You have made my life more difficult. And you should be proud. I'm 80 and might make it to 81, but not 82. So time, as I understand time, is a big deal. And you put so many wonderful things in front of me that I come closest to regret when I consider what I want to learn than for any other reason. Thank you.
I’m only 23 years old and I already feel like I’m running out of time to learn the things I want to and to enjoy the things I enjoy. What advice would you give to someone in my position?
If what you cannot learn feels bad to think about change your view, try to think about how to pass on your accumulated knowledge so others may learn from your experience. How we pass on knowledge is a primary purpose of philosophy. It's how we grow as a group over time.
@@harrison127 That's a kind question. Don't smoke. Brush your teeth regularly. I have a Post-it note on my display: "Don't worry about it." Sorry. That's all I know.
The Aristotle take is so wild to me. Saying that basically the grandfather of science as he’s often characterised should go from S to A tier because of his science work for which he is at least in scientific and analytic circles most revered for is crazy to me. I don’t think the outdated nature of his work makes it less impressive, perhaps only more of a niche interest for history of science types. I guess if ur ranking them for what the viewer should read it could make sense. Anyway it’s your opinion, great video! I am enjoying all your content quite a lot, thx for making videos
Also, by that same token, why not lower Plato? He stated that there are no contemporary platonists and I doubt he thinks the theory of forms or of recollection are correct. Similarly, he states with Plotinus that historical importance was a key factor. Well, there is no philosopher who gets even close to Aristotle’s influence, not even Plato.
In complete agreement. Aristotle is the most impactful philosopher in the western tradition. A thorough study of Aristotle makes it so much easier to study ANY other philosopher that comes afterwards. He did way more than amend Platonism, he radically departed from it, which is why it’s theorized that Plato didn’t pass his school to him after he died. His biological and scientific observations are outdated, sure, but his metaphysics, logic, rhetoric, aesthetics, politics, and ethics are still extremely valuable today. I mean, he practically defined these areas of study. His achievements are incredible. Best CV of any intellectual I can think of.
@@m.b.crawford5464 totally agree on the fact that studying aristotle makes ANY other philosophy easy. He sure defined the logic of philosophical thought. From my experience i started to learn philosophy from his work, and I can say for sure his principles defined what philosophy is and isnt.
That's wrong. Indeed there are a lot of people who have a very good grasping of Hegel. The problem with Hegel is that one of his very basic points is that abstractions are in themselves false. Therefore philosophy as the highest form of truth has to be as concrete as possible. But because Hegel is so insanely concrete, precise und crystal-clear, he becomes utterly incomprehensible for the average human mind which is not necessarily an intelligence issue but more due to lacking philosophical skill. Hegel is not for beginners and definitely hard. But there are people who have understood him very well. His philosophy is just impossible to summarize (that's kind of the whole point of it) which becomes a problem when communicating Hegel to an audience of layman.
If Jared ever makes a sequel to this, the people not on the list I'd be most curious about include Montaigne, Leibniz, Rousseau, Bergson, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, Benjamin, Adorno, Deleuze, Habermas, and Nussbaum. I think it's kind of sad Jared doesn't discuss any philosophers outside the Western tradition. I have a special affinity for Zhuangzi. I really love Jared's videos. The recent one he did on the six central issues surrounding higher ed were spot on. (I'm an adjunct instructor in writing at three different colleges.)
Yeah, Wittgenstein really is missing. Along with Derrida (and possibly Foucault). Whereas someone like Frege seemed not totally like the others in terms of importance
I’m with you here. I’d like to see where Wittgenstein fits in here. There are also some “thinkers” (not necessarily philosophers) that I wish were discussed more: Leopardi, Cioran, and Zapffe.
maybe bad take but I wish he would include Jung, Freud and Lacan because they should really be approached as philosophy .. and I'm curious about his thoughts on Bataille. also wanna see Sartre, Beauvoir, Arendt, Derrida and Foucault
@@Lin-rs9pw I can see how he would forgo the big names of psychoanalysis on the same grounds as Peterson, though. But I am with you on Bataille if only to see his brain melt :D
My mother understands very little English, and I do not believe she cares much for philosophy. I just put your video up on the television while I'm getting ready, and she thinks you have a fantastic voice! She doesn't know what you're talking about, but she still likes to listen to you 😊
scholasticism is not for everyone, but that doesn't make Aquinas any less noteworthy for his achievements. His analysis of language is up there with that of Frege and Wittgenstein at having made an ostensible treatise on notions of sense and reference, interior propositions, and the epistemic limits of human language. All the more impressive that such ideas were even fathomed 700 years before being more thoroughly added onto by a more concisely formed philosophy of language. Even if there's an argument to be made about its format and accessibility, analytical thomism is goated imo
Extremely correct opinion, regardless it would've been honest for Jared to just say "I classify him as a theologian" because he's literally the greatest theologian of all time in my opinion and he really is very focused on Aristotle and that probably holds him back as a pure philosopher.
@@QuantumMag-u1l some philosophers say he is a theologian only and then never study him as a philosopher....and then such philosophers complain that he is cited mostly by theologians... The thing is...go there and get to know some of the guy's work...how can a guy who makes an original sinthesis of plato and aristotle is not a philosopher? Has the original actus essendi....and contributions in so many disciplines...it is just about making the effort to know at least a little bit about his work and about the structure of the summa
Would love to see where you place Russell, Wittgenstein, de Beauvoir, Adorno, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Zizek, Badiou, Byung-Chul Han, and Bruno Latour as well
Foucault was a hack. Levinas was not a good writer. And I say this as someone who actually found Derrida interesting. Maybe I was just too worn out from the effort of reading Derrida to have any energy left for Levinas? 😅
I love Pascal, he was so ahead of his time, he was my first philosophical crush when I was a teen lol and i still read it from time to time, he still speaks to me. He had such existentialistic thoughts and beautifully written.
He is the most underrated philosopher in these kinds of lists. A true philosopher of the heart, not the head. That’s probably why the nerds don’t give him his due.
@@m.b.crawford5464 well he was also a genius in math and physics and contributed greatly, he was a child prodigy and I think he turned to religious topics later on. Great head and big heart, which is rare. He also suffered a lot physically and died pretty young. Why do people overlook him 😔
@@padmeasmr I get the sense that he reached the pinnacle of rationality (for that time) and found it a fruitless exercise. He saw that language and mathematics are insufficient to fully describe reality and that these intellectual rabbit holes go on forever. I think that’s why he took a more spiritual and psychological approach. Most people never reach this level of intellectual maturity at all. Pascal reached it in his thirties. It’s crazy.
Aristotle should go in the S tier. Your rationale was that his biology wasn't great. Well, this is a philosopher tier list, and not a scientist tier list. He still made great contributions in that field, especially as a thinker working thousands of years before the advent of modern science. He invented logic, the very foundation on which all of philosophy lies. The Nicomachean Ethics is really THE seminal work in virtue ethics, and is still enormously influential even today. HIs work in metaphysics and political science, including as the first thinker to systematically collect constitutions from different states and compare them, were second to none in the ancient world, and influenced thousands of years of thought. All of this influence, and only off of his lecture notes. Imagine if we had his dialogues. Please reconsider! Any argument you would cast for your reasoning would surely be based off of...well...logic.
He was a religious propagandist. He should not even be considered a 'philosopher'. Much like almost all Catholic 'philosophy' it is just pseudo intellectual dogma masquerading as logic.
Why? Aquinas is only useful for religious people, mainly Catholics. He didn't contribute a lot to human knowledge, I would even say that he should be behind Descartes.
@@QuantumMag-u1l I'm not sure how you can read Aquinas and think he is only useful for religious people...which is why I doubt you've even read him. A man who synthesizes two of the greatest intellectual traditions in human history(the Greeks and Christians) does not deserve C tier. The Summa alone is A tier philosophy, never mind the copious amounts of other philosophical writing he created.
I did my undergraduate thesis on Plotinus’ Enneads and.. man.. that is a crazy sophisticated highly complex metaphysics. It was a delight to spend so much time with those writings
Nothing but the claim over Aristotle not being in the same tier as Plato seemed contestable to me. For the obvious reasons, just the blunt ones. The guy helped to spur on systematics and stratification into fields. His works were copied and written commentaries in the margins of for over a thousand years. Disagree or agree with him, he covered so much that it made a backdrop for people doing their own philosophy. Aristotle asked many questions. And we won.
For Butler, I highly recommend Giving an Account of Oneself. That book is, I think, at the core of their thinking and extrapolates out from Althusser’s writing on subjectivity, which I believe is central to understanding Butler’s work on gender, violence, and politics.
This video is epic on so many levels. It's alternately deep with a dash of silly, fun with streaks of meaningfulness. And yet helpful all around. Bravo, Jared, bravo!
As Camus himself clarified, he wasn't an existentialist. It's more than mere quibbling that made him disavow the label; I think we should be charitable enough to consider the possible reasons (just as we should charitably consider, e.g., Derrida's rejection of the labels 'postmodern' and 'poststructuralist').
Great video. It hurts me that Wittgenstein isn't here (though I'm sure lots of folks will yell "why not so-and-so!?"). And I definitely think Aristotle is S-Tier. But this is your list and it's awesome, and I really appreciated the thoughts you gave for each choice. Kudos!
I wanted to comment almost the same. Great choices, most picks kind of fit for me. Hoewever, Aristoteles is underestimated. Hegel might be overestimated a bit. And that Wittgenstein is missing almost necessarily leads to the Freudian suspicion that the obvious lack of someone like Wittgenstein is a sign of displacement.
I disagreed with a lot of this list but it is a good video. Good balance of not taking too long or being too brief over the reasons why you ranked them where you did.
Marx is so overrated. His attempt to do 11th grade calculus was so horrendously embarrassing and one of the easier methods to expose him since many people dont want to read his theory. And he completely bastardized Hegel's genius system of ideas.
With regards to Butler, I think you'd do yourself a favor to start with their 1988 essay "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution", since it's way shorter and easier to read (imo) than Gender Trouble. Would also recommend to read their later work (later Butler is way easier to read, as a rule), for example the second essay titled Violence, Mourning, Politics of the 2004 book Precarious Life. They've also done very noteworthy work on Hegel which was quite innovative in the '80s.
I agree. I would like to have seen him rank Foucault given he is one of the more controversial philosophers (Foucault, and most postmodernists, belongs in F if you ask me).
Yes and no. Of course there is some subjectivity on the list, but this list is not a pure "I like" and "I don't like" list. I believe he wants this list to be considered a result of a qualified thought from a qualified philosopher/philosophy student or professor. He seems to be an honest person. And if this is true, he simply should admit he didn't study or understand enough some philosophers. And then admit that he is not in a position right now to judge some thinkers in a minimum acceptable manner.
No, the thought of assigning any individuals into a tier list is an epistemic crisis. Like since did we find those as a reliable ways of judging how reality works? Obviously based on the philosophers arguments and influences.
10/10 S tier video. Absolutely amazing "I just have a lower opinion of Sartre so I'm not going to rank him." and "Rand was Nietzschean." Not at all, just no. Finding one similarity and thinking you can just roll with it to the point of calling Rand a bad Nietzschean is nonsensical. The differences are beyond obvious and numerous to anyone who bothers to do research. Not to mention Sartre convincingly debunks Kant's arguments yet would be E tier if this tier list included him.
Kant most certainly belongs in S or A. Also, I am curious for why you think Nietzsche is so different from Rand. I am a fan of both and would have personally put Rand in the C tier. Do you not think that Atlas Shrugged is a perfect demonstration of Nietzsche's super moral individual? It seems to me that Atlas Shrugged provides a template for how an ubermensch should comport themselves. The individualistic paradise Galt creates is the post Nietzchean world that F.N. imagined. F.N. correctly and quite presciently claimed that the death of God and the inadequacies of rationalism would lead the world to chaos and too much reliance on totalitarian government and government in general. Super morality was supposed to be the solution this problem and Rand demonstrates that beautifully,
@@Eli-yu1tv I'm not commenting on where Kant stands, just that the video taking a shot at sartre while not commenting on him is silly. When you really think about it, how much better is this than the duncan video, which is utterly shameful for reasons others have pointed out? Do I not think that Galt is a 100% representation of the Ubermensch and his world the perfect answer, repeatedly hinted at by Nietzsche numerous times, and the perfect continuation of his philosophy? Of course I do not. You can very vaguely claim galt is supposed to be the ubermensch but where's the concrete evidence? There's none. It's certainly not the case that galt's paradise follows from nietzsche's philosophy. The fact that the fall of god can be related to the story of atlas shrugged also doesn't make rand nietzschean since that could apply to thousands of works. Thousands of works have some kind of attitude of the people influenced by the "death of god." Relying on the government more, is included. The conclusion is not likely going to follow from the premise that the death of god makes people reliant on the government. Now what are the reasons that Rand is NOT Nietzschean? First off, Nietzsche believed every hierarchy is better than every anarchy, making him authoritarian right as russel correctly deduces, making him incredibly far away from rand on the political compass. You can't ignore nietzsche praising completely authoritarian regimes and arguing for aristocracy. Second off, nietzsche believes in well-born people, not hardworking people with free will. Free will, also, is an insanely crucial aspect of rand, but nietzsche didn't believe in it. There are, on top, accusations nietzsche brings against various people as condemnations. Condemnations such as standing against privilege, being democratic, treating people equally etc. all of which rand does. More precisely, everyone would have the same RIGHTS in galt's paradise which there is no arguing that nietzsche wouldn't oppose. Everyone can succeed with hard work in galt's paradise, which according to nietzsche would be democratic as opposed to aristocratic. And of course, criticism of paras1tes could easily be interpreted as going against privilege. Rand certainly was not lying when saying the only influence was aristotle.
Kant was a joke. He doesn’t even deserve to be referred to in the present tense. Nothing he said was consequential in the slightest. Now if he did all of this on purpose, and was actually a comedian, then I might respect him
Agreed. For Rand to be Nietzschean, she'd have to have the same method as him. But I dount anyone can explain Nietzsche's method; least of all his followers!
@@Johan511KinderheimYour argument is a joke, you probably didn't understand anything about Kant's thought and even made a mistaken interpretation, the author of the video is in fact an academic scholar and made a list that in my opinion is quite coherent, from what I have researched and studied about Kant's works, countless academic scholars around the world consider Kant one of the greatest thinkers of all time.
I like your channel Dr. Henderson. I personally would put Thomas Aquinas on the highest rung, but that is probably the result of my Catholic education.
I do wonder about your overall opinion of Schopenhauer; not as influential as any of the people mentioned, but his ideas were significant in many ways.
Make a list with contemporary philosophers, thinkers, philo-posing-influencers etc. It could be a great way to have a discussion about how to gauge the arguments validity and depth of all the many voices.
@mirenda2754 I agree, same with St. Augustine although it is certainly not the case that case that St. Thomas just quotes the bible to get rid of objections. He always logically figures out the problem and answers it philosophically
This is a really charitable and balanced perspective! Your comments on Nietzsche surprised me a bit since I honestly thought you were quite a bit more averse to him, but I’m pleasantly surprised. You assessment of Heidegger’s style was very true to life and well put!
What does that have to do with anything? Nietzsche also criticized socialism. So what? Philosophers can be wrong about almost anything. It's about asking the right questions. Sometimes their mistakes are the most important things that made us look into reality and reevaluate it. Also, tier lists are just caricatures, they shouldn't be taken seriously
@@asgmto He was not an economist. His writings can easily lead to the interpretation that he was more critical of capitalism. Nietzsche critiqued the bourgeoisie and the effects of capitalism on human values. Capitalism led to more decay in his eyes. Philosophers don't just "ask the right questions." They help us answer them. QED.
Jared, if there is a part two, consider mainly showing the tier list page. I feel that would fair better with the algorithm. Could also be cool to do subsections versions (i.e. political philosophy theories TL, philosophy of religion TL, etc.)
I understand your response to Rand's writing and philosophy as Nietzschean but there is no dishonesty there. Ayn Rand gave credit to Nietzsche in which she said Nietzsche had influenced a lot of her early writings and The Fountainhead. Overall Rand liked him. What separates the two is that before Rand thinks of selfishness or greatness she thinks of reason. It's the human mind that she upholds that Nietzsche misses. She upholds the mind where he upholds might. Her other beliefs, which are adjacent to Nietzsche, follow logically from her appraisal of reason. Nietzsche rejected objective morality, Ayn Rand embraced it. From a glance it is easy to think that their ideas are the same but it would have to be a very quick glance. And if you have read Atlas Shrugged I think you would see the important distinction. The theme of Atlas Shrugged isn't "what if you remove heroes from society" but "what if you remove the mind from the world". Would love to see a video on Ayn Rand
Do you remember the source in which she states she has been influenced a lot by Nietzsche in the past? I know she said she is intellectually only in debt to Aristotle so at the surface this seems like a contradiction on her side.
@@leeuwbama9433 In “Journals of Ayn Rand” she referred to Nietzsche plenty while taking notes on The Fountainhead. But she did not quote Nietzsche in intellectual terms but poetic terms. She doesn’t feel indebted to Nietzsche because, although she was artistically influenced by him, she had profound quarrels with his actual ideas. Her ‘official’ estimate of Nietzsche is in the introduction to “The Fountainhead”. So she admired his prose, but their philosophies are distinct. To her, Aristotle was the only philosopher who really laid the foundation of her philosophy. I haven’t read Aristotle so I can’t attest to that but he’s next on my reading list.
@@leeuwbama9433 “Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself… that the ‘superman’ is ‘beyond good and evil’, that he is a ‘beast of prey’ whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim.” Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 39
Pascal's concept of entertainment and emptiness is very modern, I consider him the first modern Christian but above all one of the first great psychologists. He should be ahead of Kierkegaard.
@@socialswine3656 I can't speak to the particulars with great accuracy, because I studied philosophy under a professor that emphasized the canon, but as I understand it, most philosophy programs are stuck in a tangential eddy of analytic philosophy. This niche treats linguistic epistemology as if it were the whole ball game and disregards pretty much everything else. Now, they may be right, fwiw. In fact, I think there's a real sense in which they are. Kant put capital-P philosophy to bed, and from the corpse grew psychology, linguistics, economics, and political theory. Of those, linguistics, which is really epistemology, is the closest remining field to old-fashioned philosophy, and it's not really an area with deep roots in the canon. As a result, many philosophy students do not, to be a bit flip, get any education in philosophy. It appears as if Mr. Henderson here was one such, until he took up philosophy *after* leaving a philosophy PhD program.
Amazinf Video, Jared! Reallt enjoyed it. Just wanted to point something out though. Most of the philosophers we know as existentialist were really just given this label later on, and they don't necessarily espouse the fundamentals of existentialism. Camus, in fact, categorically refused being an existentialist, which was a part of the Sartre Camus rift. The only true existential philosophers are actually just Sartre and Simone de Bouvoire.
Nice list, but Ariatotle and Nietzsche are S tier. Only Plato and Kant along with Aristotle and Nietzsche on this list have a thoroughgoing impact on Western thought and culture.
Maybe Aristotle, but putting Nietzche on the same tier as titanic system builders like Plato, Kant, and Hegel doesn't make sense. Nietzche is a great writer, but borderline not even a philosopher because he never presents systematic treatments of metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics
On Ayn Rand: You've mentioned you've read Rand's Atlas Shrugged, her writings on capitalism and a biography on her. What is absolutely essential to read, to get a full view of het philosophy, is both her most important writings on epistemology: 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology' and ethics: 'the Objectivist Ethics'. Her philosophy is an accumulative system: premises accepted in metaphyics work all the way through to politics and esthetics. A lot of philosophical commentators see similarities between Nietzsche and Rand. Although they look alike on the surface, they both ground their egoism in a different way and with a different result. The interview with miss Rand called ''Ayn Rand, What is the Difference Between Objectivism and Nietzsche's Philosophy?'' is a great interview in which she herself distances her own philosophy (justly or unjustly) from that of Nietzsche. I haven't really scrolled through the comments, but I know Objectivists have the habit of being condescending about critique on Rand. I think you're quite honest in your judgement, so I look forward to your video on Rand. I hope my suggestions have been of any help😃
Putting Kant and Hegel on S tier, Marx above Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Heidegger, this gotta be one of the most cringe, redditor-level tier lists I've seen
I would have put Camus above Aquinas and Aurelius, at least C or B tier. Using just some of his fiction alone (his fiction was philosophical), like The Plague or Exile and the Kingdom, I think he could be a contender for top humanitarian philosopher of the 20th century, better than Singer, sorry. Just my opinion though lol.
Just a note from a psychotherapist - all mental health issues that are not of organic/genetic source has the base of anxiety. Depression, compulsion, OCD, PTSD, eating disorders, etc, all have their bases in anxiety. For that reason people who are interested in the human condition, Kierkegaard should be an S.
I think you handled the Peterson question gracefully, and with integrity too. Many people would go plough right into controversy (regardless of relevance) in order to farm views.
Sincere question - Why isn’t Wittgenstein on the list? Guy is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, no? Was looking forward to your opinion. Is it just that whoever made this list for you didn’t have him on it?
Great video, Jared. I'm glad you mentioned Nagel's paper on the absurd. His concluding insight -- that if nothing matters, then the fact that nothing matters also doesn't matter -- is one of those rare sucker punches that made me instantly start viewing my life differently. (And for the better!)
I have never read the paper (I will see if I can find it soon) so I could be misunderstanding but I don't really understand this point as it relates to Camus's philosophy. Camus never argued that nothing matters, he simply believed that the universe has no inherent meaning. He said you should be open "to the gentle indifference of the world” and through that you achieve happiness. This is not despair but liberation. By accepting that the universe doesn't care about us, we're freed from the burden of cosmic expectations. None of this suggests "nothing matters," it suggests simply that the universe is absurd, and we shall revel in its absurdity.
As someone who enjoys analytic philosophy, I was little sad to only see Frege being mentioned. I'd implore you to make another tier list of analytic philosophers and contemporary philosophers like Alexander Pruss, Richard Swinburne, Timothy Williamson etc. Have a great day!
34:17 I disagree with Huemer, the objectivist view of selfishness is that he who acquires the values deserves to benefit from them. The gist of the objectivist politics is that reason is the more valuable way to live with other men rather than force, egoism comes into play when you are permitted to benefit from living with humanity with their consent and co-operation.
I don't think that is Rand's argument for the initiation of force as being anti-egoism. I thought that the initiation of force was evil solely because it flies in the face of the virtue of honesty. An honest man would recognize that every human being is an end in himself. By initiating force you're embodying that you don't regard that principle as truth.
Overall I would rate your tier list as fine. I agree with some of your assessments while I vehemently disagree with others. I understand that this is a very difficult task and completely avoiding subjective analysis is impossible, but I feel you tend inconsistently weigh how impactful and compelling each philosopher is. Plato and Kant definitely belong in S tier so no arguments there. I am not super familiar with Hegel but I am well aware of his impact. I would probably have switched Aristotle and Hegel just given Aristotle's over all influence. Yet putting Aristotle on the same level of Plato seems wrong, and I agree that S tier should remain for and elite few so maybe A for both Aristotle and Hegel. My first real disagreement is your placement of Spinoza. Personally, I kind of despise modern philosophy, especially early modern philosophy. I find it incredibly dull and not very inspiring. This does not mean I have no appreciation for modern philosophy and its influence on history, science, religion, and the advancement of philosophical thought, nor do I under appreciate the level of brilliance displayed by these thinkers. I just tend not to enjoy reading modern philosophers as much of others. Given this fact, you can probably guess that I abhor Spinoza's writings. I view him as a nihilist in pure logical form where as Camus was at least poetic (loose use of the word nihilist here). I think Spinoza's pantheistic view of God removes any power or inspiration derived from the idea of God and his conception tends to fade into the cosmic background where it becomes a useless conception. If God is everything, God becomes nothing. I could go more into this argument but I don't want to take too much of my critique of your tier list with my analysis of Spinoza. I will conclude by saying that Spinoza's works succeed in their critique of religious dogmatism and there are clear parallels between his ethics and Hume, and even Sam Harris. Overall I would have put Spinoza in C or B. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers to read and also one of the most influential thinkers in the history of philosophy. I might have even place him as an S tier. I think he will be looked at as one of the those landmark philosophers that marked a major shift in western thought centuries into the future. We are living in a post Nietzschean world. The "death of God" and science/logic as an insufficient framework for value and meaning arguments would surely have been made at some point if Nietzsche had not. But, he levied such a devastating critique against Christianity and rationalism that he deserves to be lauded. He directly influences existentialism post modernism, and society and history in the 20th and 21st centuries. Because of all of this I might put him in S tier. I would put Camus in C his insights into existentialism. Aquinas and Descartes deserve to be in higher tiers, in B probably. Marx is difficult to evaluate because if you analyze his impact from a neutral and object viewpoint he definitely deserves A. However, I find his philosophy intellectually and conceptually questionable. Of course Marx would have objected to how his communist philosophy was implemented, yet I have a hard time separating the two. In my opinion communism requires immense top-down control and it is quite difficult if not impossible to redistribute wealth without developing authoritarianism. Merit does not allow for equal distribution. You cannot reduce humanity to a completely equal state without ridding a society of the economically and intellectually successful. Everywhere communism has been attempted there has been massive human rights violation and death. Even as a philosophy communism fails. Therefore, Marx belongs in C and is nor any lower simply by dint of his impact. Lastly, I have a much more favorable view of Rand than you do. I agree that she is almost a direct intellectual descendant of Nietzsche's and it is a shame that they are not referenced together more frequently. Rand attempts to create a complete conception of the individual that has achieved Nietzsche's super morality, individuals that have moved beyond conventional morality and reached a state of complete self-containment. I thoroughly enjoyed Atlas both for its romantic appeals and its sense of supreme individual agency. With that being said, I think her project fails but not for lack of trying. Rand's attempt to justify complete individualism and egoism earns her a C in my opinion. Even if objectivism fails the attempt warrants a place in philosophical history. Also, I appreciate and enjoy her defense of capitalism, of which you could have guessed I am a fan given my critique of Marx. I apologize for such a long winded review but philosophy is my passion and I do not get to talk about it often. Thank you for your video, certainly provided food for thought.
Tbh i didn't watch that video yet, but i just wanted you to know that your work is very helpful and i am grateful for your will to share knowledge with us.
Hey Jared, could you do a video about the greatest papers in philosophy? Videos about works of philosophy tend to focus on books, but that misses the fact perhaps that a lot of work is being done by papers. Also i dont read papers as much, so i would love to get some recomendations on that front from someone who's been more deeply into academia than I have.
It’s a shame you only critiqued Rands idea of selfishness in the context of libertarianism (which she rejected) it would be so refreshing to watch a critique of Rands ideas that doesn’t focus on her literary merits or her personal life
@@alan6747 Your comment elucidates the fact that you don't understand philosophy much less its nuanced factions. No one is above philosophy except the Divine who dares not to violate the rules of logic (hence the problem of evil).
@@inelhuayocan_aci We are joking, I probably know more about philosophy than you do. I did not mean to disrespect philosophy it's just me joking for fun. Stevesutton is probably joking too so I decided to have some fun and keep the joke going
It is a bummer one paragraph debunking your ideas, but the way frege did philosophy is what made this possible, the clarity that analytic philosophy strives is exactly that, to reason things and make statements that could be more easily provable or disprovable. Having your ideas been disproved, its just part of the advancement of knowledge, his contributions are still there. In other hand statung your ideas to make thie possible, when you were the first to do that is remarkable. It is kind of rare to happen this in philosophy.
Can you make a sequel to this where you talk about non-western philosophers: from the muslim world (even thou we can say that the muslim philosophy of the middle ages can be seen as a branch of western philosophy), indians and chinese. this will be super intressting and unique
If I remade the video, I'd bump Aristotle to S tier.
@@_jared the only correct edit, don’t listen to these crybabies
@@xWingzTV I stand by everything else.
@@_jaredyou stand by Marx in the A tier? Preposterous.
You're a cuck, and you look like one. And sound too.
I wonder how much Aristotle might care.
seeing Aquinas next to Peter Singer just killed off a part of my soul.
... and below Marx and Mill ... yikes.
Based and Summa Contra Gentiles piled
@@AutumnRide86 All four should be tossed in the trash.
Singer is good but he will be forgotten as time marches on.
@@AutumnRide86 All four should tossed in the trash can.
I welcome you to the world of humanities meme-format content
It is, the way of judging tells me if philosophy departments still teaches logic or ways or limits of judging
it's a good place to be
Yes Jared get the bag!!!!! Make a tier list!!
Lol
Why not?
I see tier list I click
"People who seek money are the worst part of human kind" mfs when RUclips ad revenue just pays 3$ 🗣️:
@@Wulkthe ones who say such stuff usually aren't competent enough to make money and appreciate other people's effort.
The exclusion of Russel and Wittgenstein is criminal
Absolutely. Both incredibly influential.
And Zizek, and a mention to Freud. And Presocratics! Like Heraclitus or Parmenides. But I think, in general, he puts a good mix.
@@germantanco3523 zizek shouldve been S tier
@@davidddd2001 Is he really producing anything original though?
mid
You have made my life more difficult. And you should be proud. I'm 80 and might make it to 81, but not 82. So time, as I understand time, is a big deal. And you put so many wonderful things in front of me that I come closest to regret when I consider what I want to learn than for any other reason. Thank you.
Why not 82?
I’m only 23 years old and I already feel like I’m running out of time to learn the things I want to and to enjoy the things I enjoy. What advice would you give to someone in my position?
If what you cannot learn feels bad to think about change your view, try to think about how to pass on your accumulated knowledge so others may learn from your experience. How we pass on knowledge is a primary purpose of philosophy. It's how we grow as a group over time.
@@AA_Warlok Standing on the shoulders of giants.
@@harrison127 That's a kind question. Don't smoke. Brush your teeth regularly. I have a Post-it note on my display: "Don't worry about it." Sorry. That's all I know.
No Schopenhauer? :(
What did ou expect from a list that has Hegel at S? :D
too much testosterone for this soy philosopher
S like Schopenhauer
easy A tier
I saw someone make an attractiveness list of philosophers. It was funny that Schopenhauer had his original category below G called Schopenhauer.
The Aristotle take is so wild to me. Saying that basically the grandfather of science as he’s often characterised should go from S to A tier because of his science work for which he is at least in scientific and analytic circles most revered for is crazy to me. I don’t think the outdated nature of his work makes it less impressive, perhaps only more of a niche interest for history of science types. I guess if ur ranking them for what the viewer should read it could make sense. Anyway it’s your opinion, great video! I am enjoying all your content quite a lot, thx for making videos
I agree completely
I agree. Without Aristotle, medieval and modern philosophy are impossible.
Also, by that same token, why not lower Plato? He stated that there are no contemporary platonists and I doubt he thinks the theory of forms or of recollection are correct.
Similarly, he states with Plotinus that historical importance was a key factor. Well, there is no philosopher who gets even close to Aristotle’s influence, not even Plato.
In complete agreement. Aristotle is the most impactful philosopher in the western tradition. A thorough study of Aristotle makes it so much easier to study ANY other philosopher that comes afterwards. He did way more than amend Platonism, he radically departed from it, which is why it’s theorized that Plato didn’t pass his school to him after he died. His biological and scientific observations are outdated, sure, but his metaphysics, logic, rhetoric, aesthetics, politics, and ethics are still extremely valuable today. I mean, he practically defined these areas of study. His achievements are incredible. Best CV of any intellectual I can think of.
@@m.b.crawford5464 totally agree on the fact that studying aristotle makes ANY other philosophy easy. He sure defined the logic of philosophical thought. From my experience i started to learn philosophy from his work, and I can say for sure his principles defined what philosophy is and isnt.
Hegel is only S because nobody has understood anything he wrote yet
thats a you problem
Based and Schopenhauerpilled
I think Kierkegaard did, and he repudiated it quite quickly.
Hegel is good actually. He was just a bit overly flowery and liked to hear himself talk a bit. Also his bootlicking of Napoleon was pure cringe.
That's wrong. Indeed there are a lot of people who have a very good grasping of Hegel. The problem with Hegel is that one of his very basic points is that abstractions are in themselves false. Therefore philosophy as the highest form of truth has to be as concrete as possible. But because Hegel is so insanely concrete, precise und crystal-clear, he becomes utterly incomprehensible for the average human mind which is not necessarily an intelligence issue but more due to lacking philosophical skill. Hegel is not for beginners and definitely hard. But there are people who have understood him very well. His philosophy is just impossible to summarize (that's kind of the whole point of it) which becomes a problem when communicating Hegel to an audience of layman.
If Jared ever makes a sequel to this, the people not on the list I'd be most curious about include Montaigne, Leibniz, Rousseau, Bergson, Wittgenstein, Whitehead, Benjamin, Adorno, Deleuze, Habermas, and Nussbaum. I think it's kind of sad Jared doesn't discuss any philosophers outside the Western tradition. I have a special affinity for Zhuangzi. I really love Jared's videos. The recent one he did on the six central issues surrounding higher ed were spot on. (I'm an adjunct instructor in writing at three different colleges.)
This is a great comment. I agree!
Yeah, Wittgenstein really is missing. Along with Derrida (and possibly Foucault). Whereas someone like Frege seemed not totally like the others in terms of importance
I’m with you here. I’d like to see where Wittgenstein fits in here. There are also some “thinkers” (not necessarily philosophers) that I wish were discussed more: Leopardi, Cioran, and Zapffe.
maybe bad take but I wish he would include Jung, Freud and Lacan because they should really be approached as philosophy .. and I'm curious about his thoughts on Bataille. also wanna see Sartre, Beauvoir, Arendt, Derrida and Foucault
@@Lin-rs9pw I can see how he would forgo the big names of psychoanalysis on the same grounds as Peterson, though. But I am with you on Bataille if only to see his brain melt :D
Nice video. But I have to say, Aristotle in anything other than S is absolute insanity
My mother understands very little English, and I do not believe she cares much for philosophy. I just put your video up on the television while I'm getting ready, and she thinks you have a fantastic voice! She doesn't know what you're talking about, but she still likes to listen to you 😊
Hegel over Aristotle? Really?
Not a particularly controversial take
That's quite evident
@@manucao8594 Schopenhauer would give Hegel an F tier and I have no reason to doubt him.
Hegel is entirely skippable. He is entirely skippable. You get bogged and become dogmatic if you get wrapped up in Hegel's nonsense.
@@HeelPower200 no way Hegel is skippable lmao go read him
scholasticism is not for everyone, but that doesn't make Aquinas any less noteworthy for his achievements. His analysis of language is up there with that of Frege and Wittgenstein at having made an ostensible treatise on notions of sense and reference, interior propositions, and the epistemic limits of human language.
All the more impressive that such ideas were even fathomed 700 years before being more thoroughly added onto by a more concisely formed philosophy of language.
Even if there's an argument to be made about its format and accessibility, analytical thomism is goated imo
Extremely correct opinion, regardless it would've been honest for Jared to just say "I classify him as a theologian" because he's literally the greatest theologian of all time in my opinion and he really is very focused on Aristotle and that probably holds him back as a pure philosopher.
Scholasticism is a displaced discourse. The whole idea of such a list is in disfavor of the way how scholastic philosophy works, I would assume.
@@parkermcginley3708 neoplatonism is a great influence...if i'm not mistaken he cites dyonisus more than aristotle
Sorry but no, he didn't contribute a lot to human knowledge and he's mostly cited by theologians. The list is fine.
@@QuantumMag-u1l some philosophers say he is a theologian only and then never study him as a philosopher....and then such philosophers complain that he is cited mostly by theologians...
The thing is...go there and get to know some of the guy's work...how can a guy who makes an original sinthesis of plato and aristotle is not a philosopher? Has the original actus essendi....and contributions in so many disciplines...it is just about making the effort to know at least a little bit about his work and about the structure of the summa
Would love to see where you place Russell, Wittgenstein, de Beauvoir, Adorno, Fanon, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Zizek, Badiou, Byung-Chul Han, and Bruno Latour as well
Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Boethius, Montaigne, Emerson, and Lacan
Levinas, Habbermas, Said..
Foucault was a hack. Levinas was not a good writer. And I say this as someone who actually found Derrida interesting. Maybe I was just too worn out from the effort of reading Derrida to have any energy left for Levinas? 😅
where's zizik and so on and so on
Sniff sniff im actually more of a hegelian than marxist but sniff i ask myself what happened to freud? sniff snif and so on
@@waffle.23 yeah there are also three top philosophers not mentioned here BUT I guess it's just a one person's subjective list so we can't complain.
@@waffle.23 LMFAO
@@waffle.23😂
@@kiloub maybe take it up with the people that compiled this list for him instead of into the ether
I love Pascal, he was so ahead of his time, he was my first philosophical crush when I was a teen lol and i still read it from time to time, he still speaks to me. He had such existentialistic thoughts and beautifully written.
He is the most underrated philosopher in these kinds of lists. A true philosopher of the heart, not the head. That’s probably why the nerds don’t give him his due.
@@m.b.crawford5464 well he was also a genius in math and physics and contributed greatly, he was a child prodigy and I think he turned to religious topics later on. Great head and big heart, which is rare. He also suffered a lot physically and died pretty young. Why do people overlook him 😔
@@padmeasmr I get the sense that he reached the pinnacle of rationality (for that time) and found it a fruitless exercise. He saw that language and mathematics are insufficient to fully describe reality and that these intellectual rabbit holes go on forever. I think that’s why he took a more spiritual and psychological approach. Most people never reach this level of intellectual maturity at all. Pascal reached it in his thirties. It’s crazy.
These are great takes. Pascal was awesome.
Aristotle should go in the S tier. Your rationale was that his biology wasn't great. Well, this is a philosopher tier list, and not a scientist tier list. He still made great contributions in that field, especially as a thinker working thousands of years before the advent of modern science.
He invented logic, the very foundation on which all of philosophy lies.
The Nicomachean Ethics is really THE seminal work in virtue ethics, and is still enormously influential even today.
HIs work in metaphysics and political science, including as the first thinker to systematically collect constitutions from different states and compare them, were second to none in the ancient world, and influenced thousands of years of thought.
All of this influence, and only off of his lecture notes. Imagine if we had his dialogues.
Please reconsider! Any argument you would cast for your reasoning would surely be based off of...well...logic.
C tier for Aquinas is pure coal.
Absolute garbage tier list. I'm wondering if he really thinks that or was this made purely as rage bait. Bizarre.
He was a religious propagandist. He should not even be considered a 'philosopher'. Much like almost all Catholic 'philosophy' it is just pseudo intellectual dogma masquerading as logic.
Cry about it
Why? Aquinas is only useful for religious people, mainly Catholics. He didn't contribute a lot to human knowledge, I would even say that he should be behind Descartes.
@@QuantumMag-u1l I'm not sure how you can read Aquinas and think he is only useful for religious people...which is why I doubt you've even read him. A man who synthesizes two of the greatest intellectual traditions in human history(the Greeks and Christians) does not deserve C tier. The Summa alone is A tier philosophy, never mind the copious amounts of other philosophical writing he created.
I did my undergraduate thesis on Plotinus’ Enneads and.. man.. that is a crazy sophisticated highly complex metaphysics. It was a delight to spend so much time with those writings
Nothing but the claim over Aristotle not being in the same tier as Plato seemed contestable to me.
For the obvious reasons, just the blunt ones. The guy helped to spur on systematics and stratification into fields. His works were copied and written commentaries in the margins of for over a thousand years.
Disagree or agree with him, he covered so much that it made a backdrop for people doing their own philosophy.
Aristotle asked many questions. And we won.
Ok Jared but when will you put yourself on the list?!
Would a philosopher make a tierlist?
No ? ... Philosopher wouldn't care about this nonsense of comparison at all ... because it's a ( polchat) @@putinstea
Someone didn't watch till the end
This will blow up
Yep. Here I am in the first 1k views.
For Butler, I highly recommend Giving an Account of Oneself. That book is, I think, at the core of their thinking and extrapolates out from Althusser’s writing on subjectivity, which I believe is central to understanding Butler’s work on gender, violence, and politics.
This is excellent. I'd really like an even more expansive list or just an entirely new selection of philosophers.
Looking forward to your "Eastern Philosopher Tier List", brother
Wittgenstein?
Omg how is he missing
He's my pookie
@@M0ONCommander he is my love
He probably would make the same case for Wittgenstein as he did on Frege.
he's a bum
This video is epic on so many levels. It's alternately deep with a dash of silly, fun with streaks of meaningfulness. And yet helpful all around. Bravo, Jared, bravo!
As Camus himself clarified, he wasn't an existentialist. It's more than mere quibbling that made him disavow the label; I think we should be charitable enough to consider the possible reasons (just as we should charitably consider, e.g., Derrida's rejection of the labels 'postmodern' and 'poststructuralist').
Great video. It hurts me that Wittgenstein isn't here (though I'm sure lots of folks will yell "why not so-and-so!?"). And I definitely think Aristotle is S-Tier. But this is your list and it's awesome, and I really appreciated the thoughts you gave for each choice. Kudos!
I wanted to comment almost the same. Great choices, most picks kind of fit for me. Hoewever, Aristoteles is underestimated. Hegel might be overestimated a bit. And that Wittgenstein is missing almost necessarily leads to the Freudian suspicion that the obvious lack of someone like Wittgenstein is a sign of displacement.
100% agree. Wittgenstein & Kripke not S-tier is criminal. Neitzsche is S-tier also
Oh, please make the Ayn Rand video. That would be great.
This video annoyed so many of my friends and created many great conversations, so thank you from the bottom of my heart ❤
No Schopenhauer?
A tier.
@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 No. just No. S tier
I thoroughly enjoyed your video and found a lot of stuff relatable. You’ve also given me some books to explore and really enjoyed your insights
Placing Aristotle in A tier and Aquinas in C tier is ridiculous. The two should not be more than one grade apart.
I disagreed with a lot of this list but it is a good video. Good balance of not taking too long or being too brief over the reasons why you ranked them where you did.
Which did you disagree with most?
@@colinwithrow1083 all of it
kierkegaard b tier
what
edit: MARX OVER KIERKEGAARD?!
I'm glad I'm not the only one...
Marx is so overrated. His attempt to do 11th grade calculus was so horrendously embarrassing and one of the easier methods to expose him since many people dont want to read his theory. And he completely bastardized Hegel's genius system of ideas.
Oh no he didn't! Oh HEL no! Kierkegaard was S-tier. Karl Marx was D-tier at best. Nietzche would have chewed Marx up and spit him out.
With regards to Butler, I think you'd do yourself a favor to start with their 1988 essay "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution", since it's way shorter and easier to read (imo) than Gender Trouble. Would also recommend to read their later work (later Butler is way easier to read, as a rule), for example the second essay titled Violence, Mourning, Politics of the 2004 book Precarious Life. They've also done very noteworthy work on Hegel which was quite innovative in the '80s.
I'm curious to know where you would have ranked Foucault and Baudrillard because if you like one you usually dislike the other.
I agree. I would like to have seen him rank Foucault given he is one of the more controversial philosophers (Foucault, and most postmodernists, belongs in F if you ask me).
What happened to Aristotle and Aquinas in this video is just shocking
Its just his opinion
Yes and no. Of course there is some subjectivity on the list, but this list is not a pure "I like" and "I don't like" list. I believe he wants this list to be considered a result of a qualified thought from a qualified philosopher/philosophy student or professor.
He seems to be an honest person. And if this is true, he simply should admit he didn't study or understand enough some philosophers. And then admit that he is not in a position right now to judge some thinkers in a minimum acceptable manner.
Yeah if Kant and Hegel are S tier, there is no way Aristotle should not be up there.
No, the thought of assigning any individuals into a tier list is an epistemic crisis. Like since did we find those as a reliable ways of judging how reality works? Obviously based on the philosophers arguments and influences.
Augustine being in B tier too because modern readers will be dissatisfied by the use of scripture is so insanely frustrating.
You can’t begin a discussion of philosophy without Socrates.
Who ? I only know Jordan Peterson, greatest philosopher the Earth graces
Socrates is essentially only significant as a character in Plato
Great content. Thanks. Watched quite a few now.
10/10 S tier video. Absolutely amazing "I just have a lower opinion of Sartre so I'm not going to rank him." and "Rand was Nietzschean." Not at all, just no. Finding one similarity and thinking you can just roll with it to the point of calling Rand a bad Nietzschean is nonsensical. The differences are beyond obvious and numerous to anyone who bothers to do research.
Not to mention Sartre convincingly debunks Kant's arguments yet would be E tier if this tier list included him.
Kant most certainly belongs in S or A. Also, I am curious for why you think Nietzsche is so different from Rand. I am a fan of both and would have personally put Rand in the C tier. Do you not think that Atlas Shrugged is a perfect demonstration of Nietzsche's super moral individual? It seems to me that Atlas Shrugged provides a template for how an ubermensch should comport themselves. The individualistic paradise Galt creates is the post Nietzchean world that F.N. imagined. F.N. correctly and quite presciently claimed that the death of God and the inadequacies of rationalism would lead the world to chaos and too much reliance on totalitarian government and government in general. Super morality was supposed to be the solution this problem and Rand demonstrates that beautifully,
@@Eli-yu1tv I'm not commenting on where Kant stands, just that the video taking a shot at sartre while not commenting on him is silly. When you really think about it, how much better is this than the duncan video, which is utterly shameful for reasons others have pointed out?
Do I not think that Galt is a 100% representation of the Ubermensch and his world the perfect answer, repeatedly hinted at by Nietzsche numerous times, and the perfect continuation of his philosophy? Of course I do not.
You can very vaguely claim galt is supposed to be the ubermensch but where's the concrete evidence? There's none. It's certainly not the case that galt's paradise follows from nietzsche's philosophy. The fact that the fall of god can be related to the story of atlas shrugged also doesn't make rand nietzschean since that could apply to thousands of works. Thousands of works have some kind of attitude of the people influenced by the "death of god." Relying on the government more, is included. The conclusion is not likely going to follow from the premise that the death of god makes people reliant on the government. Now what are the reasons that Rand is NOT Nietzschean? First off, Nietzsche believed every hierarchy is better than every anarchy, making him authoritarian right as russel correctly deduces, making him incredibly far away from rand on the political compass. You can't ignore nietzsche praising completely authoritarian regimes and arguing for aristocracy. Second off, nietzsche believes in well-born people, not hardworking people with free will. Free will, also, is an insanely crucial aspect of rand, but nietzsche didn't believe in it. There are, on top, accusations nietzsche brings against various people as condemnations. Condemnations such as standing against privilege, being democratic, treating people equally etc. all of which rand does. More precisely, everyone would have the same RIGHTS in galt's paradise which there is no arguing that nietzsche wouldn't oppose. Everyone can succeed with hard work in galt's paradise, which according to nietzsche would be democratic as opposed to aristocratic. And of course, criticism of paras1tes could easily be interpreted as going against privilege.
Rand certainly was not lying when saying the only influence was aristotle.
Kant was a joke. He doesn’t even deserve to be referred to in the present tense. Nothing he said was consequential in the slightest. Now if he did all of this on purpose, and was actually a comedian, then I might respect him
Agreed. For Rand to be Nietzschean, she'd have to have the same method as him. But I dount anyone can explain Nietzsche's method; least of all his followers!
@@Johan511KinderheimYour argument is a joke, you probably didn't understand anything about Kant's thought and even made a mistaken interpretation, the author of the video is in fact an academic scholar and made a list that in my opinion is quite coherent, from what I have researched and studied about Kant's works, countless academic scholars around the world consider Kant one of the greatest thinkers of all time.
Been waiting for this for so long!
No Arthur Schopenhauer. Absurd
Unimportant
@@ilyassbouioitlan7701 that’s retarded
@@ilyassbouioitlan7701 without Schopenhauer, there would be no Nietzsche which you sweaty nerds glaze so much
This make me think that the author of this video has no real understanding of philosophy. Not putting Schopenhauer in the list is really ignorant.
@@ilyassbouioitlan7701 I disagree. Schopenhauer was credited big time with philosophy on the Will and psychology.
Personally, I'd love to see a video on Rand.
Ooh my, the salt in the wound of libertarians with Marx on A and Rand on F lol
i dont think a libertarian has ever seriously worked through the works of marx with intellectual honesty
@@theyescapedtheweightofdarkness and what pearls of wisdom has Marx provided? Aside from showing the world he was allergic to work?
I like your channel Dr. Henderson. I personally would put Thomas Aquinas on the highest rung, but that is probably the result of my Catholic education.
Yeah, "probably"
No Wendell Berry? America’s great agrarian mystic!!
Maybe the most underrated writer. I read the world ending fire and I almost want to write his name in for president
I’ve been loving your videos - glad I discovered you. This looks to be another excellent one - excited!
Merleau-ponty is never talked about...
I'm curious as to where you'd put him on a tierlist.
thank god someone mentions it!!
I think he is going to become more popular than Heidegger eventually
Great video Jared! Keep them coming!
The fact that you read Rand makes me want to compliment you on your patience and your contempt for your free time. Cheers.
This is an awesome list. We all are biased in our world views but can still acknowledge philosophers we don't agree with can still great philosophers
Bro didn’t even include Wittgenstein.
Aristotle is one of the 8,000 meter peaks of philosophy.
I do wonder about your overall opinion of Schopenhauer; not as influential as any of the people mentioned, but his ideas were significant in many ways.
Make a list with contemporary philosophers, thinkers, philo-posing-influencers etc. It could be a great way to have a discussion about how to gauge the arguments validity and depth of all the many voices.
St. Thomas Aquinas is my favorite Philosopher who brought me into the Catholic church ❤️
Yeah, I get that this is Jared's subjective take but he did not give him justice
@mirenda2754 I agree, same with St. Augustine although it is certainly not the case that case that St. Thomas just quotes the bible to get rid of objections. He always logically figures out the problem and answers it philosophically
This is a really charitable and balanced perspective! Your comments on Nietzsche surprised me a bit since I honestly thought you were quite a bit more averse to him, but I’m pleasantly surprised. You assessment of Heidegger’s style was very true to life and well put!
I think Schopenhauer deserved to be on the list
Thanks for confirming the connection between Nietzsche and Rand. I’ve been making that connection for quite a while.
Nietzsche was critical of capitalism, whereas Rand saw it as the ideal economic system. Nietzsche is "S" tier. What about the cult of Zizek?
So? Rand can still be influenced by Nietzsche even if your remark were true (it is probably more difficult than that)
@@FlosBlog Lots of people were influenced by Nietsche. That's why he is "S" tier. It's not more difficult than that
What does that have to do with anything? Nietzsche also criticized socialism. So what? Philosophers can be wrong about almost anything. It's about asking the right questions. Sometimes their mistakes are the most important things that made us look into reality and reevaluate it. Also, tier lists are just caricatures, they shouldn't be taken seriously
@@asgmto He was not an economist. His writings can easily lead to the interpretation that he was more critical of capitalism. Nietzsche critiqued the bourgeoisie and the effects of capitalism on human values. Capitalism led to more decay in his eyes. Philosophers don't just "ask the right questions." They help us answer them. QED.
Jared, if there is a part two, consider mainly showing the tier list page. I feel that would fair better with the algorithm. Could also be cool to do subsections versions (i.e. political philosophy theories TL, philosophy of religion TL, etc.)
I understand your response to Rand's writing and philosophy as Nietzschean but there is no dishonesty there. Ayn Rand gave credit to Nietzsche in which she said Nietzsche had influenced a lot of her early writings and The Fountainhead. Overall Rand liked him. What separates the two is that before Rand thinks of selfishness or greatness she thinks of reason. It's the human mind that she upholds that Nietzsche misses. She upholds the mind where he upholds might. Her other beliefs, which are adjacent to Nietzsche, follow logically from her appraisal of reason. Nietzsche rejected objective morality, Ayn Rand embraced it. From a glance it is easy to think that their ideas are the same but it would have to be a very quick glance. And if you have read Atlas Shrugged I think you would see the important distinction. The theme of Atlas Shrugged isn't "what if you remove heroes from society" but "what if you remove the mind from the world". Would love to see a video on Ayn Rand
Do you remember the source in which she states she has been influenced a lot by Nietzsche in the past? I know she said she is intellectually only in debt to Aristotle so at the surface this seems like a contradiction on her side.
@@leeuwbama9433 In “Journals of Ayn Rand” she referred to Nietzsche plenty while taking notes on The Fountainhead. But she did not quote Nietzsche in intellectual terms but poetic terms. She doesn’t feel indebted to Nietzsche because, although she was artistically influenced by him, she had profound quarrels with his actual ideas. Her ‘official’ estimate of Nietzsche is in the introduction to “The Fountainhead”. So she admired his prose, but their philosophies are distinct. To her, Aristotle was the only philosopher who really laid the foundation of her philosophy. I haven’t read Aristotle so I can’t attest to that but he’s next on my reading list.
@@leeuwbama9433 “Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself… that the ‘superman’ is ‘beyond good and evil’, that he is a ‘beast of prey’ whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim.” Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, 39
Was just going to watch a couple minutes worth tonight; ended up watching the whole thing. Adding Plotinus to the TBR.
thank you
Pascal's concept of entertainment and emptiness is very modern, I consider him the first modern Christian but above all one of the first great psychologists. He should be ahead of Kierkegaard.
Bro what modern academia does to perception of philosophy is crazy smh
I agree. Most collegiate philosophy programs are butchering the subject. I was lucky enough to attend a college with a more classical approach.
In what sense? I'm genuinely asking
@@jonatandec7083 same
@@socialswine3656 I can't speak to the particulars with great accuracy, because I studied philosophy under a professor that emphasized the canon, but as I understand it, most philosophy programs are stuck in a tangential eddy of analytic philosophy. This niche treats linguistic epistemology as if it were the whole ball game and disregards pretty much everything else.
Now, they may be right, fwiw. In fact, I think there's a real sense in which they are. Kant put capital-P philosophy to bed, and from the corpse grew psychology, linguistics, economics, and political theory. Of those, linguistics, which is really epistemology, is the closest remining field to old-fashioned philosophy, and it's not really an area with deep roots in the canon. As a result, many philosophy students do not, to be a bit flip, get any education in philosophy. It appears as if Mr. Henderson here was one such, until he took up philosophy *after* leaving a philosophy PhD program.
Amazinf Video, Jared! Reallt enjoyed it. Just wanted to point something out though. Most of the philosophers we know as existentialist were really just given this label later on, and they don't necessarily espouse the fundamentals of existentialism. Camus, in fact, categorically refused being an existentialist, which was a part of the Sartre Camus rift. The only true existential philosophers are actually just Sartre and Simone de Bouvoire.
Nice list, but Ariatotle and Nietzsche are S tier. Only Plato and Kant along with Aristotle and Nietzsche on this list have a thoroughgoing impact on Western thought and culture.
Maybe Aristotle, but putting Nietzche on the same tier as titanic system builders like Plato, Kant, and Hegel doesn't make sense. Nietzche is a great writer, but borderline not even a philosopher because he never presents systematic treatments of metaphysics, ethics, or aesthetics
Absolutely do a video on Ayn Rand. Would be fascinating.
On Ayn Rand:
You've mentioned you've read Rand's Atlas Shrugged, her writings on capitalism and a biography on her. What is absolutely essential to read, to get a full view of het philosophy, is both her most important writings on epistemology: 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology' and ethics: 'the Objectivist Ethics'. Her philosophy is an accumulative system: premises accepted in metaphyics work all the way through to politics and esthetics.
A lot of philosophical commentators see similarities between Nietzsche and Rand. Although they look alike on the surface, they both ground their egoism in a different way and with a different result. The interview with miss Rand called ''Ayn Rand, What is the Difference Between Objectivism and Nietzsche's Philosophy?'' is a great interview in which she herself distances her own philosophy (justly or unjustly) from that of Nietzsche.
I haven't really scrolled through the comments, but I know Objectivists have the habit of being condescending about critique on Rand. I think you're quite honest in your judgement, so I look forward to your video on Rand. I hope my suggestions have been of any help😃
Reading We the Living gave me a good insight into her thinking and also history itself.
@@doomstarks182 I haven't yet read that book, mainly because I think it will read much like 1984, a book which I've already read.
Putting Kant and Hegel on S tier, Marx above Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Heidegger, this gotta be one of the most cringe, redditor-level tier lists I've seen
Kant and Hegel on S tier, is much right.
No.
@@marcsfeh Great scholars agree with me, just join the Quora community of great scholars, these thinkers are some of the most esteemed.
@@marcsfeh Great scholars agree, just join the Quora community of great scholars, these thinkers are some of the most esteemed.
@@luamoliveira3467 lmao
Surprised not to see Wittgenstein or Quine.
You nailed the S tier! Glad your conscience let you reconsider.
I would have put Camus above Aquinas and Aurelius, at least C or B tier. Using just some of his fiction alone (his fiction was philosophical), like The Plague or Exile and the Kingdom, I think he could be a contender for top humanitarian philosopher of the 20th century, better than Singer, sorry. Just my opinion though lol.
Just a note from a psychotherapist - all mental health issues that are not of organic/genetic source has the base of anxiety. Depression, compulsion, OCD, PTSD, eating disorders, etc, all have their bases in anxiety. For that reason people who are interested in the human condition, Kierkegaard should be an S.
Any books written by (or about) him that you reccomend? You have piqued my interest.
@@keekeejenkins6162 Fear & Trembling, Either/Or. Irvin Yalom: Existential psychotherapy. Rollo May: The meaning of anxiety.
I think you handled the Peterson question gracefully, and with integrity too. Many people would go plough right into controversy (regardless of relevance) in order to farm views.
Sincere question - Why isn’t Wittgenstein on the list? Guy is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, no? Was looking forward to your opinion. Is it just that whoever made this list for you didn’t have him on it?
So a science fiction writer tier list!
Yes!
Great video, Jared. I'm glad you mentioned Nagel's paper on the absurd. His concluding insight -- that if nothing matters, then the fact that nothing matters also doesn't matter -- is one of those rare sucker punches that made me instantly start viewing my life differently. (And for the better!)
I have never read the paper (I will see if I can find it soon) so I could be misunderstanding but I don't really understand this point as it relates to Camus's philosophy. Camus never argued that nothing matters, he simply believed that the universe has no inherent meaning. He said you should be open "to the gentle indifference of the world” and through that you achieve happiness. This is not despair but liberation. By accepting that the universe doesn't care about us, we're freed from the burden of cosmic expectations. None of this suggests "nothing matters," it suggests simply that the universe is absurd, and we shall revel in its absurdity.
“Nobody is a Platonist anymore” ??? I wouldn’t say that
As someone who enjoys analytic philosophy, I was little sad to only see Frege being mentioned. I'd implore you to make another tier list of analytic philosophers and contemporary philosophers like Alexander Pruss, Richard Swinburne, Timothy Williamson etc.
Have a great day!
34:17 I disagree with Huemer, the objectivist view of selfishness is that he who acquires the values deserves to benefit from them. The gist of the objectivist politics is that reason is the more valuable way to live with other men rather than force, egoism comes into play when you are permitted to benefit from living with humanity with their consent and co-operation.
I don't think that is Rand's argument for the initiation of force as being anti-egoism.
I thought that the initiation of force was evil solely because it flies in the face of the virtue of honesty. An honest man would recognize that every human being is an end in himself. By initiating force you're embodying that you don't regard that principle as truth.
@@leeuwbama9433 Yeah, it's what I am kind of saying; egoism is an answer to the question who ought benefit from values, not what are values
I LOVE THIS. S+tier content going on over here.
Overall I would rate your tier list as fine. I agree with some of your assessments while I vehemently disagree with others. I understand that this is a very difficult task and completely avoiding subjective analysis is impossible, but I feel you tend inconsistently weigh how impactful and compelling each philosopher is. Plato and Kant definitely belong in S tier so no arguments there. I am not super familiar with Hegel but I am well aware of his impact. I would probably have switched Aristotle and Hegel just given Aristotle's over all influence. Yet putting Aristotle on the same level of Plato seems wrong, and I agree that S tier should remain for and elite few so maybe A for both Aristotle and Hegel. My first real disagreement is your placement of Spinoza. Personally, I kind of despise modern philosophy, especially early modern philosophy. I find it incredibly dull and not very inspiring. This does not mean I have no appreciation for modern philosophy and its influence on history, science, religion, and the advancement of philosophical thought, nor do I under appreciate the level of brilliance displayed by these thinkers. I just tend not to enjoy reading modern philosophers as much of others. Given this fact, you can probably guess that I abhor Spinoza's writings. I view him as a nihilist in pure logical form where as Camus was at least poetic (loose use of the word nihilist here). I think Spinoza's pantheistic view of God removes any power or inspiration derived from the idea of God and his conception tends to fade into the cosmic background where it becomes a useless conception. If God is everything, God becomes nothing. I could go more into this argument but I don't want to take too much of my critique of your tier list with my analysis of Spinoza. I will conclude by saying that Spinoza's works succeed in their critique of religious dogmatism and there are clear parallels between his ethics and Hume, and even Sam Harris. Overall I would have put Spinoza in C or B. Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers to read and also one of the most influential thinkers in the history of philosophy. I might have even place him as an S tier. I think he will be looked at as one of the those landmark philosophers that marked a major shift in western thought centuries into the future. We are living in a post Nietzschean world. The "death of God" and science/logic as an insufficient framework for value and meaning arguments would surely have been made at some point if Nietzsche had not. But, he levied such a devastating critique against Christianity and rationalism that he deserves to be lauded. He directly influences existentialism post modernism, and society and history in the 20th and 21st centuries. Because of all of this I might put him in S tier. I would put Camus in C his insights into existentialism. Aquinas and Descartes deserve to be in higher tiers, in B probably. Marx is difficult to evaluate because if you analyze his impact from a neutral and object viewpoint he definitely deserves A. However, I find his philosophy intellectually and conceptually questionable. Of course Marx would have objected to how his communist philosophy was implemented, yet I have a hard time separating the two. In my opinion communism requires immense top-down control and it is quite difficult if not impossible to redistribute wealth without developing authoritarianism. Merit does not allow for equal distribution. You cannot reduce humanity to a completely equal state without ridding a society of the economically and intellectually successful. Everywhere communism has been attempted there has been massive human rights violation and death. Even as a philosophy communism fails. Therefore, Marx belongs in C and is nor any lower simply by dint of his impact. Lastly, I have a much more favorable view of Rand than you do. I agree that she is almost a direct intellectual descendant of Nietzsche's and it is a shame that they are not referenced together more frequently. Rand attempts to create a complete conception of the individual that has achieved Nietzsche's super morality, individuals that have moved beyond conventional morality and reached a state of complete self-containment. I thoroughly enjoyed Atlas both for its romantic appeals and its sense of supreme individual agency. With that being said, I think her project fails but not for lack of trying. Rand's attempt to justify complete individualism and egoism earns her a C in my opinion. Even if objectivism fails the attempt warrants a place in philosophical history. Also, I appreciate and enjoy her defense of capitalism, of which you could have guessed I am a fan given my critique of Marx. I apologize for such a long winded review but philosophy is my passion and I do not get to talk about it often. Thank you for your video, certainly provided food for thought.
Tbh i didn't watch that video yet, but i just wanted you to know that your work is very helpful and i am grateful for your will to share knowledge with us.
No Wittgenstein? Damn….
I hope we get to see more fun tier lists. I've yet to see anyone to a ranking of the Platonic dialogues, for example.
Where the hell is Schopenhauer???????? Definitely S tier.
You earned my like with what you said at 26:47. J.S. Mill is under-appreciated.
Hey Jared, could you do a video about the greatest papers in philosophy? Videos about works of philosophy tend to focus on books, but that misses the fact perhaps that a lot of work is being done by papers. Also i dont read papers as much, so i would love to get some recomendations on that front from someone who's been more deeply into academia than I have.
It’s a shame you only critiqued Rands idea of selfishness in the context of libertarianism (which she rejected) it would be so refreshing to watch a critique of Rands ideas that doesn’t focus on her literary merits or her personal life
Tupac?
You're joking, right?
@@inelhuayocan_acihave u heard ambitionz of a rider? Dude is above philosophy
@@alan6747 Your comment elucidates the fact that you don't understand philosophy much less its nuanced factions. No one is above philosophy except the Divine who dares not to violate the rules of logic (hence the problem of evil).
@@inelhuayocan_aci We are joking, I probably know more about philosophy than you do. I did not mean to disrespect philosophy it's just me joking for fun. Stevesutton is probably joking too so I decided to have some fun and keep the joke going
What about Tupac? ... 🗣️ Well Tupac has no relation with philosophy... Hh nice Sense of humer any way...
It is a bummer one paragraph debunking your ideas, but the way frege did philosophy is what made this possible, the clarity that analytic philosophy strives is exactly that, to reason things and make statements that could be more easily provable or disprovable.
Having your ideas been disproved, its just part of the advancement of knowledge, his contributions are still there.
In other hand statung your ideas to make thie possible, when you were the first to do that is remarkable.
It is kind of rare to happen this in philosophy.
*So very regularly I get asked questions, like, what do you think of Shopenhauer?*
And in the end no ranking of Shopenhauer anyway :)
I had him in the video, but the audio was weird and I had to cut it. (He was C tier, FYI)
What of Wittgenstein?
Same thing happened with that audio, but he was B tier.
Can you make a sequel to this where you talk about non-western philosophers: from the muslim world (even thou we can say that the muslim philosophy of the middle ages can be seen as a branch of western philosophy), indians and chinese.
this will be super intressting and unique
Where would you have put Wittgenstein?
To one of the other commenters he said he would've put him in B-tier
Referring to Epicurus as a hedonist tells me you haven’t actually read him lol