Each philosopher is a node in the network and the lines between them (or edges in the terminology of graph theory) represents lines of influence. The node and text are sized according to the number of connections (both in and out). The algorithm that visualises the graph also tends to put the better connected nodes in the centre of the diagram so we see the most influential philosophers, in large text, clustered in the centre. It all seems about right with the major figures in the western philosophical tradition taking the centre stage. (I need to also add the direction of influence with a arrow head – something I’ve not got round to yet.) A shortcoming however is that this evaluation only takes into account direct lines of influence. Indirect influence via another person in the network does not enter into it. This probably explains why Descartes is smaller than you’d think. It would also be better if the nodes were sized only by the number of outward connections although I think overall the differences would be slight. I’ll get round to that.
This is cool as hell. I love to see my phenomenologists, especially Merleau-Ponty, who so often gets overlooked, so big. Definitely most familiar with the lime green and dark purple orbs. Well, and light purple and magenta. But there’s a lot on here I’ve never read.
Of course, if it were me, it would just be one giant circle with Heidegger in it, and like, a tiny dot for Marx, Arendt, Camus, and, like, a smudge, for Sartre.
(via philosophersdog)
i’m going hard on phenomenology these days. this is pretty awesome. and according to okcupid’s which philosopher are you quiz, i’m husserl (explain that to me because i am OBVIOUSLY hannah arendt and not just because she’s a girl, but her being a girl probably excludes her as a possible result on that quiz anyway because patriarchy, amirite)
(Source: setnakht, via beingandslime-deactivated201211)
