7 Answers

  1. The most significant is without a doubt Zhvanetsky.

    If the concept of “philosopher “is considered in its original, broad sense – “loving wisdom.”

    The number of quoted statements about his life significantly exceeds all living and living philosophers of the 20th and 21st centuries.

    But we will be able to assess this only in many years.

  2. For me, the most significant is the recently departed Vyacheslav Semyonovich Stepin. In my opinion, his concept of culture, typology of social systems and post-non-classical rationality most convincingly clarifies what is happening today and what may happen tomorrow. I also believe that in these unstable times, when people are losing their bearings, the importance of a philosopher is largely determined by his ability to reach out to minds and hearts and convey a message that can be relied upon. In these circumstances, the ability to speak clearly and convincingly about complex philosophical issues is important. And Vyacheslav Semyonovich was an excellent popularizer, watching and listening to his lectures in video recordings is a great pleasure. And personal charm also takes on a special significance in contact with the audience. As the saying goes, a philosopher in times of crisis is more than a philosopher. I myself had several conversations with Vyacheslav Semyonovich, and they made a strong impression on me.

  3. Philosophers are different. There are quite a few good historians of philosophy, textbook authors, translators, publishers, and researchers. But there are also direct philosophers, creators of their own, original theories. Lists are a thankless task here, but I'll try anyway. In short, living, writing/speaking, significant and well-deserved:

    Analytical philosophers: Vadim Vasiliev, Dmitry Ivanov, Dmitry Volkov, Andrey Veretennikov, Daniil Razeev, Valery Surovtsev;

    Phenomenologists: Nelya Motroshilova, Viktor Molchanov, Vitaly Kurennoy;

    Epistemologists: Vladislav Lektorsky, Alexander Nikiforov, Piama Gaidenko;

    Philosophers of culture, art and philosophical anthropologists: Fyodor Girenok, Vyacheslav Dmitriev, Valery Podoroga, Boris Groys, Andrey Ashkerov, Alexander Sekatsky, Valery Savchuk, Igor Chubarov, Mikhail Mayatsky, Alexander Pavlov, Dmitry Kralechkin, Anna Yampolskaya;

    Philosophers-bloggers, lords of doom: Dmitry Galkovsky, Kirill Martynov, Vyacheslav Danilov, Maxim Goryunov.

  4. I would call the philosopher Arkady Ark. In any case, it really reveals philosophy as a science and shows what it really is and what it should be. It clearly separates philosophy from theosophy, which is what it should be. He will designate a purely scientific philosophy-philoistics (love of truth). In his books, he shows how the love of wisdom differs from the love of truth. He is a great critic of modern philosophy textbooks and modern teaching of philosophy. However, he is already a deaf old man and it is almost impossible to talk to them. But he can still write. He shows in his books why Philosophy is a science and should be a science, and not just the chatter of highbrow intellectuals.

  5. You will be surprised, but Andrey Kurpatov.

    He deals with the methodology of thinking, its philosophy in the context of neurophysiology.

    That is, he writes about what philosophy becomes if you decide to take seriously all the knowledge about the brain and what happens in it. How can a person live in a world that is unknowable due to physiological features? How can a person live with himself if he also misunderstands himself?

    p. s. Let's now without “I didn't read it but I condemn it”.

  6. Well, I probably would have named myself, who else…

    A weight rack? But it means more to me than”most important.” It's like calling your parents “the most boring” – it's ridiculous.

    Well, I also like Prokudin-a bright head, but I don't think that his thoughts will have an impact on a wide audience and somehow change this reality. Although as a practical philosopher, he is quite good.

  7. It is extremely funny that the second part of the question was ignored by expert philosophers. To explain WHY you consider a particular person (or the fruits of their labor) significant, you need to think for yourself, and not limit yourself to references, ratings, and lists of “great”ones.

Leave a Reply