1. Isaac Newton (Author of ‘Principia) – as a metaphysician, and methodology-setter
2. Karl Barth (Theologian) – metaphysics, politics and ethics
3. Alan Turing (Logician) – as a philosopher of mind
4. Max Weber (Sociologist) – as a philosopher of social science, social philosopher, methodologist, possibly economist, and quasi philosopher of mind
5. Richard Dawkins (Biologist) – a philosopher of science, an enlightenment proponent in the vein of Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz and Voltaire
6. Sigmund Freud (Psychoanalyst) – If Marx is a philosopher, why the hell isn’t Freud one?! They equally have a case to be called one, yet the former is deemed philosophy, and the latter, not.
I deem their thought and conclusions important to philosophy and thought provoking to philosophical categories that aren’t fully encompassed in their own subjects: the notion of complete physical theories in physics; the notion of computation in mathematics; the notion of the centrism of Christ in theology; the nature of human action in sociology; and the nature of the hidden processes of our mind in the ‘mind-sciences’ (df: psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience). Then again, I always think if people are really great, everyone wants to claim them for their own: I feel that way very much for Newton. I have been thinking of writing a post on that very subject.