# data[].attributes.headline
Top 10 Living Philosophers to Read Today

# data[].attributes.subject
Top 10 Living Philosophers to Read Today

# data[].attributes.body
There is a popular misconception that philosophy has been dead since the glorious golden age of Plato and Aristotle, or Kant and Hegel, at the very best. However, this glorious intellectual enterprise is today alive and kicking and produces output admirable for its sharpness, profundity, and richness. From fields as obscure as modal epistemology, to more common ones such as feminism and ethics, here are 10 leaders of today’s best achievements of the human mind.

© Spangineer/Wikicommons

Hilary Putnam

Hilary Whitehall Putnam, born in 1926, is one of the towering figures of Anglophone philosophy today. Born in Chicago and currently an emeritus professor at Harvard University, this major intellectual has contributed for a half a century in the fields of philosophy of language and mind. His famous Twin Earth thought experiment demonstrates that ‘meanings just ain’t in the head’, to use his own hip aphorism, which is to say that although we commonly take the meaning of a word to be determined entirely by what idea we associate that word with in our heads, this is not so. Rather it depends, it turns out, also on the particular environment that we find ourselves in.

Derek Parfit

Here is a British philosopher, born in 1942, educated and teaching in Oxford, who has accomplished some exquisite work in metaphysics – the field of philosophy that studies the nature of reality or, broadly put, what there is. More specifically, Dererk Parfit, in his major work ‘Reasons and Persons’, investigates the question of personal identity – what is it that makes us the same people from an earlier time to a later one? By means of a series of borderline sci-fi thought experiments like teleportation, fission and fusion, and brain transplantations, he concludes that there is no fact of the matter that makes us the same through time. From this, he draws some fascinating results for human rationality.

Thomas Nagel

Another major philosopher working from the U.S., Thomas Nagel was however born in Belgrade, Yugoslavia (now Serbia) in 1937. He currently teaches philosophy and law at New York University, his intellectual home that he has not abandoned since 1980. His influential essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ opened new ways in which philosophers see the human mind, attacking what is often called reductionism – the claim that mental states are, in one way or another, just brain, physical states. Nagel has been a prominent public intellectual too, however, his most notable work being another essay, ‘War and Massacre’, which launched a harsh critique on American war policies in Vietnam, in the early 70s.

© Saibo/Wikicommons

John McDowell

This philosopher belongs to the rare but honorable tradition of anti-philosophers, dating back at least to its chief originator, Ludwig Wittgenstein. This line of philosophers do not really seek solutions to philosophical problems but dissolutions; that is, they deny that the problems are indeed problems in the first place. Born in 1942, in South Africa, and now a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, John McDowell has exhibited extraordinary philosophical repertoire, his theories stemming from Kant to Wittgenstein and from Hegel to Sellars. In tandem with his anti-philosophy also goes some degree of pragmatism, roughly the view that what really matters about theories that explain reality is not their truth but the fact that they actually work.

© Zereshk/Wikicommons

David Chalmers

Probably the youngest among the rest, David Chalmers was born in 1966, in Australia. Another example of an ‘unorthodox’ philosopher, Chalmers too belongs to the New York University crew of star philosophers, but also teaches at the Australian National University. Advertised by the press as one of the best books of the year of its publication, The Conscious Mind is his magnum opus, where he revives the long dead worldview of dualism, going as far back as Rene Descartes and the 16th century. Dubbing it ‘naturalistic dualism’, his philosophy argues to the effect that the properties of the mind are of a significantly different kind of the properties of the rest of the physical world.

© Uchicagolaw/Wikicommons

Martha Nussbaum

In a field severely dominated by men, even more so than hardcore sciences, Martha Nussbaum compensates for this in two ways. Born in 1947, in New York, she is now a professor at the University of Chicago, she is a passionate and fervent advocate of women’s rights and her views on feminism are elaborate, bold, and always fruitfully controversial. Her open confrontation with another feminist philosopher of a different school of thought, Judith Butler, in the later 90s made history and, in the end, promoted the feminist cause to new heights. Moreover, the sheer volume of her output makes her one of the most laborious and productive philosophers in ethics and political science, with significant work on animal rights, emotions, and gay rights.

John Searle

A powerful and witty public speaker, John Searle is a UC Berkeley-based dualist of a different variety. Born in 1932, the American philosopher was educated in Oxford in the 1960s, in the heyday of what is now called ordinary language philosophy. Pioneered by his Oxford professor J.L. Austin, this approach views language, and the meaning of linguistic utterances, as actions. More precisely, as special actions that have a special feature: they make something be the case, just by saying that it is the case – as it were, they create reality. He is also famous for his Chinese Room thought experiment which purports to show that, even in principle, computers will never be able to think.

© Oursipan/Wikicommons

Saul Kripke

Another multitasker of a philosopher, Saul Kripke, born in 1940, is an American philosopher, currently emeritus professor at Princeton University, who has spread his wings across philosophy of language, logic, philosophy of mathematics, metaphysics, and epistemology. Listed in the top ten of the most influential philosophers of the past 200 years in a recent poll, this titan made it to fame with his book “Naming and Necessity”, where he argues that certain true statements are necessarily so, that is they cannot be conceived to be false, although they cannot be discovered just by armchair reasoning, like mathematics. They need empirical discovery. His quirky reading of L. Wittgenstein has come to be known in philosophical argot by the portmanteau ‘Kripkestein’.

Daniel Dennett

The mind-boggling and delightfully short Where am I? suffices to demonstrate Daniel Dennett’s grandeur. Born in 1942, this American Harvard and Oxford educated philosopher is a professor at Tufts University and one of the most biologically minded philosophers there is. Being what is known as a physicalist, Dennett believes that the mind is in some way or another reducible to the brain. He is notorious for phrases like ‘heterophenomenology’ or ‘greedy reductionism’, and for his views on free will which are compatibilist – that is, he believes that events in the universe are completely compelled by the laws of nature, yet that does not imply that we lack any ability to act freely.

© Ojs//Wikicommons

Jurgen Habermas

As a coda, we left the only non-English speaking philosopher on the list, born in 1929, Jurgen Habermas. The most prominent philosopher, and also public intellectual, of his country and perhaps the whole of Europe, Habermas’s corpus of work is extensive and comprehensive, combining philosophers as disparate as Austin and Derrida, or Gadamer and Putnam. He is an adherent of the glorious Critical theory of the erstwhile Frankfurt school whose main attitude is, well, critical of the current socio-political human condition. Hence, his daring criticisms of such colossal figures like the Enlightenment folk, Marx, or Foucault. His major work, “The Theory of Communicative Action”, is a brilliant attempt to settle questions of meaning, language, and an optimal moral framework for communication.

By Eno Agolli

# data[].attributes.headline
The 21st Century Philosophers | Fast Forward | OZY

# data[].attributes.subject
The 21st Century Philosophers | Fast Forward | OZY

# data[].attributes.body
Because apparently that B.A. in philosophy might be useful in 2059.

Video by Melanie Ruiz.

Enter a bookstore, while they still exist. Walk toward the philosophy section, toward shelves of fat books by Plato, Nietzsche, Spinoza. Some postmodernists with funny names — Zizek, Baudrillard. Perhaps you browse through their pages before putting them back in their place, respectfully but with a bit of a yawn.

More appealing, perhaps: the books at the front of the store, the best sellers, the ones that portend crises (Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future); others advise on surviving one (Humans Need Not Apply: A Guide to Wealth and Work in the Age of Artificial Intelligence). The business best sellers are more gung-ho about the changes to come: Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. Or Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX and the Quest for a Fantastic Future.

These almost-sci-fi books offer the Silicon Valley zeitgeist, distilled and ready to drink: This is the applied philosophy of doers and thought leaders, sculpted by the kings and fewer queens of the Bay Area, this gleaming, ambitious place that churns out innovation at an exponential rate and is quietly building your future. These thinkers have smartened up talking thermostats, installed robots on the manufacturing floor and begun to unschool us all. They will rewrite labor laws and colonize Mars. And whether you like their thinking or not, today’s techno-philosophers are incarnating the next generation of big ideas, intentionally tackling fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness and what constitutes the good life, questions that once lived mainly in philosophy departments.

Yet the grand ideas driving the technological age seem to move so fast as to be positively ephemeral for the rest of us. Many live in rapid, self-referential conversations and retweets and late-night ideating between designers. They take form in a language that could frighten away those who deem themselves technologically illiterate. Parse the insider chatter and you will discover the philosophies of the people who will direct flows of money through this boom and its potential busts and those who own your many screens. But perhaps the most seemingly dreamy-eyed of the bunch are using their epistemological, ontological and ethical muscles on giant, sometimes scary, positively cinematic issues of artificial intelligence. Meet the futurists.

***

One such group of futurists toils far from the marbled halls of a stately library; the day I arrive, they are operating out of a humble office in a missable building in downtown Berkeley. The Machine Intelligence Research Institute, a tiny collective with six researchers on staff, shares a hallway (tellingly) with the nonprofit Center for Applied Rationality. In the collective’s cramped space, where one must step over a mattress on the floor (available for emergency naps), there are rapidly drawn figures and terms of art spelled out on white boards, scrawled with all the intensity of a coach prepping football plays. Advised by PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel and founding Skype engineer Jaan Tallinn, MIRI-ers are math geeks, high-level types who might otherwise be in academia or pulling in six-figure salaries as Wall Street quants or, of course, as software engineers.

They’re here instead because of a problem whose exigency they, and a whole generation of technologically minded folks, feel acutely: that of artificial intelligence. Here in the Valley, AI is one of the two final frontiers, right up there with the cosmos. Big money is flowing in its direction; last month saw the launch of a star-studded nonprofit called OpenAI (an organization spokesperson said the team was too busy to comment right now) to study “friendly” artificial intelligence. With some $1 billion in hand, it’s backed by donors like Elon Musk, Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel and more. The dream: obedient, human-enhancing robots. The threat: unfriendly AI,self-explanatory.

Quick definition check: AI doesn’t necessarily mean humanoid robots, and it’s not just headline-making stuff like IBM’s Jeopardy-winning robot Watson or self-driving cars. Much of AI is being built by various unsexy algorithms that drive image recognition, natural language processing and machine learning. So far, such algorithms have made our computers immensely powerful and ace at learning a few clearly defined tasks, like, say, beating us at chess or finding a nearby restaurant. But they haven’t yet brought us artificial general intelligence, aka a close-to-human ability to reason and learn from experience. And we’re nowhere close to machines being conscious, if you believe that sort of thing. Today’s AI is a kind of “Swiss Army knife,” says Jerry Kaplan, self-proclaimed Silicon Valley “fossil,” futurist and author of a new book on AI, Humans Need Not Apply: It’s a bunch of helpful, individual tools in our pocket, but we don’t yet have one giant master tool.

Despite the hazy horizon, the good people at MIRI have taken it upon themselves to build the foundational mathematics to help us design AI to, one day, “align with our values,” as Nate Soares, MIRI’s executive director, puts it. Almost every super-sexy question I ask for MIRI’s take on has Soares chastising me with a patience, young grasshopper. Will he teach machines to think? Stave off murderous bots? He reiterates that MIRI’s work is seriously bedrock stuff. Like, they’re still inventing calculus that might one day help someone build the tools to one day build a rocket ship. So don’t call them NASA.

If you think it’s too early to think about something, it’s probably slightly too late.

—Nate Soares, executive director of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute

But in the popular consciousness, AI has taken on epic proportions to rival the space-race craze. Soares traces the surge of lay interest to a few recent events: the publication of Oxford philosopher and futurist Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, a dense tome that zoomed surprisingly high on the New York Times best-seller list; the entry of Stephen Hawking and Musk into the fray. Not to mention the intensifying conversation about automation and what it means for jobs. Add in ubiquitous references in pop culture, like the blockbuster Ex Machina, and it all made 2015 the year AI went mainstream.

Some see the fuss as somewhat paranoid. As machine-learning expert and Coursera cofounder Andrew Ng told Fusion’s editor in chief, Alexis Madrigal, recently: “I don’t work on preventing AI from turning evil for the same reason that I don’t work on combating overpopulation on the planet Mars. … It’s just not productive to work on that right now.” Plus, many find it hard to stomach the futurists themselves, seeing their obsession with the future as a disregard for the present. These are “great big moonshot, optimistic ideas about the future,” says Shannon Vallor, professor of philosophy at Santa Clara University in Silicon Valley. What about the troubles today?

Still others would prefer the philosophy talk be coupled with action. Take the goings-on at another haven for AI geeks who feel let down by the academy and industry alike — the Bay Area–based startup Vicarious, which, with more than $70 million in hand, is like a real-world test lab. Two years ago, by building a “brainlike vision system,” the Vicarious team beat those Captcha texts that ask you to prove you’re not a robot — they taught computers to recognize a complex pattern of images, much as a person would. Vicarious cofounder Scott Phoenix, a bounding, tall guy who handshakes me into the office past a treadmill desk (“We have a bunch of them”), calls MIRI more like a “political think tank” looking to “build safety nets everywhere, even if most will probably end up unused.” For Phoenix, though, the safety nets need to be accompanied by some hand-dirtying. “The best way to build safe AI,” he says, is to, well, start building some AI even as we figure out how to save our own necks.

“If you think it’s too early to think about something, it’s probably slightly too late,” Soares says. Forebodingly, he adds, citing global warming and nuclear weapons: “Humanity does not have a good track record for preparing for threats … until it is too late.” For the extreme view, there’s Bostrom, who runs Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute and has made a career by talking about the existential threats facing humanity. AI is foremost on the quaking-in-your-boots list. “You’re designing for a problem that doesn’t yet exist,” he admits. But in two or three decades, once we are face-to-face with the problem, well, “we’re kind of out of luck at that point,” he says. “Better to design ‘an insurance policy.’ ”

***

The three laws of robotics are: “One, a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Two, a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. And three, a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.” These laws are cited almost as often as Moore’s law in some circles in Silicon Valley, never mind that they’re fictional, imagined up bysci-fi writer Isaac Asimov.

If Asimov’s are the Ten Commandments, then everyone else is busy trying to write the common law to channel those core principles. And not by crudely hard-coding morality or plugging ethics into a machine. Rather, many researchers want to teach computers to teach themselves good behavior. One of them is Francesca Rossi, professor of computer science at the University of Padova in Italy and a leading AI researcher, who thinks machines should learn what we believe. Which might mean letting a robot learn our bad habits, like “some sort of irrationality that’s hopefully not dangerous.” If computers don’t think like us, Rossi tells me, we won’t accept them as coworkers and friends and will consign them instead to the weirdo lunch table.

But how do we think? Rossi likens human ethics to preferences; we have a few core principles we hold dear, but more often, we decide what’s right based on context. Even the saintliest among us are necessarily relativistic. If Rossi can figure out the logical patterns we follow when we make decisions and why we prefer various ethical principles, she might be able to teach a computer to learn those ethics.

Everyone quotes Asimov’s laws of robotics, but everyone forgets that they never work. That’s the whole point: They never work.

—Jerry Kaplan, serial entrepreneur and author of Humans Need Not Apply

Others in her field, like Carnegie Mellon professor Manuela Veloso, are testing the preference stuff in more immediate circumstances. Veloso is part of a team of CMU researchers who regularly play with a friendly little guy called the CoBot (Collaborative Robot), which winds its way through the university’s lecture halls and labs, handling sometimes conflicting requests from professors and even guiding visitors to meetings with academics. CoBot receives and parses multiple directions — go grab me a coffee, but go to the fourth floor first and come back to Dr. So-and-So’s office between now and 12 o’clock, etc. It can pull off plenty of tasks, but Veloso tells me one big challenge still lies ahead: figuring out how CoBot makes its decisions. It’s not as though we can ask it, straight up, why it did what it did.

The thing is, says Kaplan, “everyone quotes Asimov’s laws of robotics, but everyone forgets that they never work. That’s the whole point: They never work.”

Indeed, Asimov wrote a mountain of stories about every way those laws could and did go wrong, and we’ve barely begun to imagine all the possibilities. There is still more to consider, scientifically, legally, societally. Bostrom, who recently sat down with OZY at the Creative Destruction Lab’s machine-learning conference in Toronto, tells me we might want to ask the hard, weird questions now, like how to treat “digital minds in a morally responsible way.” In other words, are human rights robot rights? We’ll never be able to truly understand how machines “think” — even the grandest psychotherapist couldn’t draw thoughts out of them. “But that might just be a reason to start earlier, to make this a non-silly topic.”

The most curious challenge of all could be the law, that bastion of semantics and signification. Someday, someone will want to sue a robot. Say that robot is a driverless car and has an accident. Or — Kaplan’s example — say your assistant bot goes out to get you a coffee and ends up beating up a man who it thinks is stealing a woman’s purse on the sidewalk. In fact, that guy was just the boyfriend, helping his lady out. The well-intentioned bot, unable to distinguish between theft and basic social interaction, had ethical intentions. But who is culpable for the mix-up? You? The company? The robot itself? Kaplan guesses courts will eventually decide that robots— like corporations — are “artificial persons.” So sue that damn robot. Talk about defining the future of humanity.

***

And that’s what this is all about, really — few “professional” philosophers are studying the future with urgency, says Clark Glymour, alumni professor of philosophy at Carnegie Mellon. Philosophers, he tells me, are “a community with sinecures. We don’t really have to pay much attention. Nor are philosophers trained, with some exceptions, to deal with contemporary issues.” If the professionals won’t do the thinking, it’s inevitable that technologists will pull double duty as ethicists and developers alike. I heard once from an acquaintance that her boss at Google regularly quipped, “We spend so much time studying the past, and yet we don’t study the future with the same intensity.”

The buck has been passed, from the Glymours of the world to Google’sethics of AI committee. Technological revolutions have always been accompanied by tectonic intellectual shifts. Those swings brought us Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, the Romantics, Karl Marx. Now? It’s brought us some unlikely philosophers, but philosophers nonetheless, like Musk, Thiel — a former philosophy major in college whose favorite light reading is the French Catholic literary critic René Girard — and Hoffman (another philosophy major!).

It was in an old-fashioned bookstore a few months ago, Kepler’s Books in Menlo Park, that Jerry Kaplan sat discussing his new release. He had been painting the future for a small, rapt audience — it looked thrilling, occasionally gloomy and surprisingly near. A man in the audience raised his hand. With all his foresight, he asked, what did Kaplan recommend the next generation do to prepare? White-haired, grinning, the man with a Ph.D. in computer science said, “Get a broad, liberal arts education.” He referenced his B.A. in the history and philosophy of science. “Ph.D.s should really have an expiration date,” he said. Philosophy, though? That somehow remained both ancient and urgent.

# data[].attributes.body
It may be a little early but here are some contenders:

1. David Chalmers:

Famous for developing a unique philosophy of mind, Chalmers has revived Descartes’ Dualism, dubbing it ‘naturalistic dualism’, his philosophy argues to the effect that the properties of the mind are of a significantly different kind of the properties of the rest of the physical world.

2. Thomas Nagel:

He currently teaches philosophy and law at New York University, his intellectual home that he has not abandoned since 1980. His influential essay ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ opened new ways in which philosophers see the human mind, attacking what is often called reductionism – the claim that mental states are, in one way or another, just brain, physical states.

3. Derek Parfit:

More specifically, Derek Parfit, in his major work ‘Reasons and Persons’, investigates the question of personal identity – what is it that makes us the same people from an earlier time to a later one? By means of a series of borderline sci-fi thought experiments like teleportation, fission and fusion, and brain transplantations, he concludes that there is no fact of the matter that makes us the same through time. From this, he draws some fascinating results for human rationality.

4. John McDowell:

This philosopher belongs to the rare but honorable tradition of anti-philosophers, dating back at least to its chief originator, Ludwig Wittgenstein. This line of philosophers do not really seek solutions to philosophical problems but dissolutions; that is, they deny that the problems are indeed problems in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
In analytic philosophy, I would say Saul Kripke, without a doubt.Although his output has by no means been prolific, everything he has written has had a huge and lasting impact. He is quite a character too.

# data[].attributes.body
accepted | In analytic philosophy, I would say Saul Kripke, without a doubt.Although his output has by no means been prolific, everything he has written has had a huge and lasting impact. He is quite a character too.

# data[].attributes.body
Pages in category "21st-century philosophers"

The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 1,007 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

(previous page) (next page)

A

Elisa Aaltola

Bijan Abdolkarimi

Taha Abdurrahman

David Abram

Gerd B. Achenbach

Hans Achterhuis

Marilyn McCord Adams

Robert Merrihew Adams

Seifudein Adem

Mantas Adomėnas

Sylviane Agacinski

Shabbir Akhtar

Lilli Alanen

Rachel Albeck-Gidron

David Albert

Linda Martín Alcoff

Lucy Allais

Anita L. Allen

William B. Allen

A. H. Almaas

William Alston

Elizabeth S. Anderson

Pamela Sue Anderson

Judith Andre

Antanas Andrijauskas

Ian Angus (philosopher)

Loreta Anilionytė

Julia Annas

Dario Antiseri

John P. Anton

Louise Antony

Lennart Åqvist

Türker Armaner

David Malet Armstrong

Juan Arnau

Richard Arneson

Nomy Arpaly

Mariano Artigas

Molefi Kete Asante

Karl W. Aschenbrenner

Margaret Atherton

Gwenaëlle Aubry

Lene Auestad

Armen Avanessian

Michael R. Ayers

Hiroki Azuma

Joxe Azurmendi

Salvino Azzopardi

B

Harriet Baber

Babette Babich

Kent Bach

Bronisław Baczko

Julian Baggini

Maria Baghramian

Annette Baier

Alan Baker (philosopher)

Lynne Rudder Baker

Thomas Baldwin (philosopher)

Michael Banner

Karen Barad

José Barata-Moura

Sidi Mohamed Barkat

Jason Barker

Jonathan Barnes

Marcia Baron

Richard Baron (philosopher)

Eduardo Barrio

Brian Barry

István Cs. Bartos

Jacques Barzun

Diderik Batens

David Batstone

Nancy Bauer (philosopher)

Zygmunt Bauman

Anthony Beavers

William Bechtel

Gerhold K. Becker

Lawrence C. Becker

Helen Beebee

John Lane Bell

Shannon Bell

Nuel Belnap

Aaron Ben-Ze'ev

Paul Benacerraf

Seyla Benhabib

Piers Benn

Jonathan Bennett (philosopher)

Alain de Benoist

Sergio Benvenuto

Floris van den Berg

Marshall Berman

Andrew Bernstein

Jay Bernstein (professor)

Mark Bevir

Cristina Bicchieri

Jacques Bidet

Jean Biès

Anat Biletzki

Akeel Bilgrami

Harry Binswanger

Peg Birmingham

Jeffrey Bishop

Nader El-Bizri

Simon Blackburn

Russell Blackford

Ned Block

Andy Blunden

Susanne Bobzien

Peter Boghossian

Gernot Böhme

Hilary Bok

Sissela Bok

Laurence BonJour

Michael Bordt

Giovanna Borradori

Nick Bostrom

Hans-Werner Bothe

Thorsten Botz-Bornstein

Maarten Boudry

Jacques Bouveresse

Luc Bovens

Robert Brandom

Ray Brassier

Michael Bratman

Geoffrey Brennan

Jason Brennan

Jean Bricmont

Robert Brisart

Alexander Broadie

Berit Brogaard

Stephen Bronner

Thom Brooks

Janet Broughton

Anna Brożek

James Brusseau

Levi Bryant

Ian Buchanan (philosopher)

Christine Buci-Glucksmann

Gustavo Bueno

Mario Bunge

Martin Bunzl

Tyler Burge

J. Peter Burgess

Roderick D. Bush

Judith Butler

Charles Butterworth (philosopher)

C

Nadežda Čačinovič

Cheshire Calhoun

Craig Callender

J. Baird Callicott

Anna Camaiti Hostert

Elisabeth Camp

Victoria Camps

Claudio Canaparo

Leslie Cannold

Monique Canto-Sperber

Herman Cappelen

Claudia Card

Maxence Caron

David Carrier

Noël Carroll

Alan Carter (philosopher)

Nancy Cartwright (philosopher)

Lorella Cedroni

Emmanuel G. Cefai

Vincent Cespedes

Gregory Chaitin

David Chalmers

Peter Carruthers (philosopher)

Paul Chamberlain

Timothy Chambers

Mathew Chandrankunnel

Ruth Chang

Roger Chao

Kah Kyung Cho

Noam Chomsky

Alexandre Christoyannopoulos

Alexander N. Chumakov

Patricia Churchland

Paul Churchland

Marek Cichocki

Andy Clark

Stephen R. L. Clark

Kenneth Clatterbaugh

Justin Clemens

Catherine Clément

Joaquim Clotet

Sharyn Clough

Alfredo Co

Alan Code

Gerald Cohen

Tom Cohen

Claire Colebrook

Patricia Hill Collins

André Comte-Sponville

David Conway (academic)

David E. Cooper

John M. Cooper (philosopher)

David Corfield

Adela Cortina