stamenflicker said:
Wow. I'd like to say I'm speechless, but I guess that isn't true. Your post is somewhat of a derail, because I was only interested in the "of my lifetime" part. If you want my top 5 of all time they would be:
1. Plato / Socrates
2. Nietzsche
3. Russell
4. Jesus
5. Locke
Rounding out the top ten would include Marx for sure, Aristotle, Decartes, Wittgenstein, and a toss up between Lao Tzu, Spinoza, Locke, and Heidegger not necessarily in that order.
I wasn't trying to limit what other philosopher's have done, your assumption is greatly in error.
Flick
No it's not. You've still argued from a position of personal belief, even if you believe that you are making an objective decision. The lines between philisophy, science and social construction et all are
not getting blurred at all...
You see, Plato I may agree with, simply because most modern philosophy exists in the framework the ancient Greeks begun, and classical educations tend to include him: but Plato's actual influence limited to those who are attracted to
his philosophy itself... to people who read Plato and think he has worth. But can you name anywhere in history at all where Plato's idea's have actually been implementated? Where are his Philosopher-Kings? His largest historical influence is tha people laid claim to a Platonic education which was judged as a symbol of intelligence. But what did all his most famous pupils actually do which was Platonic? And Plato's most common area of influence today is in fact an idea he made up to make a moral point; Atlantis. But would you say that people are engaging in Platonic thought when endlessly speculating over pictures of the Bikini Atoll? Or are they rather missing the Platonic point, hmm?
Your next choice clearly this personal bias even more clearly; Nietzsche historically has very little influence except in pop pyschology and those attracted to nihilism... the most commonly assumed area of influence was actually the complete opposite of his beliefs: Nietzche was personally against German nationalism, but it's thanks to his sisters perversion of his work that people today think Nazism was Nietszchism. It wasn't. Niestzche probably wins the award for the most misunderstood philosopher of all time... so does people refering to his name incorrectly make him influential?
No, whether you choose to believe it or not, your argument about influential is personally biased; as people have pointed out to you by stating that you've not included Singer in your recent top five. And this is because you have, admit it or not, despite claiming an over-arching influence for Philosophy, completely ignored all those areas of influence which don't interest you or make you feel personally uncomfortable; Your number 1. was, remember;
1. Ian Hacking. Hacking is at the top of my list because he writes well and asks some really hard questions.
But where are the Hacking'ites out there campaigning for political change? The Hacking'ites on university campus having anguished debates about the issues he raises and changing their diets because of his ideas? Where, in short is the
influence, except on you
personally?
And this is because, you have personally interpreted "Influence" to be:
That sort of respect in reading
Which is is my criticism; Respect in reading has hardly any real world influence, so your whole question is itself a personal thing, rather than objective. And that still stands.
It's not a conscious deception you are making... you've chosen the men you admire in an area you think is influential. But if you want another illustration of how it's thus a wrong one, look at your list again; it is entirely men. Is this because you are a sexist? I'm sure you aren't. But by laying choosing the criteria as you have, you've automatically chosen an arena in which, due to history, society, blah blah blah, men are presently dominant. So your list self selects for men.
When it comes to actual real world influence though, someone like Andrea Dworkin is far more influential; not only does she get name checked on a Nietschean scale, but she has been directly influential in framing real world laws (on pornography for one). But she's not "widely respected in reading" because her ideas belong to a particular subset of Philosophy, Feminism, and sit on the extreme wing of that subset. But to her audience, she hits exactly the right spot... and from there's it been taken into the actual world on a level which your men, respect them as you and their audience does, have not achieved.
So it is with your ideas. I never said you were selecting for Christians... Notice I said your OWN definitions had pushed Jesus himself outside of the judgement criteria. But you are still making a subjective decision; You admire Philosophy. You think it gives something of worth.
It gives answers you believe, and ones you think are useful. But you are mistaking the values of you, and people like you, for a wider influence such thoughts don't objectively have.
Which gets back to my point, which you dismissed as a distraction; the real influences in thought are a combination of a few BIG ideas (Your all time top 5 should actually consist of religious/moral teachers (Jesus, Buddha, Confuscious) and political thinkers (Marx/Mao, who ever came up with The Divine Right Of Kings, Thomas Paine, Voltaire... people whose ideas moved and still move whole societies) and a myriad of small,
personal influences through which they found receptive minds. Such as yours is receptive to Philosophy as it's currently defined. By way of example, The Anglican Church doesn't exist because of any particular thinker, nor does Protestantism exist because of Martin Luther... it exists because lots of people found their arguments appealed to beliefs they
already had; such as a belief that it should be acceptable to get married lots of times. And these ideas, both old and new, far outweigh the pure influence of all the names you list... and always will.
although you may note that his views on 'inter-species sexual relationships' is mentioned in Wikipedia... In saying this, I admit I haven't read the review he made in question (and I should, shouldn't I? I'm certain it's cited in a variety of places and I recall the scandal it created over here...) but it doesn't look good for him.... urgh, Ingrid Newkirk speaks supportively for him. 
Anyway, I'll get better informed before I pass judgement about this matter.