Well, for the purposes of this thread, we had to choose just two in each category, and only so many people have done so. So if you want to add anyone to the list... by all means do so. Really I think this thread is just an impetus to talk about philosophers, the "list" is far less important than the discussion it engenders. So... start that discussion rather than just complaining!

Also, the vote for hitler, coming from hellalt was clearly a poor attempt at trolling, you'll notice almost nobody took the bait on that one and just ignored it (until now I guess, but I won't be discussing it as an actual idea any further).

well as far as political
MARX would be first on how he influenced the world in the 20th century for he had made the communist movement a force to be reckoned with and from this came the USSR, the korean war, the cold war, the war in veitnam, Cuban revolution Cuban missle crisis the nuclear crisis today with North korea and many other events that shaped our politiclal relations today. And today China is the fastest growing economy in the world and frankly we wouldn't be able to support the people of this world without Marx's ideals which lead Mao to revolutionize China. Before Mao china was a mess in constant turmiol imagine if the fragile and unstable PRE-Mao chinese state existed today.so overall political

2- MARX
1-MAO

Also, lulz, if you think a philosophical dialogue could occur properly in any forum setup you need to realize the limitations of textual communications. Otherwise, why complain, this is for fun ^_^

Yeah, yeah. Sorry, it was late.

I still want to know why Rousseau is a free-loading idiot, though. Really.

Also, re: some previous poster - you claimed that a couple of semi-obscure Greeks were the highest on your list because of their admission of a lack of an ideal single truth, but then dismiss Nietzsche and Kant for seemingly the same reason? Wouldn't Neitzsche's subjective volitional imperative and Kant's empiricist/rationalist compromise (of sorts) be exactly what you seem to admire about these other guys? I mean, Critique of Pure Reason is all about acknowledging limits to human understanding and working within the categorical constraints of human knowledge.

Well, I personally think Freud is bollocks. I really think Camus could have been just as, if not more, influential as Sartre if it were not for his untimely demise.

I'm surprised that Heraclitus is on the charts. From what I remember he was a pre-Socratic philosopher for which we only have a few tidbits of wisdom... like things like You can't walk into the same river twice, or other things like that.

Also noticed that Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein haven't even been mentioned. Same with Lacan and Foucault. But then, that's what happens when everyone only gets two votes.

@obiwan: in fact, I consider voting for both Kant and Nietzsche (as I did) as somehow implicitly recognising the apollonean/dionysian duality described by Nietzsche. And this is also partially reflected (from my point of view) in my "political" vote. If you had asked me to select two poets, I would have followed the same pattern, and voted Dante + Baudelaire.

my vote for Hitler was authentic and intuitive.
Freud sucks. big time.

What DO you see in Hitler philosophically, hellalt? The man's just a brilliant and maliciosu spin doctor for Nietzsche and other such true minds.......

Hitler was not a philosopher if any thing he was a beliver in various philosipheis and a follower in various movements. so i think any votes for Hitler should be disqualified.

he was a national socialist who based many of his ideals around the occult and ruled europe for 5 years before his empire started shitting its pants i dont see any philisophical greatness in that

hellalt, please share with us one of Hitlers philosophies that you think makes him worthy of Great Philosopher status. Nothing wrong with making an extraordinary claim. It's great to think outside the box, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

no i won't play your trolling game. that's simply my vote and needs no evidence like Ayn Rand doesn't need too.

That's a bit lame isn't it? I am guessing you can't think of a reason. You were just trying to be controversial.

Regarding Ayn Rand. What makes you say that? Did she think Hitler was a great philosopher? Or did she fail to back up claims too?

typo... back up *her claims too.

ok then...
Hitler was influenced by Schopenhuer (he mentions him in Mein Kampf) and Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism

And Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger too I think.

Okay so he had some influences. But what did Hitler contribute, philosophically, that was worthwhile?

antisemitism

Not exactly an original idea though.

Only Aristotle was totally original

But Hitler's antisemitism wasn't even a tiny little bit original.

spyman, dont bother wasting your time and effort with this helot guy, he is like a European version of diplofool.

My favourite is Charles Darwin. Perhaps not a philosopher in the sense that people are referring to in this debate, but his ideas had profound philosophical implications.

well what did Ayn Rand provide? Objectivism? big deal...

To be honest I don't that much about objectivism, but I gather she doesn't have much respect in the philosophical community (so to speak).

I don't *know that much about objectivism...

Spyman - despite his claims to the contrary, it's still quite clear he's trolling, and if he's not he has no interest in an actual conversation so the effect is the same, just leave it be. There's little to nothing to be gained from the discussion with him. (You'll note he zeroed in on the one other person listed here who seemed to be the least bit controversial, clearly trying to steer the conversation in another area where he could troll).