[rms]

I give you a pass on ad hominem in this case because it's not a logical fallacy, it's appropriate.

Ad hominem is not automatically a logical fallacy. I think it's important to note that there was something seriously off about Wittgeinstein's character.

[hnhg]

I don't like how this has been downvoted. It feels like people are disagreeing with the poster's point by giving him or her downvotes. That's not the point of the voting system, I'd say.

rms - though I see what you're saying, in this case I disagree with the statement because much of Wittgenstein's work concerned logic and I don't feel the negative aspects of his character affected the quality of it.

[rms]

(it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with a posters point by downvoting or upvoting. If it wouldn't ruin some of the site's simplicity it would make sense to have a 4 way arrow for agree/disagree and good/bad, but the system we have works well enough)

Yes, his character didn't impact his philosophical work, at least not for the purposes of us evaluating the text. I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with people like him being listed on a list of great/influential people. Maybe his character flaw is enough to necessitate an asterisk next to his name on lists like this.

I would compare Wittgenstein's legacy to Fritz Haber -- a great man, inarguably greater than Wittgenstein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber However, the same scientific discovery of his that averted a Malthusian catastrophe also led to Haber becoming the "father of chemical warfare."