This is a neat idea, and fun to play around with. But there are a few obvious pitfalls to be aware of: 1. Many philosophers are inconsistent with themselves. T

This is a neat idea, and fun to play around with. But there are a few obvious pitfalls to be aware of: 1. Many philosophers are inconsistent with themselves. They change their mind. Wittgenstein wrote two books: the second comprehensively refuted the first. In other cases, thinkers write twelve or so books that are not internally consistent. It doesn't make sense, when you get down to things, to treat thinkers as the 'unit' of thought. 2. Most of the things important to most philosophers are not other philosophers (although that is usually very important too), e.g. the greatest influence on Hobbes was the English Civil War, on Nietzsche it was Wagner, on Rawls it was Protestant theology, on Dewey it was Darwin (and so on). 3. You miss a lot if you translate all of these thinkers into a single commensurable language. The different conceptual structures they use, and the linguistic context in which those conceptual structures find their force, are essential to understanding these thinkers. If you translate those particular languages into a single, universal one, you miss a lot. 4. There's also an issue about what is and is not philosophy. Whoever did this is prioritising formal analytic philosophy (especially epistemology). This is conspicuous in, for example, the case of Sartre. A lot of what Sartre wrote about was political/Marxist, but none of that is included. The list of twentieth century philosophers is extraordinarily unrepresentative, for this reason. How can you include William Frankena, Peter Winch, and John Mackie, who no one outside of analytic philosophy will have heard of, or have been influenced by, and not epochal figures like Freud, Schmitt, Arendt, Hayek, Adorno or Fanon?