Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment ranked significant figures in the arts and sciences by combining various sources that ranked the various greatest figures in each field. He found that the rank order between the lists correlated fairly highly, and one could make a composite rank that was highly reliable.
Take, for example, the Western philosophy list:
Not a bad list, by any means. It does suffer from the fact that lists overrate thinkers who made valuable contributions to the progression of philosophy, but are less relevant now and are rarely read or discussed. To make a more reliable rank, I then complied data on three objective indicators:
The frequency at which their surname appears in the English corpus: a decent indicator, but unfortunately, some surnames like Rand and Berkeley are inside the corpus for reasons besides their work in philosophy; Rand is a common surname and Berkeley is a famous college.
The size of their subreddit: shouldn’t a great philosopher have a fan club?
The length of their wikipedia article: theoretically, if you are well-known and have a large impact of philosophy, then people should write a long wikipedia article for you. It does not seem to be that predictive, as Wittgenstein’s article is 21,261 words long, while Plato’s is only 7,081 words long.
In addition to the top 15 entires in Western philosophy, I added the top 5 Chinese philosophers from Murray’s list, the top 4 Indian philosophers from that list, and 18 others who did not qualify (Heidegger, Foucault, Freud, Jung, Simone du Beauvoir, Rousseau, Voltaire, Wittgenstein, Zizek, Chomsky, Evola, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Ayn Rand, Diogenes, Habermas, Adorno, and Marx), but I thought were notable enough to include. Philosophers who were primarily known for their work in a field separate from philosophy (e.g. von Mises, Pareto, Adam Smith, Freud, Jung) were excluded from consideration.
The results were rather disappointing. The index scores did not correlate at all with the objective metrics, though the objective metrics did correlate moderately with each other.
I tried testing if the issue was combining the index scores for the Western/Indian/Chinese inventories, and only included philosophers who had a rank of above 0 on the index score. The results were not much better.
I don’t think Murray’s index scores are useless, per say, just that within the restricted range of the greatest philosophers, they do not predict other objective measurements of notability.
I then created a composite score by averaging the results of two methods:
One that assigns equal weights to all predictors.
One that assigns weights based on principal component loadings.
The rationale behind averaging both methods is that weights are hard to estimate with small sizes, leading to imprecisely estimated composite scores. Using equal weights avoids this problem, although it has the disadvantage of overweighing poor indicators of the latent variable. I then normalized the final composite to have a maximum of 100 and minimum of 0, as Murray did.
These are the final results:
Appendix
Eminence, judged by 12 different sources gathered by Charles Murray:
Aristotle: index score of 100
Confucius: 100 (Chinese philosophy)
Shankara: 100 (Indian philosophy)
Plato: 87
Kant: 74
Laozi: 69 (Chinese philosophy)
Nagarjuna: 56 (Indian philosophy)
Ramanuja: 55 (Indian philosophy)
Descartes: 51
Zhuxi: 51 (Chinese philosophy)
Rousseau: 48
Buddha: 47 (Indian philosophy)
Hegel: 46
Mencius: 40 (Chinese philosophy)
Thomas Aquinas: 39
Zhuangzi: 39 (Chinese philosophy)
John Locke: 37
David Hume: 36
St. Augustine: 30
Gottfried Leibniz: 27
Spinoza: 27
Socrates: 26
Arthur Schopenhauer: 24
George Berkeley: 21
Frederich Nietzsche: 20
Thomas Hobbes: 19
Machiavelli: 16
Wittgenstein: 13
Heidegger: 12
Voltaire: 9
Diogenes of Sinope: 2
Karl Marx: 0 (not on list)
Ayn Rand: 0 (not on list)
Julius Evola: 0 (not on list)
Simone du Beauvoir: 0 (not on list)
Adorno: 0 (not on list)
Habermas: NA (born too late — anything after 1920 qualifies)
Zizek: NA (born too late)
Chomsky: NA (born too late)
Foucault NA (born too late)
Subreddit Size (as of 28/08/2024):
Chomsky: 90.6k subs
Nietzsche: 60.1k subs
Zizek: 40.2k subs
Shankara (AdvaitaVedanta): 12.8k subs
Hegel: 7.6k subs
Plato: 6.8k subs
Schopenhauer: 4.6k subs
Foucault: 4.2k subs
Buddha: 3.6k subs
Aristotle: 3.5k subs
Heidegger: 2.8k subs
Wittgenstein: 2k subs
Evola: 1.8k subs
Kant: 1.7k subs
Marx: 0.7k subs
Rand: 0.68k subs
Confucius: 0.52k subs
Habermas: 0.3k subs
Socrates: 0.25k subs
Machiavelli: 0.2k subs
John Locke: 0.097k subs
David Hume: 0.074k subs
Spinoza: 0.019k subs
Nagarjuna: 0.001k subs
Leibniz: banned (NA)
Descartes: banned (NA)
Laozi: banned (NA)
Hobbes: banned (NA)
Adorno: banned (NA)
St. Augustine: no subreddit (0k subs)
Zhuangzi: no subreddit (0k subs)
Diogenes: no subreddit (0k subs)
Rousseau: no subreddit (0k subs)
Berkeley: no subreddit (0k subs)
Voltaire: no subreddit (0k subs)
Zhuxi: no subreddit (0k subs)
Mencius: no subreddit (0k subs)
Ramanjua: no subreddit (0k subs)
Thomas Aquinas: no subreddit (0k subs)
Simone du Beauvoir: no subreddit (0k subs)
Ngram viewer rank (2022):
Aristotle: 0.0013
Marx: 0.00125
Kant: 0.0012
Plato: 0.0011
Berkeley: 0.0011
Augustine: 0.00088
Buddha: 0.00084
Foucault: 0.00069
Hegel: 0.00068
Socrates: 0.00064
Nietzsche: 0.00063
Heidegger: 0.00059
Locke: 0.00050
Hume: 0.00050
Aquinas: 0.00042
Rousseau: 0.00038
Descartes: 0.00038
Wittgenstein: 0.00033
Hobbes: 0.00031
Spinoza: 0.00028
Rand: 0.00025
Habermas: 0.00024
Adorno: 0.00024
Leibniz: 0.00024
Confucius: 0.00022
Schopenhauer: 0.00022
Chomsky: 0.00016
Machiavelli: 0.00016
Voltaire: 0.00016
Beauvoir: 0.000087
Diogenes: 0.000079
Mencius: 0.000070
Zhuangzi: 0.000050
Laozi: 0.000037
Shankara: 0.000013
Nagarjuna: 0.000013
Zizek: 0.000011
Evola: 0.0000091
Zhuxi: 0.0000015
Ramanuja: 0.00000013
Wikipedia article length rank (as of 28/08/2024, first word to references):
Buddha: 27179
Nietzsche: 22585
Wittgenstein: 21261
David Hume: 20004
Marx: 20671
Schopenhauer: 19517
Leibniz: 19047
Hegel: 18729
Kant: 18998
Chomsky: 18431
Foucault: 18051
Voltaire: 17505
Aquinas: 17319
St. Augustine: 17037
Aristotle: 14526
Descartes: 15323
Shankara: 15176
Evola: 14400
Rousseau: 14033
Adorno: 13198
Heidegger: 13033
Socrates: 11996
Confucius: 11627
Spinoza: 11439
Rand: 11183
Berkeley: 10986
Machiavelli: 10061
Locke: 9229
Zizek: 9023
Habermas: 7706
Hobbes: 7652
Beauvoir: 7053
Plato: 7018
Ramanuja: 6802
Nagarjuna: 5563
Laozi: 4519
Diogenes: 3741
Zhuxi: 3527
Mencius: 2858
Zhuangzi: 1260
Full list:
notability Philosopher
1 51.838265 Leibniz
2 32.618709 Spinoza
3 47.132777 Socrates
4 51.181940 Schopenhauer
5 60.285505 Berkeley
6 100.000000 Nietzsche
7 25.000138 Hobbes
8 21.999783 Machiavelli
9 55.185284 Wittgenstein
10 45.247242 Heidegger
11 37.833051 Voltaire
12 0.000000 Diogenes
13 83.710773 Marx
14 23.944538 Rand
15 23.272794 Evola
16 7.685129 Beauvoir
17 30.561955 Adorno
18 24.769355 Habermas
19 39.110568 Zizek
20 91.998812 Chomsky
21 68.124869 Foucault
22 99.182559 Aristotle
23 50.764955 Confucius
24 57.646050 Shankara
25 71.925828 Plato
26 98.288422 Kant
27 20.861388 Laozi
28 16.468555 Nagarjuna
29 18.687522 Ramanuja
30 54.578236 Descartes
31 12.321162 Zhuxi
32 48.182047 Rousseau
33 98.195201 Buddha
34 73.744361 Hegel
35 7.793210 Mencius
36 55.104047 Aquinas
37 2.957789 Zhuangzi
38 38.212042 Locke
39 63.722652 Hume
40 69.044686 Augustine
Interesting article, I like the idea but here are some issues I have with it:
1. Wikipedia articles of more recent figures are longer regardless of their academic relevance, because the details about their person are more available.
2. Wikipedia articles often become long because philosophers are more controversial. Maybe being a controversial philosopher is a sign of greatness, I don’t know.
3. Reddit is English-biased. International audiences, especially the Chinese, are probably underrepresented. This isn’t even mentioning the biased selection of English speakers on Reddit… They’re clearly a sort of clique, aren’t they? Of course they love Zizek because he is funny sniffling Eastern European meme man who is “left wing but vaguely non-woke”.
4. A lot of philosophers are not particularly original. The reason Aristotle is basically the GOAT is because Aquinas, Maimonides, and Avicenna were all Aristotelians with a thin blanket of Abrahamic faith. Aristotle himself is regarded by a lot of classical philosophers as “exoteric version of Plato” until some people in the 19th century invented the term “Neoplatonism”.
5. Should linguists and psychologists like Chomsky and Freud even be on here? Likewise, how much of the craze around Leibniz, Mencius, and Descartes is due to their accomplishments in math?
Seems like Aristotle, Confucius, The Buddha, and Marx should dominate any list. Intuitively, these are the big four. It’s only these four who basically rose to the status of “the philosopher” to continent spanning institutions. Obviously not really empirically provable albeit
I'm excited to see a quantitative approach to ranking the importance of philosophers. But let's assume that Nietzsche was influenced by Plato -- this would make Nietzsche's philosophy a subset of Plato's thought, or a dependent branch off the evolutionary tree.
One way to adjust for this, quantitatively, would be with a chronological modifier — weigh older philosophers as more important, because the newer and more popular philosophers (like Chomsky and Nietzsche) stand on the shoulders of giants.
An even more advanced method would be to search the entire corpus of Nietzsche for direct references to Plato (although he often just says "the Greeks") or Schopenhauer and then create a genealogical "referenced in the text" modifier. Depending on the weight of such a modifier, you could argue that Heraclitus and Thales overshadow Chomsky and Marx. At the very least, your data makes a very good case that there is a large gap between "popular philosophy" and "foundational philosophy."
For a bonus: you could rank philosophers by the size of their corpus. It would be fun to see the ratio between words written and popularity, and compare that with their explicit references *among other philosophers.* Thales and Heraclitus would do well with their small fragments, while Sloterdijk, who is popular among some philosophers but unknown otherwise, would tend toward the bottom.