5 Most Influential Thinkers in the Last 500 Years

[sologdin]

[i]some 100 million people died prematurely due to influence of one heavily political philosophical theory. Millions still suffer in abject misery due to it.[/i]

heh, legitimacy of [i]black book [/i]numbers and the asserted causalities aside, i am curious why anyone who died prematurely in the soviet union is reckoned to the account of karl marx, but virtually no one who dies prematurely under a capitalist regime is alleged to have been offed by some capitalist theorist. not even the most inept commie would blame smith or walras for malnourished congolese kids, say, and friedman or von mises for 12 year-old sweatshop workers who moonlight as prostitutes in bangkok. (it is tempting, though, so i am not unsympathetic.)

perhaps it's because capitalist theory tends to lack any ambition beyond profiteering, whereas commie theory actually makes an effort to improve the world, and its failure to do so generates the appearance of culpability--but the statement quoted above exaggerates wildly the influence of any given theorist.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='DrownedCrow' post='1745798' date='Apr 5 2009, 16.25']I don't disagree with that. What I am looking for is a frequent and continuing influence of philosophy on science. But it seems that this is not forthcoming.[/quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_the_mind"]The Philosophy of the Mind[/url].
[quote]Most modern philosophers of mind adopt either a reductive or non-reductive physicalist position, maintaining in their different ways that the mind is not something separate from the body. [b]These approaches have been particularly influential in the sciences, especially in the fields of sociobiology, computer science, evolutionary psychology and the various neurosciences.[/b] Other philosophers, however, adopt a non-physicalist position which challenges the notion that the mind is a purely physical construct. Reductive physicalists assert that all mental states and properties will eventually be explained by scientific accounts of physiological processes and states. Non-reductive physicalists argue that although the brain is all there is to the mind, the predicates and vocabulary used in mental descriptions and explanations are indispensable, and cannot be reduced to the language and lower-level explanations of physical science. [b]Continued neuroscientific progress has helped to clarify some of these issues. However, they are far from having been resolved, and modern philosophers of mind continue to ask how the subjective qualities and the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states and properties can be explained in naturalistic terms.[/b][/quote]

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1745964' date='Apr 5 2009, 17.42']i am curious why anyone who died prematurely in the soviet union is reckoned to the account of karl marx, but virtually no one who dies prematurely under a capitalist regime is alleged to have been offed by some capitalist theorist.[/quote]

You say potato famine, I say Great Leap Forward. The antecedents of such tragedies are listed according to the objective thesis of the ones using those examples. Plenty of folks attribute the great famine resulting from the GLF to communism, and I can see their reasoning, but in my view, that's a failure of implementation, not of the theory, of communism. It'd make as much sense as discrediting the merits of international aid based on corruption scandals.

Also, we hear giving communism a black mark based on the deaths that resulted from the party purges and the overthrowing of the bourgeois class people, but we hear not a comparable level of criticism on modern democracy on account of the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution, no? Curious, to say the least.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='DrownedCrow' post='1745798' date='Apr 5 2009, 16.25']Please explain.[/quote]Until TerraPrime provides a far more adequate answer than I, here is something that I found on the matter.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics"][b]Einstein on the importance of the philosophy of physics[/b][/url]
Einstein was interested in the philosophical implications of his theory.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today - and even professional scientists - seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is - in my opinion - the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. EA 61-574.

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc.

"The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long-commonplace concepts and exhibiting [revealing, exposing? -Ed.] those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken." Einstein, 1916, "Memorial notice for Ernst Mach," Physikalische Zeitschrift 17: 101-02.

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1745964' date='Apr 5 2009, 18.42'][i]some 100 million people died prematurely due to influence of one heavily political philosophical theory. Millions still suffer in abject misery due to it.[/i]

heh, legitimacy of [i]black book [/i]numbers and the asserted causalities aside, i am curious why anyone who died prematurely in the soviet union is reckoned to the account of karl marx, but virtually no one who dies prematurely under a capitalist regime is alleged to have been offed by some capitalist theorist. not even the most inept commie would blame smith or walras for malnourished congolese kids, say, and friedman or von mises for 12 year-old sweatshop workers who moonlight as prostitutes in bangkok. (it is tempting, though, so i am not unsympathetic.)[/quote]


I agree. It's silly to cast-off all of Marx whole. He wrote a lot about all the areas of Philosophy, and a lot of it's really insightful. Some of it's wrong, but that doesn't make the rest invaluable.

Also to loosely quote Camus, "I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of men who came to communism through Marx. First there is conversion, than the scriptures are read."
The rise of socialism should not be viewed as being something born out of the skull of Marx. As that lover of historical inevitabiltiy, Marx himself, would tell you, it was bound to happen ;)

As for not blaming Smith and his contemporaries for failures of Capitalism, I don't think the idea of such a strong connection between the actions of the state and it's economic system was prominent until Marx and his contemporaries talked about it. I also can't figure out how to blame malnourished Congolese kids on Capitalism. French and Belgian nationalism and racism seems a more fitting culprit.

The reason Marx gets blamed for all the failure of Leninism and Stalinism is that during the last century such a large percentage of the people who claimed to be Marxist shilled so shamelessly for the Soviet regime. For the same reason, Nietzsche gets blame for Nazism



P.S. And didn't Naomi Klein just write a book in which she blamed Milton Friedman for everything? Including the invasion of Iraq (which he opposed). Just saying...

[DrownedCrow]

[quote]And that is largely what we have been arguing. Philosophy has mostly an indirect effect on society, but that indirect one is a fairly large one. The works of philosophy form the background in which scientific inquiry investigates.[/quote]

So I guess the lesson is that centuries ago a few philosophers helped create some of the guidelines on which science is based but since then philosophers have done little if anything to influence science in a positive way.

[quote]Yes, actually. It does not always come from the philosophy department of the university or from a source independent of the scientist, but science begins with philosophic inquiry nonetheless. But still I would like to see more examples of philosophers acting to somehow preserve the status quo or political correctness. How then has philosophy contributed to the detriment of science in terms of the nature vs. nurture debate?[/quote]

If you chose to define a particular stage in any scientific inquiry as philosophical in nature, then of course philosophy will have a major effect. About the nature vs. nurture thing, I was refering to the radical anti-nature atmosphere that predominated at universities for decades and was supported by many thinkers in the humanities.

Well, MFC, now that you've resorted to Wikipedia and Albert Einstein to make your arguments for you it seems that your heart is no longer in it. And with regard to the Wikipedia article, stating that philosophy is important is not the same thing as demonstrating it. I think we can call an end to this debate.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='DrownedCrow' post='1746116' date='Apr 5 2009, 21.09']So I guess the lesson is that centuries ago a few philosophers helped create some of the guidelines on which science is based but since then philosophers have done little if anything to influence science in a positive way.[/quote]That is not what I wrote nor necessarily all that I implied. As I have said, the philosophy of the mind continues to influence the developments in neuroscience, while the philosophy of language also helps to advance developments in linguistic studies.

[quote]If you chose to define a particular stage in any scientific inquiry as philosophical in nature, then of course philosophy will have a major effect. About the nature vs. nurture thing, I was refering to the radical anti-nature atmosphere that predominated at universities for decades and was supported by many thinkers in the humanities.[/quote]It is not a matter of choosing to define it in anyway, it simply is the case that a broad number of fields of science within the last two-hundred years emerged from philosophy, and those fields continue to supplant the further scientific work that is produced. Thinkers in the humanities are not necessarily philosophers. I know that a large number of cultural anthropologists were anti-nature, but anthropologists could hardly be called philosophers. But surely you know that not even all scientists were aboard for being pro-nature?

[quote]Well, MFC, now that you've resorted to Wikipedia and Albert Einstein to make your arguments for you it seems that your heart is no longer in it. And with regard to the Wikipedia article, stating that philosophy is important is not the same thing as demonstrating it. I think we can call an end to this debate.[/quote]How would you like me to demonstrate it? Sock puppets? I am not using Wikipedia to provide my arguments, but as an easily accessible resource. Nothing more. Furthermore, you asked TP for the answer, but I established that my own answer was not to provide a serious argument for myself but as a plug until TP was able to answer your question more eloquently. I am still open to debate, but I am not sure you are as you already seemed to have made up your mind on your conclusion even prior to the debate occurring. I thought that you would have been more open to learning the virtues of philosophy in the realm of science, but I was apparently mistaken.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='DrownedCrow' post='1745798' date='Apr 5 2009, 15.25']Please explain.[/quote]

Philosophy encompasses the studying of thinking, the construction of argument, and the evaluation of competing ideas. All of these are valuable tools for scientists to have. What better resource to use to hone these skills than the entire discipline devote to them?

The current scientific model of gaining knowledge is also underpinned by some premises and assumptions, such as the reliability of our senses and the validity of deductive reasoning. These are matters that philosophy has struggled with for a long time now, and our current scientific model of inquiry is built in no small part on the foundation laid by the results of these philosophical discussions. I think scientists in general will well served to understand the assumptions that go into supporting the field that they work in. This will give us a better grasp at the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific method. It is so much more than the simplified model taught in most science classes (at least, those that I am aware of).

There are also other areas in which philosophy has a direct and needed impact on science. For instance, ethics. We've seen that if left unguided, scientists are quite capable of committing horrendous acts in the pursuit of knowledge. This was amply demonstrated by the likes of Dr. Mengele, or the eugenics movement, or the Black Sun camp of the Japanese army, or the Tuskegee experiment. The list goes on. Ethics, which is the province of philosophy, helps guide the proper conduct in science, from scientific honesty to ethics review on experimentation on living subjects. Every day, philosophy assists science by validating our conduct and guiding our practices. This is hardly an insignificant contribution.

[DrownedCrow]

TerraPrime- I see what you're saying, but I have to say that most of what you described is either common sense (ethics) or to abstract to really matter in the life of a researcher. Although having a good understanding of these things can't hurt.

[quote]I am still open to debate, but I am not sure you are as you already seemed to have made up your mind on your conclusion even prior to the debate occurring. I thought that you would have been more open to learning the virtues of philosophy in the realm of science, but I was apparently mistaken.[/quote]

My charge of naivete was more accurate than I imagined.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='DrownedCrow' post='1746198' date='Apr 5 2009, 22.15']My charge of naivete was more accurate than I imagined.[/quote]My charge of ignorance was also more accurate than I imagined too, so I guess this debate shall end unresolved.

[sologdin]

din--

good post.

w/r/t the congolese kids, you're right re: euopean colonialists, but i was thinking of the mobutu/zaire episode, which was like a CIA experiment in neo-despotism gone horribly awry.

you're right about klein's latest--i had forgotten her--though i may quibble as to whether she's a commie (fellow-traveler at best!) and as to whether her argument actually blames the theorist in question. (on the same point, greg palast had some points about chicago economic theory & pinochet which may similarly support your ripsote and thereby damage my thesis. i'm heading back to the drawing board, i guess.)

if you have klein nailed, however, i'll have to revise my prior from "not even the most inept commie" to "only the most inept commie," or "only the average commie," or, if you marshal ever more voluminous & damning evidence, "every other commie but me," in which case i would be compelled to resign my current commission and take up the practice of neo-leninist eremiticism.

[The Inquisitor]

I'm a little bit surprised you haven't yet mentioned 2 great and oh! so vastly influential thinkers:

-Keynes
-Friedman

Their influence is manifest in the way in which all economic policies have been run since 1936. And they have partly built up the foundations of what is present macroeconomics, paving the way for Lucas, Barro, Mankiew, Stiglitz, Akerloff, Layard, Nickell, Kydland, Prescott, Sargent, Kitoyaki, Blanchard, etc etc etc. and all the authors of the New Classical Macroeconomics (Ultra-rationalism) and the New Keynesian Economics, thus leading to the current orthodoxy or the Neo-Neoclassical synthesis.

[MojoJojo]

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1746165' date='Apr 5 2009, 21.51']Philosophy encompasses the studying of thinking, the construction of argument, and the evaluation of competing ideas. All of these are valuable tools for scientists to have. What better resource to use to hone these skills than the entire discipline devote to them?[/quote]

My feeling about philosophy's style of argument is that it is extremely lazy, since it can basically be used to justify any point of view. Scientific reason needs to be much more rigorous, as it cant hide behind the endless word games and sophistry of a philosopher trying to "prove" something. There are still philosopher mathematicians, but If you have ever read a paper by someone arguing that the set containing only the empty set is a non empty pure set, you quickly see how little use their work is.

[MojoJojo]

[quote name='The Inquisitor' post='1746470' date='Apr 6 2009, 05.04']I'm a little bit surprised you haven't yet mentioned 2 great and oh! so vastly influential thinkers:

-Keynes
-Friedman

Their influence is manifest in the way in which all economic policies have been run since 1936. And they have partly built up the foundations of what is present macroeconomics, paving the way for Lucas, Barro, Mankiew, Stiglitz, Akerloff, Layard, Nickell, Kydland, Prescott, Sargent, Kitoyaki, Blanchard, etc etc etc. and all the authors of the New Classical Macroeconomics (Ultra-rationalism) and the New Keynesian Economics, thus leading to the current orthodoxy or the Neo-Neoclassical synthesis.[/quote]

Friedman, no. But Keynes certainly deserves some consideration. Cant believe I overlooked him.

[Wastrel]

I don't think it's really possible to measure importance or influence - how can we say what would have happened in the absence of one man?

For the sake of argument, I would focus less on direct impact and more on originality and paradigmatic status - on the grounds that while someone like Marx has had influence, because he did not represent any great leap or change it is reasonable to think that much the same would have happened without him. He was simply the most prominent and most effective materialist Left Hegelian. Likewise, although we could well say that the late 19th and early 20th centuries were more or less just the working out of various disagreements within Hegelianism, Hegel himself only continued a certain vein of thought from Kant, which likely would have been worked out by someone else had there been no Hegel. Nationalism and imperialism and colonialism and communism and anarchism and socialism and fascism and so on became inevitable (in essence, if not in extent) the moment people started reading Kant.

So, I would say the most important thinkers of Late Modernity were:

- Immanuel Kant: he defines our era

- JS Mill: 'On Liberty' and 'Utilitarianism' have been two of the texts with the greatest impact on our views on politics and ethics. In particular, 'On Liberty' has been so thoroughly incorporated into our society that a large percentage of the population can quote its conclusions almost verbatim without ever having heard of Mill - it has become so important that it seems 'common sense' (in the same way that Hegel was a century ago, and in the way that Kant has been ever since Kant, albeit to a lesser extent). What's more, his pioneering work in mathematical and logical formalism helped lay the path for Modernism, while his phenomenalism was a century ahead of its time, and he also helped make the case for women's suffrage, and feminism generally, although of course in that regard he was not the first

- Gottlob Frege: made the decisive rejection of Hegel that created Modernism, and the mathematics and logic and science of the last century.

- Edmund Husserl: the Continent's equivalent of Frege, and master of european society for a hundred years

- Ludwig Wittgenstein: as the Early Wittgenstein, the apotheosis of Modernism, whose importance cannot be underestimated. Popper and Goedel and the Logical Positivists were all just exploring his world. As the Later Wittgenstein, he was the first philosopher to transcend Kant, and show the way to a society that moves beyond the Enlightenment - after initial acceptance, we are now in the counter-revolutionary stage, I think, but without doubt the 20th century will eventually be remembered (in intellectual history) as the century of Wittgenstein.


-----

Early Modernism, I think, is more difficult. Undoubtedly Descartes must be mentioned, since Modernity is merely anything after Descartes. Even Kant is only a footnote to Descartes (and he needs a lot of footnotes, being so obviously wrong in so many ways). John Locke, too - he played a key role in creating the imagery and preconceptions of the Enlightenment, in creating modern science, and in creating modern politics (both with his writings on political structures and his more basic writings on the nature of property rights). Rousseau - aside from Mill, probably the most important political theorist of modernity. There could be neither democracy nor communism without Rousseau. The remaining two? I'd be tempted to say Hume, and... someone else. Galileo? Yes, Galileo deserves to be there, I think. Maybe Leibniz instead of Hume? But I don't know much about Leibniz, so I'll go with Hume instead.

Yes, that' ten people not five. Five is impossible.