[brighteyes]

> Hegel, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche

Darwin seems very out of place there.

First, he was primarily a scientist, not a philosopher. Second, his theories are for the most part still very much dominant and accepted as true in his field - not just some overall insights and direction (as with Freud) - but the actual details. Modern biology very much believes in and is based on Darwin's theories. It's remarkable how right he still is after all this time.

[thatsethnz]

This is true. But Darwin acts as a figurehead in many longstanding philosophical discussions. I'm thinking of thinkers like Herbert Spencer, who believed that the structures of darwinian evolution could be applied to cultures, religion, even the mind. When people quote "survival of the fittest" it was Spencer they are quoting, but Darwin they are referencing.

It is also possible to overstate both Darwin's correctness (Pangenesis for example was a non starter) and his novelty (The idea that humans evolved from non-human ancestors that came from the sea is as old as Anaximander -- 600 BCE).

But there is a Darwinian/Spencerian ring to way we talk about failed programming languages, coding practices, failed corporations, technologies and economies: They failed to thrive, failed to form a community to carry forward their genetics and fight against the various forces that fight against them, compete for resources etc. Darwin's ideas have sublimated into ideology...