Thanks everyone.

I will be making two lists. The first will be my nominees for the 20 Greatest Western Philosophers of All Time, with a brief explanation of the rationale for my choices following the list. My second list will simply include 10 authors I absolutely loathe, which I think is rather self-explanatory (and probably totally unsurprising for those of you who follow my Twitter-based ravings). I hope you enjoy them both, and I’d be interested in your comments (and lists) should you be so kind as to provide them.

The 20 Greatest Western Philosophers Of All Time (Up To This Point In Time, Of Course, After Which All Bets Are Off)

Aquinas, Thomas
Bacon, Francis
Bergson, Henri
Deleuze, Gilles
Eriugena, John Scotus
Freud, Sigmund
Heidegger, Martin
Hume, David
Kant, Immanuel
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von
Maximos the Confessor, St.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm
Plato
Pseudo-Dionysios
Sartre, Jean-Paul
Saussure, Ferdinand de
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph
Spinoza, Baruch
Suarez, Francisco
Uexküll, Jakob Johann von

Now, I’m certain that this list is going to garner a number of what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you-type comments, so let me make something very clear. This list is comprised of those I consider to be the best Western philosophers, those whose ideas I feel have had and continue to have the greatest fecundity—it is not isomorphic with a list of those that history has graced with the greatest fame and influence. If I were to make that list, it would pretty obviously require the addition of people like Aristotle, Descartes, and Hegel, all of whom I have omitted. Go retake your undergraduate history of philosophy courses if you really need the comfort of that list.

Of course, there are a couple of other potential problems with this list. First, my criteria for choosing might lead you to believe that I simply chose my favorite philosophers. I assure you this is not the case—that, in fact, I strongly dislike about 25% of the philosophers on this list—but you will simply have to take my word for it. Second, there are more than a few on the list whose statuses as philosophers is arguable, to say the least. “Surely”, you might say, “you realize that Freud was a neurologist? Saussure a linguist?” Yes, yes, I know. However, each had some distinctly philosophical ideas that are extremely powerful, with ramifications that extend throughout all of philosophy’s many sub-disciplines.

If the above list didn’t piss you off, I’m sure this next one will:

10 Pricks Who’ve Needlessly Cocked Up Philosophy For Everyone Else

Anselm of Canterbury
Augustine of Hippo, Saint
Berkeley, George
Chisholm, Roderick
Descartes, René
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hobbes, Thomas
Pascal, Blaise
Rand, Ayn
Russell, Bertrand

You may notice that this list is not exactly the polar opposite of the one above. After all, who could say that Hegel’s fruit aren’t ripe for plucking (and making into a pie)? Most of these authors have had some great historical impact (e.g. Augustine, Descartes) or are considered to be important as contemporary figures (e.g. Chisholm), though some definitely have neither point in their favor (I’m talking about you Rand). For one reason or another, I believe that these authors’ ideas are either just particularly egregious on their own or have led others off the clear path and into a dark forest.

I hope this was enjoyable for you all. And by the way, in my book, Timaeus is the greatest Platonic dialogue.

My 21st birthday is coming up in about a week and a half (10 days, in fact), and I am poor as dirt. If you love me—or if you would simply like to assuage my pitiful ignorance—please consider sending me one of the 21 books on my Amazon Wishlist. It would definitely brighten my year.

Thanks.

The name for the object in my vitalist ontology. It is a complex of forces organized according to a morphogen, which is the force or forces responsible for the object’s genesis. It is not static, but a growth, a becoming—or, rather, many growths, many becomings participating in a collective vitality.

Logos, as I said before, is the force that gives birth to the object. The logos-force is therefore the morphogenic principle—the ontic chemical responsible for the origination and arrangement of the object’s structure. As a being-in-process, the object is always evolving, such that its structure is best described as a growing-form. The growth-object is always-forming according to the capacity for creation of the logos. The logos, then, is a formal cause without a target form, without an end of formation. It is the compass pointing north, not the destination that determines and demands arrival.

Telos, on the other hand, is this destination. It is Aristotle’s final cause, the termination of movement. It is also, therefore, the total cessation of life—purpose become nihilism. After all—when all is finished—being would lurch to a halt, the point of absolute zero, and succumb to nonexistence. Dead and buried, dirt in the ground.

Yet, life is creative, generative of further life. It does not limit itself, but constantly flows beyond its extremities. It is only possible, then, that a limit be imposed through the violent usurpation, and transmutation into telos, of logos. But because it naturally destroys itself upon consummation (ah! la petite mort!), telos is virtual, as fleeting as the power that established it.

Based on the above, I cannot embrace humanism. As Michael writes in the comments to The Horror of Humanism, humanism can be one or both of the following: (a) “that which emphasizes the magnificence of humanity” and/or (b) “that which claims ‘there is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity.” As a telos-assigning species, humanity introduces death—or the collapse of being—into its morphology. This is far from magnificent, rendering humanity ineligible to fulfill the condition of humanism a. Luckily, as Dr. Ian Malcolm once said, “Life will find a way.” Were human being to reach extinction, as it is so desperately endeavoring to do, life would carry on, and the universe would hardly know the difference. Thus, humanism b also fails to obtain on my view, thereby demonstrating fidelity to anti-humanism.