The Philosopher Tier List

[@_jared]

If I remade the video, I'd bump Aristotle to S tier.

[@xWingzTV]

@@_jared the only correct edit, don’t listen to these crybabies

[@_jared]

@@xWingzTV I stand by everything else.

[@TheKamperfoelie]

@@_jaredyou stand by Marx in the A tier? Preposterous.

[@Nightman-eb8mj]

You're a cuck, and you look like one. And sound too.

[@jameskeener7251]

I wonder how much Aristotle might care.

[@duncanclarke]

I welcome you to the world of humanities meme-format content

[@user-nb3mq3cg8k]

It is, the way of judging tells me if philosophy departments still teaches logic or ways or limits of judging

[@frak7190]

Yes Jared get the bag!!!!! Make a tier list!!

[@xMo29]

Lol

[@amineech1621]

Why not?

[@Beautyargentina6]

I see tier list I click

[@Wulk]

"People who seek money are the worst part of human kind" mfs when KZbin ad revenue just pays 3$ 🗣️:

[@kshitijshekhar1144]

​@@Wulkthe ones who say such stuff usually aren't competent enough to make money and appreciate other people's effort.

[@jameskeener7251]

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.

[@folksurvival]

Why not 82?

[@harrison127]

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?

[@AA_Warlok]

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.

[@folksurvival]

@@AA_Warlok Standing on the shoulders of giants.

[@jameskeener7251]

@@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.

[@jordanknox8401]

seeing Aquinas next to Peter Singer just killed off a part of my soul.

[@AutumnRide86]

... and below Marx and Mill ... yikes.

[@parkermcginley3708]

Based and Summa Contra Gentiles piled

[@folksurvival]

​@@AutumnRide86 All four should be tossed in the trash.

[@jellophant9716]

Singer is good but he will be forgotten as time marches on.

[@folksurvival]

@@AutumnRide86 All four should tossed in the trash can.

[@davidbockoven161]

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.)

[@CoronaryArteryDisease.]

This is a great comment. I agree!

[@FlosBlog]

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

[@TheLastSisyphus]

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.

[@Lin-rs9pw]

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

[@FlosBlog]

@@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

[@nicwhitbread9607]

The exclusion of Russel and Wittgenstein is criminal

[@Scarletpimpanel73]

Absolutely. Both incredibly influential.

[@germantanco3523]

And Zizek, and a mention to Freud. And Presocratics! Like Heraclitus or Parmenides. But I think, in general, he puts a good mix.

[@davidddd2001]

@@germantanco3523 zizek shouldve been S tier

[@user-gt8ee8ib2e]

@@davidddd2001 Is he really producing anything original though?

[@uperdown0]

mid

[@looseleaf8721]

kierkegaard b tier what edit: MARX OVER KIERKEGAARD?!

[@aidanriess4946]

I'm glad I'm not the only one...

[@DanielSilva-qf6nf]

Nice video. But I have to say, Aristotle in anything other than S is absolute insanity

[@codycummins4]

Ok Jared but when will you put yourself on the list?!

[@putinstea]

Would a philosopher make a tierlist?

[@bankafouf]

No ? ... Philosopher wouldn't care about this nonsense of comparison at all ... because it's a ( polchat) ​@@putinstea

[@Asuki3905]

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 😊

[@pippen6606]

Hegel is only S because nobody has understood anything he wrote yet

[@DarthYoda69]

thats a you problem

[@nihilisticinquisition7150]

Based and Schopenhauerpilled

[@bellingdog]

I think Kierkegaard did, and he repudiated it quite quickly.

[@kiloub]

where's zizik and so on and so on

[@waffle.23]

Sniff sniff im actually more of a hegelian than marxist but sniff i ask myself what happened to freud? sniff snif and so on

[@kiloub]

@@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.

[@frak7190]

@@waffle.23 LMFAO

[@BugsAGD]

​@@waffle.23😂

[@xWingzTV]

@@kiloub maybe take it up with the people that compiled this list for him instead of into the ether

[@LCR-iy6xq]

No Schopenhauer? :(

[@kichelmoon6365]

What did ou expect from a list that has Hegel at S? :D

[@tuckerbugeater]

too much testosterone for this soy philosopher

[@eatthem5829]

S like Schopenhauer

[@jackworthington5205]

easy A tier

[@vege4920]

I saw someone make an attractiveness list of philosophers. It was funny that Schopenhauer had his original category below G called Schopenhauer.

[@Tmesis___19]

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

[@kbalfe]

I agree completely

[@ngogol1748]

I agree. Without Aristotle, medieval and modern philosophy are impossible.

[@DanielSilva-qf6nf]

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.

[@m.b.crawford5464]

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.

[@sofiigamiing]

@@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.

[@wisconsinengines]

This will blow up

[@SammyJ..]

Yep. Here I am in the first 1k views.

[@padmeasmr]

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.

[@m.b.crawford5464]

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.

[@padmeasmr]

@@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 😔

[@m.b.crawford5464]

@@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.

[@tonywolfe9513]

These are great takes. Pascal was awesome.

[@winichskorn976]

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

[@Pyronetic]

Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Boethius, Montaigne, Emerson, and Lacan

[@ilyassbouioitlan7701]

Levinas, Habbermas, Said..

[@tfagundes]

No Wittgenstein? Most important fella in the 20th century...

[@M0ONCommander]

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

[@parkermcginley3708]

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.

[@ngogol1748]

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.

[@vicentesantos726]

@@parkermcginley3708 neoplatonism is a great influence...if i'm not mistaken he cites dyonisus more than aristotle

[@QuantumMag-u1l]

Sorry but no, he didn't contribute a lot to human knowledge and he's mostly cited by theologians. The list is fine.

[@vicentesantos726]

@@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

[@isaiahwhitehead777]

C tier for Aquinas is pure coal.

[@misterkefir]

Absolute garbage tier list. I'm wondering if he really thinks that or was this made purely as rage bait. Bizarre.

[@RationalistMH]

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.

[@Pundapog]

Cry about it

[@QuantumMag-u1l]

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.

[@isaiahwhitehead777]

@@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.

[@PrometheanSOB]

Hegel over Aristotle? Really?

[@Pundapog]

Not a particularly controversial take

[@manucao8594]

That's quite evident

[@Nightman-eb8mj]

@@manucao8594 Schopenhauer would give Hegel an F tier and I have no reason to doubt him.

[@HeelPower200]

Hegel is entirely skippable. He is entirely skippable. You get bogged and become dogmatic if you get wrapped up in Hegel's nonsense.

[@manucao8594]

@@HeelPower200 no way Hegel is skippable lmao go read him

[@Nasir_3.]

No Schopenhauer?

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

A tier.

[@TheCuratorIsHere]

@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 No. just No. S tier

[@matthewshedden1818]

Wittgenstein?

[@alan6747]

Omg how is he missing

[@M0ONCommander]

He's my pookie

[@alan6747]

@@M0ONCommander he is my love

[@LockheedMartinEnjoyer]

He probably would make the same case for Wittgenstein as he did on Frege.

[@jotarokujo5132]

he's a bum

[@sevendeadlychins]

No Wendell Berry? America’s great agrarian mystic!!

[@mitchellr232]

Maybe the most underrated writer. I read the world ending fire and I almost want to write his name in for president

[@huugosorsselsson4122]

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').

[@leeuwbama9433]

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😃

[@doomstarks182]

Reading We the Living gave me a good insight into her thinking and also history itself.

[@leeuwbama9433]

@@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.

[@lukecash3500]

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.

[@whitb62]

This is excellent. I'd really like an even more expansive list or just an entirely new selection of philosophers.

[@Mentat1231]

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!

[@ngogol1748]

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.

[@HowardRoark1]

100% agree. Wittgenstein & Kripke not S-tier is criminal. Neitzsche is S-tier also

[@ofbooksandthings]

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

[@De_Selby]

Merleau-ponty is never talked about... I'm curious as to where you'd put him on a tierlist.

[@marquisdelart]

thank god someone mentions it!!

[@GreyHorton-le1js]

You can’t begin a discussion of philosophy without Socrates.

[@PierreLucSex]

Who ? I only know Jordan Peterson, greatest philosopher the Earth graces

[@Zagg777]

Aristotle is one of the 8,000 meter peaks of philosophy.

[@dillanklapp]

No Wittgenstein? Damn….

[@jeansimard3022]

I'm curious to know where you would have ranked Foucault and Baudrillard because if you like one you usually dislike the other.

[@Eli-yu1tv]

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).

[@Benar115]

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.

[@vicentesantos726]

What happened to Aristotle and Aquinas in this video is just shocking

[@socialswine3656]

Its just his opinion

[@vicentesantos726]

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.

[@RR_theproahole]

Yeah if Kant and Hegel are S tier, there is no way Aristotle should not be up there.

[@user-nb3mq3cg8k]

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.

[@WittenbergScholastic]

Augustine being in B tier too because modern readers will be dissatisfied by the use of scripture is so insanely frustrating.

[@natej1026]

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.

[@misterOphilies]

Oh, please make the Ayn Rand video. That would be great.

[@buddahluvaz8]

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.

[@ryanburdeaux]

No Arthur Schopenhauer. Absurd

[@ilyassbouioitlan7701]

Unimportant

[@ryanburdeaux]

@@ilyassbouioitlan7701 that’s retarded

[@BerksyzBerksyz-pc7lj]

@@ilyassbouioitlan7701 without Schopenhauer, there would be no Nietzsche which you sweaty nerds glaze so much

[@TheCuratorIsHere]

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.

[@llwllynb7214]

From the world of academic philosophy it makes me so sad that videos like this is what people think philosophy is.

[@socialswine3656]

what are you talking about dude? What is philosophy then to you?

[@shadowman5244]

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.

[@Eli-yu1tv]

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,

[@shadowman5244]

@@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.

[@caveman-cp9tq]

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

[@mark4asp]

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!

[@kamalmohamed1191]

I think Schopenhauer deserved to be on the list

[@mold_wizard]

Bro what modern academia does to perception of philosophy is crazy smh

[@Eli-yu1tv]

I agree. Most collegiate philosophy programs are butchering the subject. I was lucky enough to attend a college with a more classical approach.

[@jonatandec7083]

In what sense? I'm genuinely asking

[@socialswine3656]

@@jonatandec7083 same

[@nemo1342]

​@@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.

[@NousNoesis225]

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.

[@GreyHorton-le1js]

Where’s Socrates?

[@ridicule1313]

“Nobody is a Platonist anymore” ??? I wouldn’t say that

[@nihilisticinquisition7150]

Heidegger in B-Tier ist criminal! Also, where's ma Boi Schopenhauer?

[@TheCuratorIsHere]

Where the hell is Schopenhauer???????? Definitely S tier.

[@andymccallum8090]

I'm not an Objectivist I regard them as a sort of cult. However anyone who has spent even more then a few moments studying her work would understand her use of the word selfish and altruism are slightly different from how most people use them. I found definitions in libertarian circles differ sometimes like for example in Anarcho Capitalism, the definition of the state may vary slightly. There are very short videos on the Ayn Rand Institute that point out in her words and explain what she means by Altruism and Selfishness. It is not doing what the hell you want whenever you want at the expense of everyone. Ayn Rand didn't promote hedonism or exploitation of others, Regardless of what you're opinions are about Capitalism. I'm not a fan of her as a person , all that matters are her ideas and writing and in many cases I find myself agreeing with her. I understand her writing and characters are anything but subtle and complex, but i do regard her as a good writer and I think she gets too much hate, mainly from people who either don't understand or are anti Capitalist or anti free markets. Of course there are people who do understand and reject all her writing and ideas and that's fine. But I presume that's a minority. As far as Michael Shermer's point about the problem of being selfish in a free market. society. That is the entire point of free markets, the lack of regulation and freedom for people to pursue their interests, Adam Smith wrote about the "Invisible hand" markets will sometimes do the wrong thing, which we call market failure but much more often they produce positive effects and that is the unintentional effect.

[@bobbypaycheque]

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.

[@colinwithrow1083]

Which did you disagree with most?

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@colinwithrow1083 all of it

[@rouslanrouslan2677]

Placing Aristotle in A tier and Aquinas in C tier is ridiculous. The two should not be more than one grade apart.

[@ZeitgeistGaming69]

Bro didn’t even include Wittgenstein.

[@BuffyandClyro]

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.

[@Reflecting-Ink]

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.

[@jeremypowell9260]

I’m with you on some controversial placements: Hegel, Rand, and especially Butler. I read Gender Trouble, Bodies That Matter, and The Psychic Life of Power and *do* understand them (I’m Continental-oriented), and D tier is generous. It’s a perfect example of a philosopher whose popularity derives from a readership predisposed to accept the conclusions rather than one persuaded by the arguments.

[@celsoch]

Ooh my, the salt in the wound of libertarians with Marx on A and Rand on F lol

[@theyescapedtheweightofdarkness]

i dont think a libertarian has ever seriously worked through the works of marx with intellectual honesty

[@TheKamperfoelie]

@@theyescapedtheweightofdarkness and what pearls of wisdom has Marx provided? Aside from showing the world he was allergic to work?

[@elmomierz]

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.

[@Mrv958]

Surprised not to see Wittgenstein or Quine.

[@smacky1966]

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.

[@stevesutton772]

Tupac?

[@inelhuayocan_aci]

You're joking, right?

[@alan6747]

​​@@inelhuayocan_acihave u heard ambitionz of a rider? Dude is above philosophy

[@inelhuayocan_aci]

@@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).

[@alan6747]

@@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

[@bankafouf]

What about Tupac? ... 🗣️ Well Tupac has no relation with philosophy... Hh nice Sense of humer any way...

[@agskater1914]

Looking forward to your "Eastern Philosopher Tier List", brother

[@pedrorodrigez3367]

*So very regularly I get asked questions, like, what do you think of Shopenhauer?* And in the end no ranking of Shopenhauer anyway :)

[@_jared]

I had him in the video, but the audio was weird and I had to cut it. (He was C tier, FYI)

[@timilehinademola-sunday4253]

What of Wittgenstein?

[@_jared]

Same thing happened with that audio, but he was B tier.

[@benjiewhorf7473]

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!

[@coffeewleibniz]

As a Christian and someone who is embedded in early modern Rationalism, Rand was not a libertarian and she advocated for rational self-interest. Another influence of hers might have been Spinoza since their ethics and metaphysical propositions resemble each other.

[@Pablo-vw1st]

Hello Jared! What do you think about Machiavelli

[@AI-Hallucination]

0:04 I would have burst out laughing how can you put Jordan Peterson in there he is not on the level of the people on this teer ffs he is a content creator a modern pseudo-intellect he got put into corner by Slavoj Zizek. This is casuals guide

[@BraveNewSoul]

Yeah 100%, what a casual and modern-American centric take , Peterson is not even an average philosopher

[@popito8366]

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

[@Saimlordy]

Holy shit this list is horrible.

[@misterkefir]

Actually crazy how bad it is, yeah.

[@unitednerd7414]

It makes sense why we cant have nice things now.

[@Rumham729]

Can you explain why you think it’s bad

[@Saimlordy]

​@@Rumham729Plato at the top of the list. Kant and Hegel in S tier and above Aristotle. Hume and Marx in the same tier as Aristotle. 16 people above Aquinas. Rand 2 tiers below everyone else with him mischaracterizing her as a Nietzschean and butchering her conception of selfishness. Those are the main errors, not the only ones. They all fundamentally stem from the fact that he's basically a Platonist in the broad sense.

[@Rumham729]

@@Saimlordy plato deserves to be up there but it’s hard to compare to Socrates cuz Socrates didn’t write anything. So how do you make the comparison?

[@johnadams3368]

You're correct about Kierkegaard being a proto-Existentialist and being engaging for the modern reader. However, I think you failed you properly articulate the motif of 'Leap of Faith' in Kierkegaard's work. The 'Leap of Faith' is often cited in *Fear and Trembling*, perhaps Kierkegaard's most well known work, with the story of Isaac and Abraham. It should be noted before I go any further that Kierkegaard composed signed and pseudonymous works. He explicitly wrote in his journal, “Once and for all I have solemnly asked that this be observed if someone wants to cite or quote any of my writing: if it is a pseudonymous work, cite or quote the pseudonym. As a concerned author I carry a great responsibility, and this is why I willingly do everything I can to insure that the communication is true. On the other hand, it is so easy to comply that I feel one should have no objection to indulging me in this. It is the fruit of long reflection, the why and how of my use of pseudonyms; I easily could write whole books about it. But if this distinction is not observed in citing and quoting, confusion and sometimes meaninglessness results.” Since Johannes de Silentio is the pseudonym utilized for *Fear and Trembling*, it is important to try to draw a distinction between Climacus and Kierkegaard (Frankly, all of his characters as well). For example, it is a gross mistake to attribute the hedonism of Johannes the Seducer or the aesthetical musings of A to the devoutly religious Kierkegaard. Anyways, what Kierkegaard means with the absurd is that there is something higher than reason (e.g. God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac). This doesn't make it irrational, since it is a false dilemma to presume that beliefs must be rationally argued or a matter up to the person. Kierkegaard is more interested in the intuition of a belief and the individual in relation to God. The 'Leap of Faith' then is the transition of someone who encounters a divine experience, whether vision or simply reading the Bible. You slightly touched on this, "some other force other than reason," however I think you haven't properly explained what Kierkegaard and de Silentio are trying to communicate and may lead the viewer into what I was critiquing before.

[@mirenda2754]

Such a great and insightful comment, thank you!

[@realaymandiab]

Bro just completely excommunicated established Islamic, Indian and Chinese philosophers.

[@tubsy.]

Of course

[@mark4asp]

You need to make the video you want us to see. If you know so much about "Islamic, Indian and Chinese philosophers", then why aren't you telling us about them?

[@realaymandiab]

@@mark4asp 🤦‍♂️. Because that's not my job. He's the one making a "The Philospher Tier List". He didn't title the video 'The Western Philosopher Tier List', did he? That's such a stupid response. That's the equivalent of telling a customer to cook his own food in place of the cook himself. Think before you speak bro.

[@mark4asp]

@@realaymandiab But philosopher means something slightly different in the West to the "East". The Western tradition begins with the Greeks, 2600 years ago. Since he wrote in a Western language: English, you should assume he means Western philosopher. Had he wrote "World Philosopher Tier List", you'd have a legitimate complaint. Had he wrote in Farsi but excluded Persian philosophers you'd also have a legitimate complaint. Also, because he's only talking about Western Philosophers, he's able to talk about the connections between each; which would not be the case had he included philosophers from other continents. When including philosophers outside the Western tradition, one should do a new video for each distinct, relatively isolated (from the West) tradition.

[@realaymandiab]

@@mark4asp 1) Aside from Geography and locality, tell me how for example a random Greek philosopher who lived two millenniums ago will be inherently related to some random British Philosopher from the last two-three centuries. Yes, Philosophers do in fact build on knowledge given to them. However, I do not see how connections can only be made between Philosophers if they are from the same locality and/or civilization, i.e., the West and/or Europe or America. Can connections not be made between for example, did Farsi Muslim Philosopher and polymath Ibn Sina (Avicenna) not heavily influence respected Christian Philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas? Avicrnna single-handedly proved the existence of God my friend - the contingency argument. Why should the generic term 'Philosopher' only connotate Western Philosophers? Is Ibn Sina, not a Philosopher then? Is Chanakya not a Philosopher? Is Confucius not a Philosopher? You seem to be making a racist, exclusionary case my friend.

[@larsentranslation6393]

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.

[@jtc8197]

thank you

[@_emh]

Me: "Jeez, a tier list, how original and not clickbaity at all." Also me: * pours cup of coffee and clicks to watch and see Jared's rankings *

[@Eli-yu1tv]

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.

[@DewiiEsq]

Damn Aquinas ranking was criminal lol

[@Mr.MannenScienceTV]

Nietzsche was critical of capitalism, whereas Rand saw it as the ideal economic system. Nietzsche is "S" tier. What about the cult of Zizek?

[@FlosBlog]

So? Rand can still be influenced by Nietzsche even if your remark were true (it is probably more difficult than that)

[@Mr.MannenScienceTV]

@@FlosBlog Lots of people were influenced by Nietsche. That's why he is "S" tier. It's not more difficult than that

[@asgmto]

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

[@Mr.MannenScienceTV]

@@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.

[@zzpdavid2599]

I'm looking at the timeline and wondered what philosopher was named Brilliant :D

[@evanm3703]

Where would you have put Wittgenstein?

[@leeuwbama9433]

To one of the other commenters he said he would've put him in B-tier

[@Wulk]

22:16 Uh oh! I think we all know how that ended up when a Russian guy tried to do that 🫣

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

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.

[@leeuwbama9433]

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.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

@@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

[@vishwastanwar4764]

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.

[@koslak7335]

Gotta be the most Redditsh tierlist.

[@Pundapog]

None of these placements are particularly controversial, you just got filtered by Kant

[@Levi-iz9rv]

Right? Marx in the A tier gotta be a joke 😂

[@shadowman5244]

Full on redditor mentality would mean putting Nietzsche alone in SSS tier and claiming that all of existentialism stems from his philosophy. Heck he didn't even call him a nihilist either. So it's bad but not full on redditor (pre-rational) mode.

[@owabowa]

​@@Levi-iz9rvTrue, should have been S tier

[@TheKamperfoelie]

@@owabowa lol no, what are the great insights we got from Marx? I know of a lot of catastrophes, should we rate ‘philosophers’ on how much catastrophes they cause? Hitler would like a seat on this tier too then.

[@yuzde43yanmis]

With Rand, why is it always some distorted view of her selfishness or her political views? Her main contributions to philosophy are her axioms and her theory of concepts. It's from those that you derive selfishness and capitalism (she was not consistent in that as she supported a monopoly on security and law enforcement).

[@floorshirts6402]

So a science fiction writer tier list!

[@FlosBlog]

Yes!

[@mountainjay]

Excellent list with Plato in S and Rand in F but what happened to Maimonides?

[@ceeemm1901]

You left out Winnie The Pooh.

[@sofiigamiing]

Man, Aristotle is S tier for sure

[@Jimoebius]

The fact that you read Rand makes me want to compliment you on your patience and your contempt for your free time. Cheers.

[@Mary-JFD]

This video annoyed so many of my friends and created many great conversations, so thank you from the bottom of my heart ❤

[@hap1678]

St. Thomas Aquinas is my favorite Philosopher who brought me into the Catholic church ❤️

[@mirenda2754]

Yeah, I get that this is Jared's subjective take but he did not give him justice

[@hap1678]

@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

[@theskotch]

Absolutely do a video on Ayn Rand. Would be fascinating.

[@isaackirkwood-smith5182]

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.

[@timelston4260]

You nailed the S tier! Glad your conscience let you reconsider.

[@humanity4058]

Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx , Heidegger, wittgenstein are S teir level philosophers no doubt

[@animefurry3508]

Can you do a tier list of "Eastern" philosophers, please! ... Can you put someone is E tier, just so it's not empty lol!

[@elmomierz]

Based take on Rand, Peterson, and Singer. Though I would have liked to see Singer a bit higher, if only because of how much his work has personally affected me. Also, like you, have been quite taken aback by the profiling of JP as a philosopher. Edit: my only critique of this video is the lack of a recap at the end. There was no opportunity to see the full tier list, except for the few seconds as you dropped Singer into place.

[@_jared]

It’s probably not long enough, but I added it at the very end while I fade to black. Should make it a little easier to view the whole thing.

[@elmomierz]

@@_jared thanks :)

[@-jg9pi]

I gotta say if you want to get a good picture of petersons main work and ideas you gotta read Maps of meaning. It was written in the 90s so there's no reactionary stuff in there and I gotta say it's one of those very rare 5 star reads for me. It's not really so much his original thoughts, it's more so like he is taking what some of the brightest minds in history came up with and putting the pieces together in a way that works. He's also not Randian or an objectivist. I read Atlas shrugged and the fountain before Finishing the second half of Maps of meaning and Maps of meaning felt like a natural antitode to Rands strong objectivist worldview. I can highly recommend it and I'm disappointed that its so overlooked in all the discussion because it didn't sell as much.

[@-jg9pi]

just so my rating is maybe put into perspective: my other 5 star reviews (excluding one poetry book) are the road less traveled, crime and punishment, the unbearable lightness of being and the art spirit by robert henri (impressionist painter) If one of those is something you really like I think there's value in maps of meaning if one can look beyond the controversy and different takes on him as a person

[@DanielBro42]

My main conclusion from this video is that even if you make a tier list of the greatest 300 philosophers in history, someone in the comments will still ask: "But where is ______?"