5 Most Influential Thinkers in the Last 500 Years

[sologdin]

[i]Copernicus[/i]

probably the most important, mojo, of those you list, on the terms you list.


euler. heh. someone needs to explain his identity theorem to me some time.

[Bolton Bastard]

[quote name='Anatole Kuragin' post='1741757' date='Apr 1 2009, 22.49']This may be completely wrong, but I was taught that Hobbes' "research" led him to the conclusion that a monarchy was the only way to control the baser instincts of man, an idea completely different from Locke's. Locke expanded upon Hobbes' "research" and came to a completely different conclusion so I wouldn't consider it bastardizing anything.[/quote]
You are in part right. Hobbes did believe that a monarch was a superior form of government (and in his mind he had history to back him up, really all republics fall to monarchies that's just how the world appeared)
He did, if you muddle through his writings, seem almost foresighted about the rise of democratic powers though when claiming that the best form of government is one that creates the greatest peace and here he points out that republics, if in a state in which a republic is easier to trust by the populace and less likely to cause civil unrest then they were superior in that region.

[Anatole Kuragin]

[quote name='Bolton Bastard' post='1741766' date='Apr 1 2009, 21.56']You are in part right. Hobbes did believe that a monarch was a superior form of government (and in his mind he had history to back him up, really all republics fall to monarchies that's just how the world appeared)
He did, if you muddle through his writings, seem almost foresighted about the rise of democratic powers though when claiming that the best form of government is one that creates the greatest peace and here he points out that republics, if in a state in which a republic is easier to trust by the populace and less likely to cause civil unrest then they were superior in that region.[/quote]

But all of the scientists and physicists and what not that expanded on what Newton said (wrong or right); would you say they 'bastardized' Newton?

[Bolton Bastard]

A bit of a difference. Expanding on a theory is one thing.

Taking someone's theory, using it to justify your opinions even when if you look at the original theory it says nothing at all like that, is when I call bastardizing.

Really, he tried to use Social Contract Theory to expand the Natural Rights to include slavery of all things. When it is rather clearly stated to only include what should be necessary for survival.

Edit: You know, now I'm second guessing myself. I may be thinking of the wrong guy.

[turinturambar]

Isaac Newton
Galileo
Charles Darwin
Benjamin Franklin
Tim Berners(along with those who helped him)

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

[quote name='MojoJojo' post='1741753' date='Apr 1 2009, 22.45']On science, the ones that really stand out to me are people that didnt just invent or discover important technology or priciples, its people who fundamentally changed the way humanity saw its place in the universe. while there are many who's work was immensly important, say like Fermi or the Curies, the only three which really stand out to me are Newton, Einstein and Darwin.[/quote]

Albert Hoffman? He fundamentally changed the way a lot of people see their places in the universe.

Seriously though,what about Galileo? There wouldn't have been a Newton without Galileo, and no Galileo without a Copernicus. I might still choose Newton over either of them since his developments represent a bigger paradigm shift in science. Also consider Frances Bacon for the theory of empiricism.

Mathematicians are a tougher subject since you need Math for all of the science to work, but as far as I know, the development's been more evolutionary than revolutionary. I'd suggest Turing for computing theory, Gauss for being an all around genius and Euler for having something named after him in every math class I've ever had.

[Meili]

[quote name='uneedathneed' post='1741504' date='Apr 1 2009, 14.00']Voltaire (fuck you François-Marie Arouet)[/quote]

I was about to add him. Top five, no doubt IMO.

[Galactus]

Oh dear, only five?

I'd probably need more. Smith, Locke, Marx, Hobbes and Montesqieu for political thought definately, preferably Voltaire too. Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and guy whose name I forgot (father of geology something-or-other) who made the really significant discovery that the earth is MUCH older than it seems (and thus really making darwinian theory possible)

For religious figures: Luther, Calvin, Loyola and for an unknown guy: Winstanley.

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

Freud of course.

Goddamnit I can't choose just five!

[Galactus]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1741355' date='Apr 1 2009, 18.58']I could be wrong, but its my understanding that alot of Freud's theories have fallen out of favor with modern experts in the field. And the rapid decline of state communism (or according to some self-identified communists, the fact that there has never been 'true communism' yet) has probably damaged Marx's reputation a bit. Still influential thinkers, but not sure if they're top 5 of the last 500 years. Still working on my list.[/quote]

Sorry, 20th century becomes entirely unrecognizable without Marx. For better or for worse you can't really deny his influence on politics.

EDIT: As for Freud... While his ideas aren't really that inluential in psychology nowadays, they've had an immense impact on 20th century culture (often in bastardized form of course)

[Nous]

On the influence of Kant... the influence of philosophy is not as obvious as, say, the influence of the theory of natural selection. But it is pervasive in a way that more narrow intellectual fields are not. Through epistemology, philosophical thought influences every science and indirectly even the way people who've never cracked open a philosophy book think.

Ethics is where the influence of philosophers can be seen in a clear way, if you know what you've been looking for. For example, there is an episode of [i]Friends[/i] ("The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS"), in which Phoebe says Joey's "good deed" of co-hosting a PBS telethon is actually selfish, since Joey is in fact looking for tv exposure. Hilarity ensues. I saw that episode before I studied any Kant, but afterwards I realized that that entire way of thinking is because of Kant. That the audience understands the humor of the episode is because their way of thinking has been formed in a civilization which in turn has been partially shaped by Kant's way of thinking. That's [i]influence[/i].

It may be I'm paranoid, but I'm seeing the influence of Kant in so many places. People who may not know anything of him draw the opinions they espouse on this board from schools of thought that owe their existence to his influence. It's creepy.

After some thinking, I'd replace Einstein or Smith with Bentham.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Karl Marx
Adam Smith
Martin Luther
Immanuel Kant
Rene Descartes

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Newton and Darwin must obviously be on the list, but the other three seats are up for grabs. If we are looking at philosophy, I'd say it stands between Descartes and Kant; for politics/economics I would name Bentham, Marx and Adam Smith. In science I think Einstein and Bohr are big candidates, but if you go a bit further back, I think there are plenty of people in physics and chemistry who did some basic work that have had an even greater impact. One name that also should be mentioned here is Louis Pasteur. His role in our understanding of biology and medicine is immense.

[IheartTesla]

Well, I'd disagree that Pasteur is an influential [i]thinker[/i] per se. Like all excellent empiricists/experimentalists his thing was going out in the field and doing things. Of course he influenced the way we perceive a lot of modern biology and medicine. And of course he was a very creative person, none of his discoveries come from blind chance.

I think Einstein should be on the list because of his work in special/generarelativity because it changed our perception of space-time, the universe and all that good stuff. You might argue it had less of an impact than Pasteur's work on the general population. But still, it gave us a new window on how the universe works.

Edit: I didnt see Mojo's post, with which I would agree too.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1741911' date='Apr 2 2009, 03.12']For religious figures: Luther, Calvin, Loyola and for an unknown guy: Winstanley.[/quote]
I'm curious, what do you consider Loyola's influence to be? (I ask this as someone who is fascinated by Jesuits and whose middle name is Ignatius)

[Galactus]

[quote name='DanteGabriel' post='1742209' date='Apr 2 2009, 17.31']I'm curious, what do you consider Loyola's influence to be? (I ask this as someone who is fascinated by Jesuits and whose middle name is Ignatius)[/quote]

Mainly for the Jesuits being so influential for the Counter Reformation. The Jesuits were hugely influential (even outside the society itself) as examples and models.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1742219' date='Apr 2 2009, 11.37']Mainly for the Jesuits being so influential for the Counter Reformation. The Jesuits were hugely influential (even outside the society itself) as examples and models.[/quote]
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.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1741911' date='Apr 2 2009, 03.12']Oh dear, only five?

Goddamnit I can't choose just five![/quote]Too bad.

[SergioCQH]

[quote name='Nous' post='1741943' date='Apr 2 2009, 04.11']On the influence of Kant... the influence of philosophy is not as obvious as, say, the influence of the theory of natural selection. But it is pervasive in a way that more narrow intellectual fields are not. Through epistemology, philosophical thought influences every science and indirectly even the way people who've never cracked open a philosophy book think.

Ethics is where the influence of philosophers can be seen in a clear way, if you know what you've been looking for. For example, there is an episode of [i]Friends[/i] ("The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS"), in which Phoebe says Joey's "good deed" of co-hosting a PBS telethon is actually selfish, since Joey is in fact looking for tv exposure. Hilarity ensues. I saw that episode before I studied any Kant, but afterwards I realized that that entire way of thinking is because of Kant. That the audience understands the humor of the episode is because their way of thinking has been formed in a civilization which in turn has been partially shaped by Kant's way of thinking. That's [i]influence[/i].

It may be I'm paranoid, but I'm seeing the influence of Kant in so many places. People who may not know anything of him draw the opinions they espouse on this board from schools of thought that owe their existence to his influence. It's creepy.

After some thinking, I'd replace Einstein or Smith with Bentham.[/quote]

I think it would be hasty to assign to Kant credit for society's ability to perceive ulterior motives. In political thought today, utilitarianism is a much stronger influence than Kant's deontology. Even then, I would not credit with Bentham or Mill with all of the utilitarianism that occurs in every day life. Kant expounded the categorical imperative and deontology as Bentham and Mill advocated utilitarianism, and one may even credit them with inventing the theoretical framework for these concepts, but their practical application has existed with humanity for a long time.

I am not a big fan of the "Great Man Theory" of history. Every single one of Newton's ideas were being developed by his contemporaries, even if Newton was the first apply those ideas into systems and laws. Indeed, Leibnitz's work on calculus eventually became much more influential. I very much believe that innovations and discoveries are triggered by trends much greater than any single individual.

[Nous]

[quote name='SergioCQH' post='1742334' date='Apr 2 2009, 13.11']I think it would be hasty to assign to Kant credit for society's ability to perceive ulterior motives. [...][/quote]
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.

[mhoram]

Any list that excludes Descartes is deficient, I think. Simply no modern philosopher that comes after him can escape the influence of the Cartesian system (materialism, Representational Theory of Mind, his first-person, introspective methodology). For centuries philosophy constituted a reaction to Descartes. He should easily appear in any top five. Even those thinkers who left a more practical mark on history -- Adam Smith, Karl Marx, even scientists and of course mathematicians-- worked within an intellectual framework he created.