5 Most Influential Thinkers in the Last 500 Years

[Galactus]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1742259' date='Apr 2 2009, 18.16']Ah, gotcha. Thanks for that.

Interestingly enough, a while ago I came across an [url="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945242-1,00.html"]article in Time magazine[/url] from 1973 about some sea change in the character of the Jesuits -- from the hard-charging spear tip of the Counter-Reformation to the rebellious and irreverent liberals today. It's a change I've observed myself, between the older priests and the younger (that is, the ones in their 40s) in my home parish in Los Angeles.[/quote]

I don't think that's neccessarily strange though. I mean, the Counter Reformation, *was* a reformation. There were some very real and potent changes within the catholic church. I think sometimes the difference between "back to orthodoxy" and "radical change" can be thinner than we usually imagine.

[SergioCQH]

[quote name='Nous' post='1742347' date='Apr 2 2009, 12.17']Not ulterior motives, but this view where moral act in one that is is motivated by sense of duty, rather than inclination or self-interest.[/quote]

Even that is not a concept Kant invented, something that was entirely unknown before him. The ideal of selfless fulfillment of one's duty precedes Kant by probably several millennia.

[Nous]

[quote name='SergioCQH' post='1742571' date='Apr 2 2009, 15.54']Even that is not a concept Kant invented, something that was entirely unknown before him. The ideal of selfless fulfillment of one's duty precedes Kant by probably several millennia.[/quote]
I'm not speaking of ideas that are kinda sorta similar, but what is the source of a particular way of thinking in our current civilization. Democritus may have spoken about atoms; that doesn't mean his idea that of Rutherford or what we understand by atoms. The stoics didn't judge the moral praiseworthiness of an action like Kant did, or like people influenced by him do today.

[Serious Callers Only]

People love to talk about Francis Bacon, but what about that other - earlier - Bacon, that Roger Franciscan guy.

Seems like many of the things written by Francis were already being applied by Roger.

[CelticBrennus]

I think we should throw Clausewitz up on the list.

Virtually all modern military strategy is based on his theories, even down to the Marine Corps philosophical view of war. The guy did to the study of war and wars place in international politics what Adam Smith did to economics, and Darwin did to Biology.

[sologdin]

[i]While his ideas aren't really that inluential in psychology nowadays, they've had an immense impact on 20th century culture[/i]

ari--

freud's biggest claim to influence, outside of psychoanalytic method, i.e., in terms of ideas, is likely the theory of the unconscious mind. whatever one thinks of the id/ego/superego model or the oedipus complex or penis envy or whatever, one likely adheres to some variant of unconscious mind theory.

that said, my reading here is that paracelsus originated the scientific version of this theory, which existed as a trope for many centuries--so freud comes in as a footnote to paracelsus.



[i]Clausewitz up on the list[/i]

CB--

footnote to napoleon, maybe? centre of gravity theory &c. = evolved & improved decisive battle doctrine?


ETA:

[i]20th century becomes entirely unrecognizable without Marx[/i]

ari--

i revise my earlier appreciation of marx as a mere footnote to hegel and/or kant.

maybe he also gets a footnote under adam smith--marx is simply a radical smithian who brought closure to classical political economy and gave incentives for neoclassicists, &c.

if that's not enough, then add a third footnote to rousseau, if he comes in--or in the voltaire note, if rousseau is simply a footnote to voltaire.

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1742922' date='Apr 2 2009, 19.35'][i]While his ideas aren't really that inluential in psychology nowadays, they've had an immense impact on 20th century culture[/i]

ari--

freud's biggest claim to influence, outside of psychoanalytic method, i.e., in terms of ideas, is likely the theory of the unconscious mind. whatever one thinks of the id/ego/superego model or the oedipus complex or penis envy or whatever, one likely adheres to some variant of unconscious mind theory.

that said, my reading here is that paracelsus originated the scientific version of this theory, which existed as a trope for many centuries--so freud comes in as a footnote to paracelsus.[/quote]

Freud also had the idea that morality is a projection of our psychology. Though you could say that was a footnote to Nietzsche, I suppose.

[quote][i]Clausewitz up on the list[/i]

CB--

footnote to napoleon, maybe? centre of gravity theory &c. = evolved & improved decisive battle doctrine?


ETA:

[i]20th century becomes entirely unrecognizable without Marx[/i]

ari--

i revise my earlier appreciation of marx as a mere footnote to hegel and/or kant.

maybe he also gets a footnote under adam smith--marx is simply a radical smithian who brought closure to classical political economy and gave incentives for neoclassicists, &c.

if that's not enough, then add a third footnote to rousseau, if he comes in--or in the voltaire note, if rousseau is simply a footnote to voltaire.[/quote]

Footnoting Smith to Rosseau seems a bit much.

[The Marquis de Leech]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1742922' date='Apr 3 2009, 13.35']maybe he also gets a footnote under adam smith--marx is simply a radical smithian who brought closure to classical political economy and gave incentives for neoclassicists, &c.[/quote]

How about Marx as a footnote to Ricardo, who in turn is a footnote to Smith?

[Anatole Kuragin]

Fuck footnotes, five people is five people.

[sologdin]

din--

apologies, i wrote that out badly. i meant to footnote marx to rousseau, in addition to smith (or to smith via ricardo, as noted above rightly by roosey) and kant/hegel.



anatole--

cmon man! footnotes kick ass.

[Anatole Kuragin]

At least use footnotes[sup]1[/sup] properly then.



[sup]1 [/sup]bitches

[Fatuous]

I don't know. I do my own thinking and I don't leave it to dead guys.

Ok, fine. 500 years and influential.

William Shakespeare. He's very quotable for some reason.
Galileo or Copernicus? Galileo, standing up to the Pope with actual visual proof took guts.
Oppenheimer. "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds." Take that, 20th century!
Alexander Hamilton. If I had to pick anyone from the American Hegemony... Oh I did.

And last one? :devil:
Walt Disney.

Oh, I am so evil.

[SergioCQH]

[quote name='Nous' post='1742694' date='Apr 2 2009, 16.36']I'm not speaking of ideas that are kinda sorta similar, but what is the source of a particular way of thinking in our current civilization. Democritus may have spoken about atoms; that doesn't mean his idea that of Rutherford or what we understand by atoms. The stoics didn't judge the moral praiseworthiness of an action like Kant did, or like people influenced by him do today.[/quote]

I seriously doubt very many lay people today even understand what the categorical imperative is, or how Kant perceives duty. In fact, what Kant means by duty is totally different from the common meaning of that word. According to Kant, if you have Jews hiding in your house and some Nazis come asking you if there are any Jews in your house, you are obliged by duty to tell the truth because telling the truth is a categorical imperative. So no, Kant has almost zero influence on the "particular way of thinking in our current civilization." Most of the decisions and moral judgments we make today range from strict utilitarianism to moderate deontology. You'll be hard pressed to find real live Kantians outside of philosophy departments.

[Galactus]

[quote name='Serious Callers Only' post='1742714' date='Apr 2 2009, 23.53']People love to talk about Francis Bacon, but what about that other - earlier - Bacon, that Roger Franciscan guy.

Seems like many of the things written by Francis were already being applied by Roger.[/quote]

He's outside the time-limit though.

[Galactus]

[quote]freud's biggest claim to influence, outside of psychoanalytic method, i.e., in terms of ideas, is likely the theory of the unconscious mind. whatever one thinks of the id/ego/superego model or the oedipus complex or penis envy or whatever, one likely adheres to some variant of unconscious mind theory.

that said, my reading here is that paracelsus originated the scientific version of this theory, which existed as a trope for many centuries--so freud comes in as a footnote to paracelsus.[/quote]

True. And Paracelcus just barely sneaks into the 500-year limit.


[quote]i revise my earlier appreciation of marx as a mere footnote to hegel and/or kant.

maybe he also gets a footnote under adam smith--marx is simply a radical smithian who brought closure to classical political economy and gave incentives for neoclassicists, &c.

if that's not enough, then add a third footnote to rousseau, if he comes in--or in the voltaire note, if rousseau is simply a footnote to voltaire.[/quote]

Also Montesqieu in that he continued to develop the vocabulary and ideas of sociology. Basically attempts to describe society as a whole.

Marx is probably almost as influential a scientist as a political thinker, even if his *ideas* might be wrong his methods and mode of work was hugely influential.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I would like to put Ada Lovelace in there, given that she was one of the few who saw Babbage's machine as more than a calculator. Unfortunately, I don't know if enough people listened to her to count her as influential.

Narrowing it down to 5 is hard, that's for sure.

[AverageGuy]

Smith for economics.

Martin Luther for religion.

Descartes for influencing the scientific method, the Cartesian coordinate system, and pretty much birthing modern philosophy.

I want to put a technologist in here, but I'm having trouble deciding between Franklin, Tesla, and Edison. Franklin had other contributions, so I'm leaning that way.

Having trouble picking only one more...

[Antonius Pius]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1741901' date='Apr 2 2009, 08.21']Perhaps he doesn't belong on a top five list but most overrated?

A great Machiavelli quote:
"There is nothing more difficult to manage, more dubious to[sup] [/sup]accomplish, nor more doubtful of success . . . than to initiate[sup] [/sup]a new order of things. The reformer has enemies in all those[sup] [/sup]who profit from the old order and only lukewarm defenders in[sup] [/sup]all those who would profit from the new order."[/quote]

Macchiavelli, and Clausewtiz too, aren't really [i]thinkers[/i]... Macchiavelli wrote a sycophantic yet extremely misanthropic and sarcastic view of how to rule as a prince. Most people around knew this stuff from experience. It was just ballsy for Macchiavelli to write it down so detailed and cold. The same with Clausewitz. He just wrote a manual for warfare. A good manual for it's day and after, to be sure. But not especially innovative of groundbreaking.


[quote name='Galactus' post='1741911' date='Apr 2 2009, 09.12']Oh dear, only five?

For more pure philosophers Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, Hegel...

Freud of course.[/quote]

Nietzsche (Nitch according to Anthony Soprano junior) only mentioned on page 3? That really won't do... He deserves to be up in the top five if you ask me.

Freud as well. He was revolutionary in his insights. Even though most are discredited or otherwise impugned since Freud's day, he made a giant leap nobody else even saw coming.


Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are also on my list.

[MojoJojo]

[quote name='AverageGuy' post='1743258' date='Apr 3 2009, 04.49']I want to put a technologist in here, but I'm having trouble deciding between Franklin, Tesla, and Edison. Franklin had other contributions, so I'm leaning that way.

Having trouble picking only one more...[/quote]

How about Alan Turing? Described the basis for modern computers, the idea of a generalized computing machine with a stored program, and is considered the father of computer science. Developed programming techniques and algorithms often before computers that could execute code even existed.

Franklin does not even belong in the top 100 scientists and inventors. Edison IMO was more important as a businessman than inventor (much like Henry Ford), and often stood in the way of progress. A lot of what is attributed to him, ie the lightbulb, was really just an improvement to pre-existing patents, or was the work of his company.

[turinturambar]

[quote name='MojoJojo' post='1743444' date='Apr 3 2009, 09.26']How about Alan Turing? Described the basis for modern computers, the idea of a generalized computing machine with a stored program, and is considered the father of computer science. Developed programming techniques and algorithms often before computers that could execute code even existed.

Franklin does not even belong in the top 100 scientists and inventors. Edison IMO was more important as a businessman than inventor (much like Henry Ford), and often stood in the way of progress. A lot of what is attributed to him, ie the lightbulb, was really just an improvement to pre-existing patents, or was the work of his company.[/quote]


Franklin was sooooo much more than just an inventor. I had Franklin in my list because his range of influence spreads across so many fields. Science, philosophy, politics, economics, etc etc etc. He's also pretty much THE guy who turned the Revolutionary War into our favor to defeat those damned redcoats.