'Nietzche' should be 'Nietsche'. It's a mistake. (I voted for Kant.)

It's probably Kant, with Spinoza/Schopenhauer as close seconds from the list you have given. Though I suppose there are some who will vote Hume. Nietzsche is a popular choice, but he lacks the perennial nature of Kant/Spinoza/Schopenhauer. Many atheists/pomo lovers will vote Nietzsche though, because of his passionate invectives against religion/tradition and his pre-empting some of their themes. If you had added Kierkegaard, many theists would have voted for him too :P

'Nietzche' should be 'Nietsche'. It's a mistake. — mosesquine

Actually, it should be Nietzsche.

Are we just taking into account philosophy, here? Because if we're considering scientific stuff then Newton and Galileo would probably be the two most important.

Ah, it should be 'Nietzsche'!

Hume is easily my favorite out of that bunch. It's been clear for awhile that there are a lot of Kant fans around here though (as well as a lot of Aristotle, Aquinas, etc. fans on the board)

Many atheists/pomo lovers will vote Nietzsche though — Agustino

I agree with some of Nietzsche's views--and obviously I'm an atheist and have some pomo-like views, but in my opinion Nietzsche was a horrible writer and he wasn't even a very good philosopher with respect to his methodological approach.

Of the bunch I voted Descartes because he's arguably the beginning of modern philosophy, and I would say the reason for that is because of his contribution to philosophy. In many ways we are still dealing with the problems he set out. Everyone disagrees with Descartes, of course (well, most everyone) -- but it is this very requirement of disagreement which makes him the most important.

Not many take the time to disagree with Boethius, for instance. He's well known and respected in the cannon, but the modern period doesn't take the time to disagree with him in the same way as they do Descartes because he's not as important to the modern period of philosophy.

Of the bunch I voted Descartes because he's arguably the beginning of modern philosophy, and I would say the reason for that is because of his contribution to philosophy. In many ways we are still dealing with the problems he set out. Everyone disagrees with Descartes, of course (well, most everyone) -- but it is this very requirement of disagreement which makes him the most important. — Moliere

:-O .................................................... I can't believe what I just read... I think people can't be fucked to even disagree with Descartes. They ask who is the village idiot, who is the easiest to pick on? Descartes! Great! Let's do it! They reply to him only in jest, only as a means of having an easy target against which to frame their own philosophy. Seriously - in all of philosophical history, I doubt there exists a man who has had so many terrible ideas - so many!

People will revere ignorance if it let's them be the saviour of the world. Without those mistakes, their work couldn't be passed off as the Jesus of philosophy.

>:O

I agree with some of Nietzsche's views--and obviously I'm an atheist and have some pomo-like views, but in my opinion Nietzsche was a horrible writer and he wasn't even a very good philosopher with respect to his methodological approach. — Terrapin Station

I'm surprised that you'd say he was a horrible writer. I read the Kaufmann and Tanner translations and consider them some of the best philosophical prose available. I don't find all of Nietzsche equally relevant, but I'd put him in the first rank.

It's between Kant and Nietzsche, but I went with Nietzsche because he's a bigger influence on me, and far more fun to read than Kant!

They ask who is the village idiot, who is the easiest to pick on? Descartes! Great! Let's do it! They reply to him only in jest, only as a means of having an easy target against which to frame their own philosophy. — Agustino

I s'pose that seems a misreading to me. Descartes was certainly not a village idiot, and rejection of Descartes is characteristic of much of modern philosophy -- hence why I said he is so important to it.

Did major philosophers of the modern period respond to Descartes because he was easy to respond to due to his village idiot status? That's just a wrong opinion. No, of course they didn't. Even if he has so many bad ideas, as you note, philosophers don't respond to bad ideas because they are bad ideas to make a joke.

It is noteworthy that Kant -- who I think is one of the best responses to Descartes, for whatever that's worth -- is also frequently disagreed with by much of the philosophical cannon.

Locke given his influence over the political landscape.

I'm surprised that you'd say he was a horrible writer. — R-13

Well, such assessments are subjective. We'll have different preferences, different tastes. Some folks I feel are excellent writers you might think are horrible. (Or if not you, some people will think they're horrible writers.) Nietzsche writes too "continentally" for my tastes. I tend to hate that style of writing.

Some folks I feel are excellent writers you might think are horrible. (Or if not you, some people will think they're horrible writers.) Nietzsche writes too "continentally" for my tastes. I tend to hate that style of writing. — Terrapin Station

Yes but your expressions aren't adequate. Good writing - in a literary sense, in the sense which Nietzsche's writing is good - has nothing to do with thoroughness. Nietzsche has a lot of insights, but he jumps from insight to insight and spends little to no time proving anything, or building up arguments. That doesn't mean he's a horrible writer, that means, on the contrary, that he is a great writer who is able to expound complex ideas in simple and appealing terms. His thought functions intuitively, instead of being stuck in the granny step-by-step, you're-too-quick-for-me mode.

You seem to want thoroughness from writers. What's the point? What's the point of having, for example, undeniable proof for something? That's too hard to come by, and we don't need it for the purposes of action.

Good writing - in a literary sense, in the sense which Nietzsche's writing is good - has nothing to do with thoroughness. — Agustino

"Good writing" has something to do with thoroughness if the person doing the assessments cares about thoroughness and prefers that to a lack of the same.

Not that I said anything about "thoroughness" necessarily--I wouldn't use that term, at least, but "good writing" has to do with what the individual doing the assessments cares about, what they prefer, or what they consider to be necessary for what they prefer.

I'm certainly NOT talking about "undeniable proof" of anything. Empirical claims are not provable, and logical claims are only provable with respect to the particular system of logic we're using.

Your first comment regarding Nietzsche:

Nietzsche was a horrible writer and he wasn't even a very good philosopher with respect to his methodological approach. — Terrapin Station

Seems to read like:

If there are among my readers any young men or women who aspire to become leaders of thought in their generation, I hope they will avoid certain errors into which I fell in youth for want of good advice. When I wished to form an opinion upon a subject, I used to study it, weigh the arguments on different sides, and attempt to reach a balanced conclusion. I have since discovered that this is not the way to do things. A man of genius knows it all without the need of study; his opinions are pontifical and depend for their persuasiveness upon literary style rather than argument. It is necessary to be one-sided, since this facilitates the vehemence that is considered a proof of strength. It is essential to appeal to prejudices and passions of which men have begun to feel ashamed and to do this in the name of some new ineffable ethic. It is well to decry the slow and pettifogging minds which require evidence in order to reach conclusions. Above all, whatever is most ancient should be dished up as the very latest thing.

There is no novelty in this recipe for genius; it was practised by Carlyle in the time of our grandfathers, and by Nietzsche in the time of our fathers, and it has been practised in our own time by D. H. Lawrence. Lawrence is considered by his disciples to have enunciated all sorts of new wisdom about the relations of men and women; in actual fact he has gone back to advocating the domination of the male which one associates with the cave dwellers. Woman exists, in his philosophy, only as something soft and fat to rest the hero when he returns from his labours. Civilised societies have been learning to see something more than this in women; Lawrence will have nothing of civilisation. He scours the world for what is ancient and dark and loves the traces of Aztec cruelty in Mexico. Young men, who had been learning to behave, naturally read him with delight and go round practising cave-man stuff so far as the usages of polite society will permit.

One of the most important elements of success in becoming a man of genius is to learn the art of denunciation. You must always denounce in such a way that your reader thinks that it is the other fellow who is being denounced and not himself; in that case he will be impressed by your noble scorn, whereas if he thinks that it is himself that you are denouncing, he will consider that you are guilty of ill-bred peevishness. Carlyle remarked: ``The population of England is twenty millions, mostly fools.'' Everybody who read this considered himself one of the exceptions, and therefore enjoyed the remark. You must not denounce well-defined classes, such as persons with more than a certain income, inhabitants of a certain area, or believers in some definite creed; for if you do this, some readers will know that your invective is directed against them. You must denounce persons whose emotions are atrophied, persons to whom only plodding study can reveal the truth, for we all know that these are other people, and we shall therefore view with sympathy your powerful diagnosis of the evils of the age.

Ignore fact and reason, live entirely in the world of your own fantastic and myth-producing passions; do this whole-heartedly and with conviction, and you will become one of the prophets of your age. — Bertrand Russell

It seems a very facile and uninvolved critique of Nietzsche. I mean Nietzsche wasn't like Bertie - Bertie wanted to be very thorough in everything and thus moved very slowly, and most of the time dealt with trivialities that aren't relevant to anyone (being thorough comes at a cost - you never get around to analyzing what truly matters, because you're always stuck in the intermediary steps, making sure your system is right). With regards to his progressivism and radicalism though, he was merely a pamphleteer and ideologue. Consider Principia Mathematica and the likes - countless and countless of pages to prove 1+1=2... I don't consider being stuck in trivialities to be good philosophy, regardless of how rigorously, this is done - regardless of the methodology used. Nietzsche knew which matters were of importance and always went straight to the heart of life itself - he wasn't interested in why 1+1=2 - he didn't care, there was no time to care about that. There was no time to offer arguments for all the little bits and pieces, that was a job that was left for someone else. That's precisely why Nietzsche's insights are more valuable than 1000 Russells - they deal with what truly matters, they are worthy of being contemplated and debated. That's why Nietzsche is very well known outside of philosophical circles - his insights are relevant to life. But Russell? Very few outside philosophers and academics themselves have even heard of him. So yes, a man like Nietzsche is different. In fact, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are entirely unique in the history of philosophy - no one is like them.

And consider his insights. "God is dead - and WE have killed him"

That's not merely saying that God doesn't exist. That's not merely saying that God existed and died. But it's saying that God existed and he is dead because of us. We are his murderers. What does God stand for? Stands for the ultimate reason of the world, the totality of everything. Humanity's attempt to totalise the world is dead - reality is inherently fractured, and no attempt at systematising can get beyond it - in fact every attempt at systematising actually causes us to kill God (the very system we seek to create). We project our values onto the world, and then are left with the very values we have projected. Look how rich that simple phrase is - how relevant it is, to almost anyone breathing on this planet, be they theist or atheist (and in fact Nietzsche on a deep reading probably has nothing to do with atheism as such - I don't think Nietzsche was even interested in the debate does God exist?). But Russell - give me a break, I have to read hundreads of his pages before I get to any sort of small insight - much less a ground-breaking insight into the matter.

Again, you realize that this is a matter of tastes/preferences, right? In my opinion, among philosophers, Russell easily gets the top slot as a writer. In your opinion, he's a far worse author than Nietzsche. We have different tastes. There are no correct answers for this sort of thing.

Again, you realize that this is a matter of tastes/preferences, right? In my opinion, among philosophers, Russell easily gets the top slot as a writer. In your opinion, he's a far worse author than Nietzsche. We have different tastes. There are no correct answers for this sort of thing. — Terrapin Station

In terms of our tastes, we clearly have different tastes. But that comes merely because we value different things. So there is no question that for someone who values insights, Nietzsche is greater than Russell, and more worthy of being read. Whereas for someone who values methodology, Russell is a better read than Nietzsche.

So there is no question that for someone who values insights, Nietzsche is greater than Russell, — Agustino

You don't believe that someone could feel that Russell had far greater insights than Nietzsche?

You don't believe that someone could feel that Russell had far greater insights than Nietzsche? — Terrapin Station

Nope, because it's just a fact he didn't. You could value certain aspects of writing which are found in Russell over aspects of writing found in Nietzsche, but on the same criteria there is no room for disagreement, one of us has to be wrong.

Nope, because it's just a fact he didn't — Agustino

Oy vey. How the heck can it be a fact that one person had greater insights than another? What are we looking at in the extramental world to determine that? How are we quantifying the insights exactly? How are we enumerating them?

It's not an empirically determinable matter. There are other truths, but arguments won't convince you; you need to have the eyes for them.

It's not an empirically determinable matter. — John

It's an empirical issue. You're not claiming that it's an a priori matter, are you?

No, it's like all judgements of aesthetics and ethics; they cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical inquiry. You need a different faculty for the task; and if you don't have it....

No, it's like all judgements of aesthetics and ethics; they cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical inquiry. You need a different faculty for the task; and if you don't have it.... — John

Well, or you're just believing something that's grossly in error.

That's certainly one merely logical possibility in that it would not entail any self-contradiction. On the other hand, through experience some things which have nothing to do with the so-called objective nature of the world may be known without any possibility of doubt. The only thing which will convince of this is experience, though.

Some of Nietzsche's work shows evidence of this kind of experience, Russell's, for the most part, doesn't.

It's not a logical possibility.

Ethics judgement is not made on the basis of empirical states. It's a question of a logical position which has various relationships to the world. If an author's work is greater, it's so on the basis of ethical logic. It's not possible for empirical inquiry to confirm or disconfirm this matter.

On the other hand, through experience some things which have nothing to do with the so-called objective nature of the world may be known without any possibility of doubt. — John

I'm certainly not questioning that you have that psychological experience. But it's just a psychological experience.

And after all, if the psychological experience of knowing something without any possibility of doubt is sufficient to establish it as correct/true/a fact/etc., then it's true/it's a fact that aesthetic and ethical judgments are subjective, it's true/it's a fact that there are no gods, it's true/it's a fact that there are no nonphysical existents of abstract reals, etc., because I have the psychological experience of knowing that those things are the case without having any possibility of doubt.