schopenhauer: One of the biggest influences on a number of names already mentioned– like Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. The quintessential pessimist, Schopenhauer is also one of the widest ranged systematic thinkers on this list– his philosophy is relevant to everything from psychology to politics, art and sex. Somehow he also avoided mention on Leiter’s list.
17. G.W.F. Hegel: I really, really dislike Hegel. But as one of the creators of German idealism, he’s been remarkably influential. I’m definitely with his detractors (Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Peirce, etc), but here he is anyway, at #17.
18. Charles Sanders Peirce: The founder of pragmatism. Difficult not to list the influence of pragmatism in the 20th century, especially in American thought.
19. Thomas Hobbes & Jean Jacques Rousseau: Yes, I’m ranking them both at 19. I don’t know which to choose. Both monumentally influential with political philosophy, but also with notions of human psychology and motivation.
20. Michel Foucault: I feel like I should include a deconstructionist somewhere on this list, and I don’t have the heart to include Derrida. Foucault is a personal favorite, particularly for his critical studies of the human sciences, and psychiatry in particular. I think he’ll be lent a lot of influence when history looks back.
————————————————-
The first things to clarify are the names not included on this list, but which were included on Leiter’s list: Frege, Mill, Leibniz, Russell, Berkeley, Quine, Kripke and Rawls.
First of all, Frege ranked #6 on Leiter’s list. I don’t think he belongs anywhere in the top 50. That one is the biggest joke on his list. If anything, that name at #6 is the best evidence of the list’s supreme analytic bias. As for Leibniz and Berkeley, I find most of their philosophical contributions to be patently absurd, so they don’t belong there.
I like Mill, but a top 30 list would be better fitting for him. Rawls is too specialized, only really being a political philosopher. But he’d probably make a top 30 list too.
Quine and Kripke are analytic/academic favorites, but I hardly suspect they will have enough influence to be seriously remembered with these other names as history unfolds.
That leaves an explanation for leaving off Russell: Let’s face it, Russell was more of a popularizer of philosophy than anything. In considering him, I felt more like his inclusion would be like including Carl Sagan as one of the greatest physicists of the modern era. As a logician, put him in the top 5. But logic isn’t philosophy. To Russell’s credit, he at least tried to connect the two enterprises– albeit in vain. He talked a lot about just about every other topic too, though he was hardly a system builder for any of it.
So there you have it; there’s my list. How would your list be different?
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 24, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Daniel K
I would consider myself a student in the analytic tradition so I would include guys like Kripke and Frege. What’s so wrong with Frege anyway? Why do you not include him? His contributions to logic has been supremely important in the development of 20th century philosophy. I think Frege in mathematics is closer to philosophy than including Newton in physics on the list.
Here’s my list:
1. David Hume
2. Immanuel Kant
3. Baruch Spinoza
4. Rene Descartes
5. Gottfried Leibniz
6. Ludwig Wittgenstein
7. Bertrand Russell
8. Saul Kripke
9. Søren Kierkegaard
10. John Locke
11. Thomas Hobbes
12. Willard Van Orman Quine
13. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
14. Charles Sanders Pierce
15. Jean Jacques Rousseau
16. John Stuart Mill
17. John Langshaw Austin
18. Karl Marx
19. Edmund Husserl
20. Rudolph Carnap
P.S. Continental Philosophers after Husserl were douche bags.
What do you think of Leiter’s Top 20 philosophers of all time list?
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/the-20-most-important-philosophers-of-all-time.html
August 24, 2009 at 2:49 pm
bryannelson
Daniel,
The analytic tradition is really a very narrow and specialized cross section of philosophy done in the modern era. I typically think it a shame that students of philosophy are only taught within its bounds in many university classrooms with that kind of bias.
Furthermore, the analytic/continental distinction is an unfortunate one. For starters, one label is stylistic while the other is geographic. This has caused many people to instead label the distinction as ‘anglophone/continental’. But then the distinction is still inappropriate, since then one label is linguistic while the other is geographic. If you label it as ‘anglophone/non-anglophone’ then that’s unfair and, frankly, marks of discrimination, since ‘non-anglophone’ refer to a number of distinct languages and influences, mostly of French, German, Spanish, Russian, Scandinavian, Portugese, Italian, etc etc. How can you group them all together like that? And besides, it’s not as if there aren’t any English-speaking philosophers influencing ‘continental-speaking’ philosophers, or vice versa.
If you begin to break down the distinction, you realize that ‘analytic’ philosophy is just a sliver of the entire philosophical landscape. Furthermore, my own opinion is that as a stylistic tradition, its impact on history will eventually disappear to almost nothing. It has already had almost no impact on the history of thought outside of its own academic settings. At least, not when compared to the immense impact of the diversity of thinkers mentioned on this list.
I find it hard to believe that analytic philosophers in the 20th century belong anywhere near these other names.
The other problem I have with how students are taught analytic philosophy is that they seem to hold such vitriol for any philosophy done outside of the tradition. For instance, how can you claim that all philosophy done on the continent after Husserl is done by douche bags? Where does that come from?
Perhaps it is symbolic of analytic philosophy’s desperate stake at drawing distinctions in everything.
As for Frege, it’s true that he was a prominent and important logician. But doing logic is not doing philosophy. His thought was utilized by philosophers like Russell, but that doesn’t make what Frege was doing philosophy. It’s just not the same thing. And besides, insofar as it was a philosophical enterprise, it was a complete dead end. It was a monumental failure. And I disagree that Frege has such prominence in mathematics. Frege is taught in logic classrooms, hardly at all in math. Only logicians with little training in math tend to make such claims.
I don’t get the Frege-worhip. Or the symbolic logic worship, for that matter.
August 24, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Daniel
“Furthermore, the analytic/continental distinction is an unfortunate one. For starters, one label is stylistic while the other is geographic….”
Yes yes of course, when I say “Continental” I mean; philosophers in the schools of Frankfurt School, Phenomenology, Idealism, Existentialism, Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, Deconstruction, etc etc.
————
“[Analytic philosophy] has already had almost no impact on the history of thought outside of its own academic settings. At least, not when compared to the immense impact of the diversity of thinkers mentioned on this list.”
Computer Science, through Frege then Church and Turing. That by itself is immense enough.
————-
“I find it hard to believe that analytic philosophers in the 20th century belong anywhere near these other names.”
And Merleau-Ponty does?! Though come to think of it, I admit Carnap’s star is already on the horizon. But definitely not Kripke or Quine.
————-
“The other problem I have with how students are taught analytic philosophy is that they seem to hold such vitriol for any philosophy done outside of the tradition. For instance, how can you claim that all philosophy done on the continent after Husserl is done by douche bags? Where does that come from?”
If I think Derrida, Lacan, et al. are charlatans and frauds, yeah you can call that vitriol if you want. But not for everything non-analytic. The only Continental philosopher I respect and even admire is Søren Kierkegaard. It’s way different from analytic, but from what I’ve read, he is more than worthy of the title philosopher. It’s a shame his heirs are guys like Heidegger and Derrida; not Wittgenstein and Popper (both of whom also admired SK, but could not write about him in the analytic climate).
————-
“Perhaps it is symbolic of analytic philosophy’s desperate stake at drawing distinctions in everything.”
You’re also drawing distinctions as well; if we are guilty of including Wittgenstein, Frege, Russell, Carnap, Moore et al, then you guys are guilty of including Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault, Lacan, et al.
————-
“I don’t get the Frege-worhip. Or the symbolic logic worship, for that matter.”
Isn’t that why there is a split in the first place?
August 24, 2009 at 7:32 pm
bryannelson
“Computer Science, through Frege then Church and Turing. That by itself is immense enough.”
I find it a stretch to credit Frege with the development of computer science. His work in logic had an influence on early computer scientists like Turing and Church, yes, but that’s just through association because they were trained in his work on logic. And anyway, no one is including them on a list of the top 20 philosophers of the modern era. They were more adequately specialized as computer scientists and logicians rather than philosophers. Where they do dabble in wider philosophical contexts comes with applying their theories of computation to a theory of intelligence and mind. And history is already showing that their influence in artificial intelligence and cognitive science is rapidly fading and has failed in its application. That’s not to take away from the incredible pertinence of computer science, I just don’t see how this story elevates Frege, or analytic philosophy, if its principle application was in such a specialized discipline. Why not just study computer science?
—————
“And Merleau-Ponty does?! Though come to think of it, I admit Carnap’s star is already on the horizon. But definitely not Kripke or Quine.”
Merleau-Ponty’s influence in cognitive science is proving to be much more pertinent than the influence of anyone from an analytic school. Pick up any modern intro to the philosophy of cognitive science and try to avoid his influence on contemporary work.
Merleau-Ponty crossed boundries with his phenomenological work which Husserl merely began. His work has incredible relevance in all sorts of interdisciplinary fields. I understand if you choose to ignore phenomenology in your studies, but you’re being dishonest to suggest that the field hasn’t been just as important in the story of 20th century philosophy as analytic philosophy. You can prefer one school and still acknowledge the other.
That said, I’d understand anyone who felt Merleau-Ponty hasn’t earned his place on a top 20 list yet. That is one listing which was more of a prediction on my part. I think he’ll be more of a shoe-in as history unfolds.
——————
“If I think Derrida, Lacan, et al. are charlatans and frauds…”
In what sense do you mean they are charlatans or frauds? I mean, if you put the whole of philosophy within the confines of the methodology of the analytic tradition, then yes– they certainly aren’t doing philosophy in that style. But that’s just it, “analytic philosophy” is not synonymous with philosophy as a whole. The later Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard, let alone Spinoza or Hegel, are examples of philosophers which you included on your own list which would also be considered charlatans under that characterization, so I assume you mean something else?
“It’s a shame his heirs are guys like Heidegger and Derrida; not Wittgenstein and Popper…”
I don’t understand this characterization. Are you implying that Heidegger and Derrida are engaged in a similar project? Or that Wittgenstein and Popper can be classed together neatly?
I can feel some sympathy for why you might have some distaste for Derrida, but I think you’d be very mistaken to somehow lump Heidegger in a category with him. Heidegger is very close to Wittgenstein, and still closer to Popper too than to Derrida. If you had to draw similarities, anyway.
Maybe you aren’t speaking about substance, and instead just mean that Heidegger and Derrida are both a bitch for you to read?
——————–
I often worry about students who are trained in analytic schools who criticize philosophers like Heidegger. I wonder: is he even part of your studies? Have you ever taken up a study in Heidegger? What are your classifications of his work really based on?
Further, you appear to lump Heidegger in with the likes of Derrida and Lacan, which I find curious. What is the common association there? Again, the later Wittgenstein, Husserl and Kant– all names on your top 20 list– are far easier to associate with Heidegger than any of the names you seem to want to lump him with.
Also, you’re throwing out a lot of names which were not mentioned in any of the discussion previously, like Lacan and Derrida, etc. Is any name which doesn’t appear in the analytic canon, or who doesn’t write in the analytic style, just sound like deconstruction and noise to you? I don’t get the purpose of using them as primary examples when they weren’t even on either of our lists anyway.
——————————
It just seems– and this is common among students in analytic philosophy– that you not only want to demarcate analytic philosophy from all other philosophical styles, but you want to call most of what isn’t analytic philosophy non-philosophy. That is a strange tendency to me. Especially since all such a tactic really does is make analytic philosophy less relevant outside of the ouroburos world of analytic academia itself.
August 24, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Daniel
“I find it a stretch to credit Frege with the development of computer science. …”
I was responding to your mention that: “Analytic Philosophy has already had almost no impact on the history of thought outside of its own academic settings.” Turing and Church studied Frege to become the fathers of modern Computer Science, just as Adam Smith studied Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke to be the father of Classical Economics. Economics as a discipline has had a great impact on the history of thought, as has Computer Science. (If Turing and Church studied Husserl to create CS, the world might be a different place….)
——
“Merleau-Ponty’s influence in cognitive science is proving to be much more pertinent than the influence of anyone from an analytic school. …”
I honestly haven’t read Merleau-Ponty here, so I’m taking it on your word that he’s influencing CogSci. Though I find it odd that even Continentals (in my perception of course) don’t seem to take MMP very seriously. Or is it because he, as well as Beauvoir, were stuck under the shadow of Sartre until recently. Nevertheless, Top 20 position is stretching it.
——
“In what sense do you mean they are charlatans or frauds? …”
Analytic philosophy isn’t synonymous with philosophy very true. But even Kierkegaard understood the need for logic in philosophical thought. I just don’t find Derrida or any of the postmodern philosophers exhibiting any good logical argumentation in their philosophy. To me, it’s all a mismash of thoughts here and there, and while there are pieces of gold hidden (like Derrida’s idea of forgiveness), he doesn’t execute it very well.
——
“I don’t understand this characterization. Are you implying that Heidegger and Derrida are engaged in a similar project? Or that Wittgenstein and Popper can be classed together neatly?”
Nope. What I am suggesting is how Kierkegaard’s works have been used by Heidegger and Derrida, a perversion of the original intentions of Kierkegaard. Whereas Heidegger secularized him and Derrida misinterpreted the point of the pseudonyms, Wittgenstein in his Public and Private Occasions seems to be sensitive to SK’s reason for writing; it would have been interesting to have seen Kierkegaard discussed in PI.
——
“Maybe you aren’t speaking about substance, and instead just mean that Heidegger and Derrida are both a bitch for you to read?”
Oh lordy lordy lordy, my feeble analytic brain could not make heads or tails of Being and Time and Of Grammatology, no suh! I’m not one of those analytics that take pride in NOT reading the Continentals. I did read them, but I just found it either obtuse or just plain wrong. With Kierkegaard, although he inherits Hegelian verbiage, he is still a delight to read with his use of parable and analogy.
——
“Also, you’re throwing out a lot of names which were not mentioned in any of the discussion previously, like Lacan and Derrida, etc…”
Let’s just say, there’s no way in …. that a deconstructionist (or poststructuralist I should say) can ever make a top 20 list, even Foucault. Sorry, my personal biases is conflicting with yours on this case!
September 2, 2009 at 10:10 am
Jamie
My list would have some women, notably Simone de Beauvoir. She provided the philosophical basis for the second wave of feminism, which is directly relevant to half the population of the world.
September 6, 2009 at 4:20 pm
bryannelson
Good choice, Jamie. I agree. However, I’m worried that de Beauvoir exists in the minds of many as forever in the shadow of Sartre– unfortunately so.
But for the record, I’m down with replacing Foucault on my list with Beauvoir
September 10, 2009 at 11:58 am
Tom
Your comments on Popper were interesting. As a scientist, I can’t escape his impact on methodology and teaching and I reckon he is the most influential/important philosopher in the lives of non-philosophers, whether they like him or not.
October 17, 2009 at 1:35 am
Elris
It’s very interesting to look at a list like this after having spent most of my college years essentially studying continental philosophy which is to say media studies. I’ve taken early modern and German idealism but had to go to the Judiac studies department for Heidegger, the comparative literature department for Marx, and inside my own department have become acquainted with many Frankfurt school philosophers, Marxists, psychoanalysts, and semioticians (that is to say, Benjamin, Derrida, Althusser, Foucault, Freud, Lacan, Butler, Copjec, Adorno, Horkheimer…). Inasmuch as philosophy is popularly defined, Leiter I suppose is correct considering his audience. I feel like there’s been no philosophy that much of the Anglophone world would even consider philosophy from the Continent since Sartre after which it breaks down into “critical theory” and other such designations. A list this short is impossible to fill. I suppose I would leave it as such (though somewhat arbitrary in its order):
1. Kant
2. Hegel
3. Marx
4. Hume
5. Kierkegaard
6. Nietzsche
7. Descartes
8. Sartre
9. Spinoza
10. Locke
11. Hobbes
12. Rousseau
13. Derrida
14. Lacan
15. Foucault
16. Heidegger
17. Popper
18. Wittgenstein
19. Spinoza
20. Husserl