Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

The 20 “Most Important” Philosophers of All Time

Brian Leiter

With nearly 900 votes cast, we now know:

1. Plato  (Condorcet winner: wins contests with all other choices)
2. Aristotle  loses to Plato by 367–364
3. Kant  loses to Plato by 411–328, loses to Aristotle by 454–295
4. Hume  loses to Plato by 534–166, loses to Kant by 533–176
5. Descartes  loses to Plato by 597–117, loses to Hume by 356–269
6. Socrates  loses to Plato by 548–101, loses to Descartes by 327–270
7. Wittgenstein  loses to Plato by 610–85, loses to Socrates by 385–193
8. Locke  loses to Plato by 659–29, loses to Wittgenstein by 311–239
9. Frege  loses to Plato by 611–86, loses to Locke by 279–256
10. Aquinas  loses to Plato by 642–57, loses to Frege by 289–284
11. Hegel  loses to Plato by 615–82, loses to Aquinas by 288–285
12. Leibniz  loses to Plato by 650–36, loses to Hegel by 281–266
13. Spinoza  loses to Plato by 653–49, loses to Leibniz by 281–207
14. Mill  loses to Plato by 645–39, loses to Spinoza by 272–247
15. Hobbes  loses to Plato by 647–47, loses to Spinoza by 269–245
16. Augustine  loses to Plato by 663–46, loses to Mill by 296–247
17. Marx  loses to Plato by 653–52, loses to Augustine by 305–248
18. Nietzsche  loses to Plato by 691–63, loses to Marx by 327–269
19. Kierkegaard  loses to Plato by 622–106, loses to Nietzsche by 330–256
20. Rousseau  loses to Plato by 638–41, loses to Kierkegaard by 280–209

Berkeley was a close runner-up for the top 20.

The top six are not surprising (though they wouldn't have been my top six, but that's another matter), but after that the results reveal how radically people's conceptions of philosophy diverge.  Wittgenstein ahead of Locke, Hegel, Spinoza, Mill et al.?  Augustine ahead of Marx and Nietzsche?  Aquinas in the top ten?  What explains it?  Thoughts from readers?  Signed comments strongly preferred, as usual.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 responses to “The 20 “Most Important” Philosophers of All Time”

  1. djc

    There is some interesting divergence between the polls. Hegel and Rawls do better here than elsewhere, while Russell and Mill do much worse. For example, the head-to-head Hegel-Russell vote is 204-198 in the 200-year poll, 297-290 in the modern poll, and 383-198 in this one. Russell-Spinoza goes from 295-274 in the modern poll to 174-380 here. Mill-Hobbes goes from 305-238 to 242-253. Kant-Hume goes from 409-209 to 534-181. Quine-Rawls goes from 326-122 to 306-196 to 188-255. Setting aside conspiracy theories, it seems that there are very different voter pools (ancient philosophers despise Russell and love Rawls?).

    Reply
  2. Stephen Krogh

    Perhaps Aquinas ranks as highly as he does for his work on Aristotle, which for centuries was the canon reading to the #2 ranked philosopher (and in many ways, if Aristotle is still read as Anscombe read him (as I think he in many ways still is) still is read accordingly). After all, Pico Delia Mirandola did say, "without Thomas, Aristotle is mute." I think the same could in many respects be said for Augustine. What is more, they have been read and vigorously studied since their own day. Given that that has been 800 and 1500 years respectively, certainly a place in the top 20 is merited?

    Reply
  3. Michael Kremer

    Do you think any "top 10" philosophy happened between 300 B.C. and 1600 A.D., Brian? And if so, who other than Aquinas belongs in the top 10 as a representative of those 1900 years?

    Reply
  4. Dan Frank

    Socrates losing to Plato is interesting. It's rather like Zarathustra losing to Nietzsche.

    Reply
  5. David

    I'm shocked that Berkeley doesn't make the top 20. His historical contribution is huge, he anticipates Hume's arguments against necessary connections (although of course, so does Malebranche), his critique of Locke's theory of perception largely killed the adoption of his views amongst subsequent philosophers. His phenomenalism (yes, he does give the analysis in terms of potential experience that makes the 'difference' which other people have claimed exists between phenomenalism and his idealism, check the famous passage about the meaning of exists from the beginning of the Principles) was adopted by many, many of the important english language philosophers who come after, in one form or another at on time or another. He pretty much invented instrumentalism in the philosophy of science. I guess most of these views are considered 'mistakes' now, but surely he's more frutiful from a modern perspective than say Spinoza, with his strange ideas about causation and necessity? Plus, arguably some of the stuff he says anticipates the currently fashionable discussions of the transparency of experience…

    Reply
  6. Stephen Krogh

    Dan,

    I wonder if Socrates scored lower, because of the difficulty in ascertaining precisely what Socratic philosophy is apart from, say, Plato or Xenophon, or any other writers of Socratic dialogue? For my part, it is why I was hesitant to rate Socrates or Parmenides at all. It is simply too difficult to say whom I am ranking and what his contribution to philosophy actually was. Of course, if by Socrates and Parmenides we mean something like the philosophical muses who inspired the western tradition, then of course they should be at the top.

    Reply
  7. Kyle Walker

    Seems to me that Plato was mainly responsible for conjoining Socrates' idea that we need "ideal" definitions of terms like justice and beauty with Heraclitus' idea that the external world is in a state of flux. If that is pretty much right, then it seems unwarranted to rank him higher than Socrates, unless you factor in the fact that without Plato there wouldn't be much of Socrates preserved.

    Reply
  8. Erik

    Is Wittgenstein in the top 20 because he's still relevant to a group of undead philosophers who think there is still a chance that they will find something both deep and novel in his aphorisms but not in Aquinas, Augustine, Maimonides, Hegel, Frege, Locke and Leibniz? Hmmmmm.

    Reply
  9. Michael Kremer

    Erik,

    I don't get your question exactly. Wittgenstein was in the top 20 for me, and so were Aquinas, Augustine, Hegel, Frege, Locke, and Leibniz (I admit to not having read Maimonides and don't know where to rank him). What does that make me (undead, really alive, or really dead)? (By the way, in your list there are at least 3 philosophers Wittgenstein admired deeply: Augustine, Leibniz, and Frege.)

    Reply
  10. Brian Leiter

    In answer to Michael Kremer's earlier question: none of the philosophers in my 'top ten' were active between 300 BC and 1600 AD. I did have Aquinas in my top twenty, though.

    Reply
  11. dan ornguze

    The public has spoken: we want to see Leiter's Top 20. Nietzsche, Marx and Hume as his 1-2-3 I am guessing.

    Reply
  12. Eric Schwitzgebel

    I find it interesting but not surprising that no Asian philosopher made the list.

    Reply
  13. Louis Chan

    I personally voted differently than I did in the last 200 year poll. I did give voting preference to all time greats, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant. After that, I voted according to who I thought would have lasting appeal (which those first five have in spades).

    Although Russell and Quine were very important in the last two hundred years, I didn't think they would become more important in the long run. Likewise, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche would become more important over time, so I voted them higher. I voted for Rawls in the top 10 last time, but this time top 20. I was conflicted on whether to vote Plato higher than Socrates the man; but really speaking in terms of long term (all-time) in the long run, Plato wrote the books, Socrates is just a character his works.

    Reply
  14. Brian Leiter

    Dan: I honestly don't recall my full top 20. Nietzsche was certainly first, but I think Hume was 2nd and Marx 3rd. The rest of the top ten definitely included Plato, Kant, Socrates, Aristotle, and Spinoza–maybe Mill or Hobbes too, not really sure, though they were definitely in the top 20, along with some mix of Descartes, Rousseau, Wittgenstein, Hegel, Aquinas, Heraclitus, Democritus, Locke, and then different polls are blurring in my mind: Quine? Kierkegaard? Frege? Smith? Husserl? Russell? Machiavelli? Sextus? Epicurus? I'm just not sure. I was often torn between philosophers I like who seem to me to be right, and philosophers I don't much like, but are undoubtedly important, if only for their world-historic mistakes.

    Reply
  15. Louis Chan

    I think the confusion here, as Brian points out, is the distinction between important and favorite (aka, right for me) philosophers. I personally don't like Aquinas, Marx, Mill, or Hegel, but they are undoubtedly important enough for top 20, if not top 10.

    I personally like Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Spinoza and Locke, and think they belong in top 20, but I don't think they're that important enough to be top 10.

    Reply
  16. Joseph

    I am a historian, and follow this debate with interest. There is clearly a tension between judgements of importance based on historical criteria and judgements of importance based on philosophical criteria. For Brian, a judgement about a philosopher's importance is primarily a judgement about the truthfulness of their work, hence his surprise at Augustine being listed above Nietzsche and Marx. The criteria that might interest a historian are different. I have done some work on Augustine, and personally find nothing in his work that I regard as true – indeed, I can't find much that I don't regard as entirely repellent. Yet I would certainly regard him as a highly important philosopher, judging his importance on the broader social and political influence of his work, and its importance for e.g. subsequent political thought. I suspect that the top 5 philosophers in the list are in place as much for historical reasons as for philosophical ones; while I'm not closely acquainted with any particular philosophy department, I don't imagine that contemporary philosophers agree with much that they read in Plato and Descartes, and would not think to frame a research project in Platonic or Cartesian terms (although the same cannot be said for Aristotle, Kant, and Hume). It would be interesting to know what a list compiled by historians would look like. Four main guesses: (i) the top 5 would be more or less the same; (ii) Locke would drop several places, below Augustine, Aquinas, and Spinoza; (iii) Wittgenstein and Frege wouldn't be in the top 20; and (iv) Hobbes, Marx, and Nietzsche would be higher.

    Reply
  17. Blinn Combs

    Martin Lin, commenting on the Ancient Philosophy ranking thread, wrote:

    "As far as Chrysippus goes, I believe he was a great philosopher on the same grounds that I believe that Rogers Albritton and Sidney Morgenbesser were. Their writings have not been passes down to us, but those who knew them philosophically speak very highly of them"

    The remark seemed well-suited to Socrates. Of course, we do have plenty of evidence that Chrysippus wrote a great deal.

    We've got a number of portraits of Socrates; of them, Plato's is by far the most alluring, infuriating, and fascinating. The Socrates most of us would identify with "philosophy" is uniquely Plato's.

    Reply
  18. Brian Leiter

    Mr. Chan's comment makes me realize I didn't express myself clearly, since I do not view the relevant contrast as between "personal favorite" and "importance". I like Nietzsche and Hume in all kinds of ways, but they are genuinely important, and not just because I enjoy reading them. As Joseph notes, the relevant issue is whether you can be important while getting everything wrong: Kant is proof that you can, and there are others, whose errors are brilliant and a profound stimulus to other work. But a philosopher increases in importance in my estimation to the extent their views appear to be plausible, on the right track, etc. (Some of this is about the substance of their views, some about questions of methodology obviously.)

    Reply
  19. Andy

    I am just wondering what are the standards of importance here. It seems to me that in one way, Plato is more important than Kant, but taken another standard of importance, Kant is more important than Plato. Can one standard be the scope of one's influence? If so, it is clear why Plato and Aristotle are at the top of the list – they simply posed, and answered in one way or the other, the majority of problems we are still coping with. However, it need not be the only standard. For example, we may contend that the proper standard is how successful was a philosopher in changing are look at the things, shifting the paradigm. In that sense, Hume and Kant, or Descartes are all clear winners over Plato and Aristotle

    Reply
  20. Rafe Champion

    I am wondering about the criteria of importance as well. Since the scientific ethos, for better or worse, has become domianant in the modern world, it is surprising that the leading modern philosopher of science, Karl Popper, is not rated. Especially as he made major contributions to political philosophy and the human sciences (in his his spare time during a working holiday in New Zealand). And then he revived metaphysics as a central part of the scientific enterprise.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress