> What's interesting here is not that these guys did or didn't have historical influence—obviously they didn't, end of story. It's that their ideas were surpris

> What's interesting here is not that these guys did or didn't have historical influence—obviously they didn't, end of story. It's that their ideas were surprisingly similar to later, more famous thinkers in a place few would have expected. That easily clears the bar for interest on Hacker News. I agree with you on this-- it's definitely interesting, but the point you're making here is very different from the thesis of the link. The thesis restatement in the last paragraph of the article makes the case that these authors have high historical relevance in philosophy, and that argument is what I was responding to. I understand the goal of the guideline, but as a starting point it's unreasonable to expect someone to respond to an argument as it could be rather than as it really is. I think we're on the same page.