For some definitions of 'philosopher', the impact of the person on a group is an essential part of the definition. The first sentence on the french wikipédia for philosopher (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophe) is "Un philosophe est une personne dont les écrits ou la parole sont reconnus par des écoles, groupes, religions, ou académies" => "A philosopher is a person whose writings or words are recognized by schools, groups, religions, or academies"

With this definition in mind, it's logical that the concept of "precursor" or "unknow philosopher/thinker" seems just absurd to some people.

I don't necessarily agree with this definition but we can't really blame nickysielicki for this very frequent point of view.

> 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.

Turns out, if you have some education, but then get rejected by your society for what seems like intellectually insignificant reasons, it's almost universal to react by thinking it's not fair and that everyone should be equal.