/lit/ - Literature

He's alright, Dermot Moran has interesting comments on him in one of his phenomenology anthologies. Basically that he has flashes of insight into topics in depth psychology or phenomenology, but he's a bad systematizer.

>>14350568

Sartre is probably the most egregious of "the last systemizers" with how much he transparently borrows from everyone from Heidegger to Kierkegaard and still fails to construct anything of value or influence. Being and Nothingness is garbage (Heidegger said as much), Sartre is only redeemable as an above average novelist

I still like Nausea, no matter how midwit Nabokov may find it

>>14350618
Heidegger is a fag.

>>14350618
I used to think this too but nowadays I'm more open to looking for interesting insights wherever they might crop up. I think I've gotten more Platonist and Hegelian because I see everything, even bad things, as at least somewhat representing the ideal, whether it's perennial concepts or concepts undergoing their dialectical emergence in history. So there are no really worthless philosophers, and if you only read Heidegger, it can even be dangerous because while he is a much better reaper of philosophical wheat, there is of course still chaff in his system (as in any finite human being's), but his wheat is so good that you will not notice when he is feeding you chaff. So I like the idea of dinkier philosophers being almost more useful in a way, or useful in their own way, as long as they are read as companions to good philosophy.

>>14350645
That's like if it's your last day visiting a foreign city and instead of eating something great, you go for something novel despite having been warned of it
>but it'll be a noteworthy experience nonethless

I don't think anybody has time for this

>>14350667
I don't really understand the analogy, I was more recommending, to give a concrete example, that you read people who "got it wrong" but who were expressing major concepts or conceptual antinomies anyway. Sartre is a good example, like I said according to Moran his phenomenology of the imagination is fascinating and full of genuine insight, just very raw and unsystematic. By contrast, while I love Heidegger more than anyone, his late work is arguably a fucking bore once you really get it, because he spents 2-3 decades repeating himself. Arguably the post-Kehre writings are a significant innovation on Being and Time, but let's face it, he writes the same book on different topics for several decades.

>>14350691
I forgot to give the concrete example so ignore that bit. I was going to talk about how today I was reading 17th century vitalists and Cartesians arguing with each other, and I was enjoying reading the "stupid"/derivative ones more than the big famous ones, because the famous ones were too good at muddling their basic ideas in massive systems across 20 books while the stupid ones were at least honest (willingly or no) about the basic ideas they were working with.