Most influential and impactful 20th century philosophers (whether you agree with them or not) 1. Foucault 2. Russell 3. Wittgenstein 4. Popper 5. Sartre 6. Rawls 7. Baudrillard 8. Rand 9. Hayek 10. Tie between Barthes/Kuhn/Carnap.
>>23540616THIS NIGGA HEAD LOOKIN LIKE A PEANUT M AND M NIGGA BE CRUNCHY WITH THE COCOA FILLIN YA FEELIN ME?
>>235406161. Hitler2. Himmler3. Goring4. Goebbels5. Hess6. Heydrich7. Rosenberg8. Dietrich9. Bormann10. Streicher
>>23540616>Heidegger not in top 5Worthless list
>>23540616Half trash, half good
>>23540676>i dont like those peoplethat's not the point of the list
>>23540616Baudrillard is questionable, should rather be Heidegger. Also Strauss and Habermas should be on there somewhere, probably could take the place of Rand who really only had very niche influence.
>>23540616Noam Chomsky.
>>23540616It often seems like Rawls is the most influential-one out of this bunch. Like how his moralistic focus on human rights, democracy and equality are constantly reflected to every sphere of public life, almost regardless of political affiliation. (This might be a simplification of his viewpoint to some extent, since I haven't read him lol) Although Foucault is said to be the most cited person in academia, his work seems to be constantly misread through Rawlsian moralism. Moreover, the critical attitude towards society that people like Foucault had is not very widely shared at all among academics, journalists and such.
>>23540616Where are Wilhelm Reich, Julius Evola and Thomas Ligotti??????
>>23540729Correct, except Habermas if you're European.
>>23540616Do you mean philosophers from the 20th century or who had the most impact *on* the 20th century?
>>23540783Should be pretty obvious from the fact that there is literally only one person on OPs list that wasn't born in the 20th century.
>>23540616You are a retard.
>>23540616>5. SartreI know some people rate him as a novelist, but isn't the consensus that his philosophy is worth very little because it doesn't hold at all against Heidegger's and Merlou Ponty's criticism?
>>23541645This is not the consensus, but it is the astroturfed Heideggerian /lit/ "consensus."
>>23541645Hmm, Sartre claimed he was heavily influenced by Being and Time. To say they were in some sort of direct competition may not be entirely appropriate.
>>23540616>No Saul kripke, no Hilary PutnamOpinion dismissed
>>23540714Not a philosopher.
>>23540675>>23538555>>>23538555Come fight me in the mud then !
>>23540616Influential on what? Academic philosophy? Intellectual life more generally? Art? Politics? The world?
>>23540714>What Foucault did with young children in Tunisia, and what I saw, leads me not to reject Foucault's work but to look at it in a different way." The journalist Karim Rissouli then paraphrased the statement: "Foucault, who you say was a pedophile..." "Yes, well, I provide details, they are perfectly abhorrent things with young children, the question of consent didn't even arise. They were not white, they were not French. [These are] things of extreme moral ugliness.>The Wall Street Journal, in an exclusive published Sunday, said it had obtained Epstein's private calendar, which outlined numerous meetings with high-profile people, including Chomsky, the famed academic and political activist. When the Journal reached out to Chomsky for comment, the linguist had some choice words.>"First response is that it is none of your business. Or anyone's. Second is that I knew him and we met occasionally," Chomsky, 94, told the Journal in an email.
>>23540729It's true that pretty much everyone is basically a Rawlsian, but that doesn't mean Rawls is the most influential. People would believe the exact same things if Rawls had never existed (same for Habermas). Even someone like Richard McKeon, who basically wrote the UN's declaration of human rights, made no real impact on the world. If he didn't do it, they would have gotten someone else to do the exact same thing.People like Foucault (or Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Deleuze, Strauss, Schmidt, etc.) might have had at least some marginal impact on how some people think about the world.
>>23540616nosferatu lookin ass mf
>>23540698I don’t care, dilate
>>23540757Habermas is pretty lukewarm imo. Just watered down critical theory from my understanding. Plus he looks a bit funny, too.
>>23542511>It's true that pretty much everyone is basically a RawlsianAccording to whom?
>>23542479Chomsky said the same thing about Epstein too. Quite odd coincidence.
>>23542511Who would you say is the most influental then? Surely not the likes of Foucault and Deleuze? I mean, they're popular in academia but their philosophies aren't actually very relevant to mainstream discourse, since introducing their viewpoints might start to undermine the established narratives, which post-structuralists were very distrustful of. Perhaps that distrustfulness is the reason why their viewpoints seem to always get sanitized into sort of hipsterified versions of mainstream left-liberalism. Ones that are completely satisfied only making occasional insincere gestures toward more radical ideas.
>>23543064>Habermas is pretty lukewarm imoSo is Rawls. Part of the reason they're so influental; their lukewarm pseudoradicality offers a certain utopian sheen to a wide variety of ultimately banal bourgeois projects.
>>23540654yah im feelin ya
>>23543069The second quote was about Chomsky, you read too fast young manhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2GlvAiWTEc
>>23540616No Heidegger or Deleuze but Baudrillard and mf Rand? I'd even put Camus over Rand.. Idk how you could possibly think she makes this list. Side note, Foucault made a great decision moving on from the balding pedo hair to taking on the supervillain look.
>>23540736>evola>influential>impactfulLook, I hate Popper, hut he deserves to be on this list, we are very much living his conception of the open society. Evola is an esoteric right wing philosophers, where the hell do you see that bleeding into society?
>>23540616the funny thing about foucault is he looks like an evil pedo, and he actually is an evil pedo haha
>>23543130You're right, he's not very influental come to think of it... unlike the two others I mentioned, Wilhelm Reich and Thomas Ligotti, whose not-at-all-cranky ideas have been quite widely adopted.
>>23540616>Most influential and impactful 20th century philosophers based on what?
>>23543126Rand sucks. But she’s the favorite author of many a congressman and president. Objectivism is a rot that’s thoroughly infected many ruling classes, so to say she isn’t influential is stupid.
>>23540616Heidegger is their daddy
>>23540616Marshall McLuhan.
>>23543359he didn't influence anyone and he's only assigned in art school.
