Cool contemporary philosopher

I'm always on the lookout for contemporary philosophers and I found a doozy - Levi Bryant. For my current project exploring the objecthood of food, I've bumped into object-oriented ontology, an interesting theory of understanding objects as themselves in sort of a rejection-of-Kantian-theory-but-differently-than-Heidegger-did way. It's worth several long looks.

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/

Great post on the Analytic/Continental divide

http://bebereignis.blogspot.com/2012/03/on-analyticcontinental-divide.html

Philosophy Playing Card Deck Project

So, as a fun project for myself, I have wanted to create a custom playing card deck (poker deck) with a philosophy theme. I want it to be fun and creative, and something that would be appeal broadly to those that have studied philosophy. My plan is to pick 52 philosophers, and use the colors and suits as categories. Thus, the blacks will refer to older philosophers and the reds to newer philosophers. Within the blacks, I want the clubs to be ancient philosophers and the spades to be either medieval or modern philosophers. While the medivals are older, I do not believe they are as well known as the moderns. Modern philosophers are also difficult to fit into a different category than their own. You will have to tell me what you think. As for the reds, they are subdivided into analytics (diamonds) and continentals (hearts). In line with traditional playing card decks, I will have a female philosopher for the Queens of each suit. For fun, I will try to have a deck with a Joker, and that will be Descartes' evil genie. I have preliminarily selected philosophers for the suits and assigned them card values. I would appreciate your input on any philosophers I should remove or include. Some didn't fit very well in any of the categories, and so they were sadly not included (even my buddy, William James!). I wanted the philosophers to be characteristic of their category. My list of philosophers are below:

Joker: Evil Demon

Diamonds (Analytics):
A - Bertrand Russell
K - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Q - G. E. M. Anscombe
J - Charles Sanders Peirce
10 - Gottlob Frege
9 - J. L. Austin
8 - Kurt Godel
7 - Saul Kripke
6 - G. E. Moore
5 - Alfred North Whitehead
4 - W. V. O. Quine
3 - Edmund Gettier
2 - Rudolf Carnap
Others I thought of including - John Stuart Mill, David K. Lewis, Daniel Dennett

Hearts (Continentals):
A - Martin Heidegger
K - Friedrich Nietzsche
Q - Hannah Arendt
J - Edmund Husserl
10 - G. W. F. Hegel
9 - Emmanuel Levinas
8 - Maurice Merleau-Ponty
7 - Jean Paul Sartre
6 - Hans-Georg Gadamer
5 - Jacques Derrida
4 - F. W. J. Schelling
3 - Arthur Schopenhauer
2 - Soren Kierkegaard
Others I thought of including - Miguel de Unamuno, Richard Rorty, Simone de Beauvoir, Franz Brentano

Spades (Moderns):
A - Immanuel Kant
K - David Hume
Q - Anne Conway/Margaret Cavendish [Any opinion here?]
J - Rene Descartes
10 - Gottfried Leibniz
9 - John Locke
8 - George Berkeley
7 - Baruch Spinoza
6 - Thomas Hobbes
5 - Nicolas Malebranche
4 - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3 - Blaise Pascal
2 - Thomas Reid/Francis Bacon [Any opinion here?]
Others I thought of including - Francisco Suarez, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Christian Wolff, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke

OR

Spades (Medievals):
A - Thomas Aquinas
K - Pierre Abelard
Q - Hypatia/Hildegard of Bingen [Any opinion here?]
10 - Augustine of Hippo
9 - Duns Scotus
8 - Roger Bacon
7 - William of Ockham
6 - Anselm of Canterbury
5 - Boethius
4 - Plotinus
3 - Averroes
2 - Meister Eckhart/Machiavelli/Maimonides [Any opinion here?]
Others I thought of including - John Scotus Eriugena, Albertus Magnus, Al-Ghazali, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Nicolas of Cusa

Clubs (Ancients):
A - Aristotle
K - Plato
Q - Hipparchia/Aspasia [Any opinion here?]
J - Socrates
10 - Parmenides
9 - Heraclitus
8 - Thales
7 - Anaximander
6 - Euclid
5 - Pythagoras
4 - Democritus
3 - Epicurus
2 - Epictetus
Others I thought of including - Protagoras, Anaxagoras, Theophrastus, Xenophanes

On each of the cards, I plan to have a caricature of the philosopher, their name, birth/death dates, a note of the main branches of philosophy they studied, and a pithy quote. Anything else you think I should add/remove?

Rudolf Otto: The Idea of the Holy Chapter 3 The Elements in the Numinous

Summary: Otto asks the reader to direct himself towards a moment of what he would believe to be a quintessentially religious moment. If this cannot be done, Otto requests the reader to go no further. While not blameworthy, the ignorant often view aesthetics in terms of sensuous pleasure and religion as a funtion of gregarious instinct, but an artist will decline such a theory, and the religious uncompromisingly dismiss it. Otto takes one moment of numinous experience, that of solemn worship, and tries to isolate what is unique about it. Solemn worship no doubt shares common features with being morally uplifted, with feelings of "gratitude, trust, love, reliance, humble submission, and dedication." But solemn worship is not exhausted by these terms; there is something in the being "rapt" that is more. Schleiermacher focused on the "feeling of dependence," and while important, Otto believes this feeling is not unique to numinous experience: such as when one recognizes one is determined by societal circumstances and the environment (think of people's judgments about their power to change during economic depressions). Schleiermacher recognized that the religious dependence was different from the other forms, and suggested the difference was between absolute and relative dependence. Otto thinks Schleiermacher made a mistake in having the distinction being a matter of degree; it is a matter of intrinsic quality. While it provides a close analogy, mental analysis shows that the religious feeling is so primary a datum that it can only be defined via itself. Otto sees this numinous feeling in the biblical text, where Abraham asserts that he will speak to the Lord, recognizing that he himself is "but dust and ashes" (Genesis 18:27). There is dependence, but something more/other than just dependence, and so Otto labels this experience "creature-consciousness" (or "creature-feeling"). The creature is overwhelmed by its nothingness in contrast to the supreme. Otto argues that the term is not a conceptual explanation of the experience, since everything revolves around the character of the supreme, which is ineffable, only suggested via the tone and content of man's feeling-response to it. Otto further faults Schleiermacher by reducing the religious emotion to self-depreciation, and having God appear through inference to a cause beyond the self for this sense of dependence. Otto believes this is opposed to the psychological facts. Creature-consciousness is derived from another feeling-element that has immediate (not inferred) reference to a sensed numinous object outside the self. With an unjustifiably poor understanding of William James' philosophic position, Otto yet correctly observes that James concluded that accounts of religious experience suggest that in consciousness there is a "sense of reality" (in Varieties, this is the "consciousness of a presence") that is deeper in perceiving the real than the five senses. Otto sees creature-consciousness again as deriving from and presupposed by this feeling of a numinous object objectively given. The depreciation comes in recognition of that object, and is carried out by the subject.