/lit/ - Literature

>>17998089
These young people really make me excited for the future of philosophy. They are the first generation that is really making full use of the revolutionary sea of information we currently have and most of them are more well read than some of the most talented individuals of the 18th and 19th century. With the revival of Neo-Kantianism and German Idealism happening rn in philosophy, I think we have truly found ourselves at the very beginning of a Golden Age in philosophy where Kant's legacy is being brought up to speed with our contemporary developments. Holy shit, I am so pumped for this

>>17998117
If this isn't a copypasta I don't think these people are actually doing anything with the knowledge. They just make twitter and 4chan posts to feel good about themselves. I don't see anything productive being done.

>>17998089
>>17998117
I don't think it's a matter of what academics are like but just a testament to the immense prowess of this new generation of young scholars. I have attended conferences and seminars where actual 2nd and final year undergrads are going toe-to-toe with postdoctoral students and world leading scholars in Post-Kantian philosophy. They haven't always read all there is to read on every important and obscure figure, but the more precocious among them are terrifyingly intelligent and very nimble minded

>>17998128
Many of them are still currently undergrads. I am talking about an imminent generation. Some have started publishing or will be publishing their very first papers

>>17998151
I'm sure those people exist but the ones I'm talking about are not academics. They're just internet posters they don't go to school.

>>17998154
Do you have any particular source dumps? I am curious now. I suppose these undergrads aren't officially academics in their own right either, but they're getting there

>>17998143
Any videos of these conferences? I would love to see this.

>>17998178
I don't want to post people's profiles but they aren't hard to find on Twitter and goodreads. They make cliques

I can't become well read because my memory isn't top notch, I just write what comes to mind

>>17998196
Post them. I'm sure they don't mind free publicity.

>>17998192
I did a quick search, but couldn't find any recordings of the ones I have been to. They happen very regularly and casually. If you join some online group or follow the activities of philosophy departments with Post-Kantian studies like McGill, Yale, Bonn, Tuebingen, Notre Dame, UCL, Toronto etc., you should be able to find them. Beiser and Segall (footnotestoplato) also points to them every now and then and I've seen him attend them multiple times

>>17998089
I legit don't know. I feel like I lost an entire decade. But I suppose I could be as well read as what they are now at my 40s.

>>17998089
It's when you read about shit like Montaigne learning Latin before he learned French, or J.S. Mill reading Plato in Ancient Greek when he was 8 that the inferiority complex truly sets in.

Though if anything J.S. Mill is a perfect example of how mere knowledge does not a philosopher make.

>>17998151
Is it worth becoming an academic? My interest is so specialized it's probably not worth the effort and years of my life probably easier to become a journalist and just post essays about my topic

>>17998089
Most of those people are dumber than you realize. Reading large amounts of philosophy does not give intelligence or insight, especially when that philosophy is modern, generally speaking. Take Nietzsche's word for it:
>There are too many readers

>>17998259
Not if you're in it for the money, because quite frankly, in the first few years you won't be making a lot, and in the current economic climate, your already low job security might very well decrease, and I suspect this new cohort of talented young philosophers is just going to make eligibility for funding and grants even more competitive. It depends on whether you're willing to really go for the grind. It might be better doing something else for a while before going for a PhD. Many institutions don't require you to have done a Master's in Philosophy anyway. I think it's still worth it if you really love the idea of doing an average of 9 hours of philosophy a day

>>17998089
They're only larping

>>17998315
>I think it's still worth it if you really love the idea of doing an average of 9 hours of philosophy a day
Why is it considered acceptable to turn what was meant to be the pinnacle of human thought into a menial matter of "work"? Do modern philosophers have no sense of shame or dignity?

>>17998329
Read Weber(pbuh), Ellul(pbuh) and Spengler(pbuh)

>>17998329
Kant himself was subjected to absurd amounts of compulsory academic work. The experienced academics have just learnt to turn synchronise their time 'working' with their time learning, and you learn a lot by teaching. I would say that it is in the interaction with students and peers that the real philosophy happens. Many of my professors said that even though they have been teaching many courses for several decades now, every year they learn new things, often due to the questions new cohorts of students ask

>>17998315
For me it's not Philosophy but Art History which is very different. Philosophy is much more serious. I would do it if it wasn't so competitive with a high chance of failure. It seems smarter to get a normal job and do work on the side and try to make it. I see people like Alex Ross who is just a music critic with a B.A who writes respected books on Wagner or Richard Brody who is a film critic with a B.A who writes books on Godard. Better to work IT part time and be able to afford a house and try to get published articles in your spare time. Obviously it's probably equally as hard to make it like that but not as time consuming. 1400 Historians and two job openings does not seem like a sound career path for most people

>>17998089
The simplest way. Realizing that it doesn't matter. You more than likely only read as a hobby while you work a normal job or play video games. You still know more than 99% of every one, and even what these scholars know can be passed down in introductory material they may write later or someone else has already written.

>>17998089
A lot of these people are playing pretend. Much of it is lies, posturing, and generic surface-level platitudes. Besides, even the odd brilliant 20-something shouldn’t bother you, just don’t compare yourself to others because there will always be somebody way better than you.

>>17998151
Why would it be the case that they're just now emerging? We're decades into endless free information. Surely they would have emerged a decade ago or longer

Why is it that so many people with high IQ seem to be so immature either way?

>>17998410
It takes kids born and raised in this era to truly be able to take advantage of it. Before Gen Z we’ve only ever had adopters of it

>>17998402
>Much of it is lies, posturing, and generic surface-level platitudes
This is true but on places like /r/askphilosophy where the mods delete every comment that isn't academic level or on Twitter where you have actual academics who post comments and follow people you can weed out the larpers

>>17998410
Many works have only become readily accessible in the past decade. Most of the great works on and of Neo-Kantianism weren't even available outside of German till just a few years ago. Some Post-Kantian philosophers have only had their works circulated just this decade. The past decade alone has seen an explosion is Schelling scholarship. Most of the critical commentaries on Schelling in English were published in the last six years. Sometimes I see younger people discuss works I haven't had the chance to read yet because they simply weren't available when I was an undergrad

>>17998382
This is fair. I hate to discourage prospecting academics, but you are absolutely right. You should pursue the things you love, but not at the expense of sustainable and plausible lifestyle

>>17998089
>I wonder what academics are like
They're assholes and degenerates and don't really care about being well-read.

>>17998382
>>17998453
And I should add that academia isn't the be all and all. If your work is of sufficient quality and you it passes the editorial board, you can still publish a lot of papers and build a respectable reputation without being in academia

>>17998392
>or play video games.
This guys plays video games ahahhaahhaaha

>>17998089
People always sound way smarter than yourself when they talk about the obscure stuff they know. Wait a little before judging. Bust out your own obscure knowledge and compete. A lot of the times people I talk to turn out to know less than they need to in a given subject, and they lack the true capacity to a) synthesize even what they do know to be original and novel, and b) know things outside of that domain. For example, if we take your hyperbole seriously, then 20 year olds who are able to read 400 philosophers would be able to know more than just the basics of ancient, medieval, early modern, 19th century, analytic, AND continental philosophy. They'd be able to tell you they've read more major works about each of those traditions/time periods than even 70 year old professors have read. But they're wasting time hyperfocusing on Lotze? Not that I'm opposed to reading those kinds of people, I read a chunk of Herbart (one day I'll revisit and finish) and nobody does that. But you think any of these dudes could talk to you about Theodore Sider's Writing the Book of the World? Probably not. People always have lacunae, and the kids obsessing over some specific area always have really big blindspots elsewhere.

>>17998089
I don't need to cope because I am one of those people.

>>17998522
post some smart shit right now

>>17998196
>>17998154
Honestly none of these people are anything but commentators obsessing over a by-gone time period. The exciting work in philosophy is and has always been the people trying to come up with new things. Like Kant himself, or even the people OP mentions like Jacobi and Fichte and Lotze and Dilthey. These kids read and read and read, but never synthesize or move past this stuff. If they cared about that they would maybe read stuff outside of the German Idealism/post-Kantianism circle since there's been so much philosophy done since in analytic and continental circles both.

>>17998089
And what use is that? Reading so many books and having endless discussions?

>>17998547
I think they're inevitably forced to as I was. You inevitably run into Wittgenstein and Heidegger when you read Hamann and Schelling. When you engage with the Neo-Kantians, Frege, Husserl, Lask, Vaihinger, and Carnap are waiting at the door. When you do Frege, so is Russell and when you do Russell a whole line of analytic philosophers, same with Carnap. Through Hegelianism you may end up reading William James and encounter the pragmatist and neo-pragmatist schools. Again through Hegel there's Marx, Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Deleuze, Derrida etc. The problem question of analyticity will always lead you to Quine and through analytic Kantianism you'll end up reading Strawson, Putnam, Guyer and other anti-idealist Kantians, maybe even McDowell. Moreover, the revival of Post-Kantian Philosophy has also been making the move of dissolving the analytic-continental divide

>>17998607
post goodreads or excel spreadsheet

>>17998655
I don't use goodreads. I'll be off 4chan. Maybe if I have time later today, but my advice would be to take it one step at a time and it pays to really understand the CPR, because many of these people will present heterodox readings of it and if you aren't well-versed, you might end up adopting readings that are very far removed from Kant's own position and think it's what he's saying.

>>17998715
I don't want to read philosophy because no one has actually been able to tell me what they learned from reading all those philosophers beyond understanding the history of philosophy in a certain period which isn't worth the effort to me

>>17998730
You can be the one who transcends the meaningless mass of people who never learn anything except historical trivia, anon. I believe in you. You have the spirit of a true philosopher.

I'm not even being fully ironic. The fact that you're aware of how empty much of it is puts you in a good position already.

>>17998792
Where do I go from here

>>17998607
Yeah I've found that a lot of the trend as of recently is roughly something like this: continentals reaching to German Idealism and analytic philosophy to help them move in new directions after decades of the Marx/Freud/Nietzsche era (itself following the Hegel/Husserl/Heidegger era). I think part of it is that Deleuze looked back to unorthodox places for inspiration, including Hume in particular and also Whitehead. And Rorty tried to tell continentals that there was worth in analytic philosophy and some listened (same goes for the other direction). People like Zizek also went back to Hegel, while people like Badiou went to analytics, people like the speculative realists at least know they're dealing in similar themes as the analytics, and people like Markus Gabriel seem to be consciously aware that German Idealism and analytic philosophy are both necessary sources to tap into for the future of continental philosophy. Now I'm not trained as a continental myself but that's what I've noticed. I'm trained as an analytic philosopher but I have a very big secondary interest in Kant and post-Kantianism, as well as Hume/Kant comparative studies. I'm very interested in historical philosophy and continental philosophy and plan to read more when summer rolls around. Right now I've been stuck focusing on school readings and all the additional work that comes with being a PhD student. But I'm very interested in bridging the analytic/continental divide through a holistic understanding of philosophy, especially making sure to cover the forgotten 19th century stuff as well. Like you say all these people lead into each other, only fools will think there's no value reading them all if you can. But what's important, more than that, is to read and synthesize and go in new interesting, original directions. I hope you can do that, I hope everyone can do that, I certainly hope I can do that, though obviously people often can't, it takes a lot of original conviction and that has to exist almost previous to reading all these dudes, they're more like a refiner's fire and help you expand your views, but I think the reason so many people read but never amount to anything afterward is that they lack that initial detail prior to diving in, so all they get out of it is knowledge, but not novel originality.

>>17998811
What do you think is important right now (in general terms)?

>>17998818
post goodreads and twitter

>>17998850
gettin my cock wet or combining the Schopenhauerian and Humean aesthetics into the definitive 21st century aesthetic philosophy

>>17998853
I don't use Goodreads. I do have a Twitter totally unrelated to philosophy or literature but I'm not posting it.

>>17998883
Make both right now. Fill your goodreads up with all the books you have and read and want to read and make your twitter account and post philosophy and literature related things and you will easily get thousands of followers and you can start making some serious money doing nothing but posting in your free time

>>17998901
I've considered making a Youtube channel to talk philosophy but it's really a lot of work, I'm waiting til summer to see if I can give it a shot. I've also considered beginning a philosophy blog.
>and you can start making some serious money doing nothing but posting in your free time
How so? Sorry if dumb question.

>>17998956
Start a podcast on Patreon like Kantbot and you will make 200k a year doing nothing reading off a script while autists pay you money to listen

>>17998965
Thing is, I'm also trying to stay respectable since my career depends on it. Part of the reason I haven't done anything yet is that I don't want to do anything I would regret afterward. I have to plan carefully. Anything that could give academics the impression that I am to be avoided would be a bad idea. Having blogs is safe enough (lots of academic philosophers have them) and there's nothing inherently dangerous about making videos or podcasts but I have to be careful. The thought I have right now is to read more to fill my lacunae and make history of philosophy videos, but like ones that go into stuff that isn't covered but (ideally) making it accessible. Not sure if I'll pull it off. I do value pedagogy a lot, and if I plan to be a professor I'd like to be really good at it.

>>17999003
Good on you man. Don't listen to anyone telling you to whore yourself out for patreon bux. Being an eceleb is a degrading and limiting way to make a living. Kantbot does it because he is meme spouting chucklefuck with no real ambitions.

>>17999003
There is a guy called Unlearning Economics who posts on Twitter and Youtube and is an publishing academic but he doesn't give any info about himself so no one knows who he is. You could do that

Since this is marginally thread-related, if a zoomer (younger one, say 15 or 16) came up to you and asked you how they should utilize the tech and massive amounts of information at their fingertips to further the field of philosophy?

>>17999029
Asking for a friend?

>>17998089
By not giving a fuck? She’s us, there’s more important things that fucking reading.

>>17999019
Thanks. I do feel (always have) like we philosophers have a duty to bring philosophy to the people if we can. But on the other hand I feel like it's a hard thing to do that professionally and also actually do it well. A lot of the content creators out there are clearly not well-equipped. But to avoid their fate requires a lot of research, planning, etc.
>>17999021
I could yeah. Thing is I expect my friends in the program would or could find out from my voice or things said so I definitely don't want to rely on keeping things secret. Makes me wonder if the smartest thing is to just make my identity known from the start to avoid the hassle. But that's also a bit scary in itself, even if it's ultimately actually more professional.

>>17999089
>I could yeah. Thing is I expect my friends in the program would or could find out from my voice or things said so I definitely don't want to rely on keeping things secret. Makes me wonder if the smartest thing is to just make my identity known from the start to avoid the hassle. But that's also a bit scary in itself, even if it's ultimately actually more professional.
I think you're overthinking it

>>17999096
Maybe..

>>17999089
Honestly, it doesn't sound like you're cut out for it anyway.

>>17999159
Probably. Thing is, the people "cut out" are Kantbot types. None of the people who should be doing it are "cut out." See the problem?

>>17999167
That random anon is just being a troll. There are tons of different personality types who are doing different type of work. You have the freedom to do whatever you want

>>17999167
Nah the Kantbot types just get all the attention. Look more closely and you'll find some guys out there doing some genuinely cutting edge stuff.

>>17999029
Invent something new. Stuff like Wikipedia, bitcoin, paypal, all are philosophical in a way. Just that they're more abstract constructions to solve problems as opposed to a word-salad that only makes readers feel smart.

If you find some niche that can be improved on in some minor way, and do that, you're a philosopher that gets results

>>17999181
List ones you know. Yeah maybe everyone associated with Urbanomic in some way counts for something. The accelerationists (left and right and anything else), the theory-fiction philosophers, the speculative realists, the new realists, and so forth. A lot of them have blogs and some also use Twitter to spread ideas.

>>17999197
Urbanomic et al. were always-already a dead end. The guys I have in mind on the other hand are lightyears ahead. Drop your discord name and I'll share.

>>17999210
lit_anon
#6077

>>17998089
Yah but I can solve PDEs and they can't so lick my ass

>>17999047
not really, I'm probably too old to take full advantage of the internet (i'm 25) I was just asking because I understand >>17998117 excitement but at the same time, you have to understand how fucked up zoomers are; I wouldn't be surprised if they have almost no interest in philosophy at all

>>17998089
You read for a purpose not just because LMFAO

>>17999271
Maybe that guy know something I don't but you can probably count on two hands the amount of people who are like what we're talking about. We are just in the communities so we see them. It's like people who think what they see on their twitter feed is what the American people think even though twitter posts are 0.01% of the American population.

>>17999337

>>17999197
>A lot of them have blogs and some also use Twitter to spread ideas.
Fools, the lot of them. The expropriation of the western liberal democracy, a spectacle televised in veritable technicolor, provides the astute observer the schematic for inducing societal paradigm shifts. It does not, as history displays, and never will require the people

>>17999461
lol

>>17998089
>ow do you cope with knowing you will never be well read? I read these online essays from people who aren’t even academics just random incels who can tell you the entire history of philosophy and they have an in-depth knowledge of the most obscure people like going down the entire works of Neo-Kantianism spouting off shit about Kant, Lotze, Hemhotlz, Dilthey, Vorlander, Jacobi, Fichte and bringing it all together and I can barely read Hume at 24 years old and they're 20 years old and already 400 philosophers deep. I was feeling good about getting a decent bit of knowledge on Art history and then I'm talking to this guy and I check his goodreads and it's like he has 80 books read on just Romanticism alone and a total of 2k books read in his late 20's like holy fuck I'm a baby compared to these people who aren't even academics. I wonder what academics are like
Easy peasy, but I was like you when I first came here as well, just stick around and START WITH THE GREEKS. You'll absorb general knowledge through cultural osmosis on here, and through your random researching on the internet.

Just pick up a book you like and are interested in, and a classic from ancient Greece and spend as much time as you need reading those two books. For the latter you can pick up Sophocles, Plato, Hesiod, Herodotus, Homer, literally anyone.

Good luck, we all start like this.

>>17998089
Well you can do one of two things.

1. Accept it and learn for your own sake.
2. Become a leftist and undermine Western civilization out of spite.

>>17999271
>you have to understand how fucked up zoomers are; I wouldn't be surprised if they have almost no interest in philosophy at all
Of course not, the working class does not do philosophy. What the majority in society does and thinks is not important.

>>17998381
That's just cope that feeds the imagination. The Rabbi's went through all that since forever, read the Talmud.

>>17998089
>I read these online essays from people
from WHOM
post them you bitch

Lel most of it is just from Wikipedia man, you can LARP on the internet, read a few books, it will take max a month to understand every single philosopher. Read the based ones, skip the cringe ones. You win.

>>17998117
Ok but who/what is modern philosophy for? It's not like the 18th century where someone like Kant drops a bomb and the world goes nuts. Today nobody cares. Especially if your work is just another derivation of idealism. Nobody cares anymore, it is anachronistic. Most "hardcore" philosophy on YouTube I've seen gets just a couple thousand views at best. Apparently some of them write books as well. For who? Who reads them? What's the point? Philosophy has nothing more to offer in the field of metaphysics. It will never have a meaningful impact again. Today the only real philosophy is done by someone like Jordan Peterson. I am not making a value judgement on his work, but what he's doing. The only meaningful place for philosophy in the future is in its socialization. The only modern philosophers who will be remembered in 100 years are those who today recognize this fact and make use of it. I fully intend to exploit this on YouTube at some point.

>>17999537
how is this cope when all your example does is provide another pointer to the fact that this is what a scholar's life has been like for a long time

>>18000243
>the only real philosophy is done by someone like Jordan Peterson
The fuck. JP is a sophist dispensing wisdom he doesn't have, all play-pretend. Then again, Western philosophy of the last 100 years had been a pile steaming dogshit.
>>17998117
As a student of philosophy, I don't expect anything anywhere. Just more meaningless drivel, merely fads blown out someone's ass and hyped like some new ooo or anything. Just more masturbatory metaphysics or linguistic trivialities a rat could care less about, much less a man.

>>17998089
Doesn’t matter.
1. 50% of those guys are larpers who just read Wikipedia
2. The other 50% probably won’t do anything major in the field, at most they’ll be writing stuff like “X’s critique of Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals” that won’t advance anything or answer any questions.
If you’re actually interested you should analyze modern problems like social media. Sure there’s the basic opinion that’s it’s just a hyper spectacle but surely there’s a lot more to analyze.

>>18000243
>>18000708
Maybe I am just a bit of an optimist and I admit that this is just a feeling, but for some reason I think that the zoomer generation often gets overlooked and undervalued. When they're dull they're pretty dull, but when they're good they're really phenomenal. I met a young man who had the crazy ambition of taking on Heidegger's final challenge in the incomplete Being and Time of investigating a path leading from primordial time to the meaning of being and thinks the answer lies in the transcendental imagination and Heidegger's heterodox stance in preferring the A-edition to the B-edition of the CPR. I also see Kastrup's work, and I am positively excited precisely due to its immense cross-disciplinary approach. For the first time in years you have a work of philosophy written by someone who has expertise in more fields than just philosophy and it really shows. It makes me wonder what it could awaken in a younger generation of philosophers

>>17998089
Just put in the work. Read a little of what interests you every day and in 10 years you'll have read enough to impress the you of today. Don't read things you feel you should read to impress others, but only what you actually find interesting.
You're 24. That is still very young.

>>17998089
>>17998117
>400 philosophers deep
>2k books read
>80 books read on just Romanticism alone
I can guarantee you that these people are not reading these books carefully, that many of the books they claim to have read they have only skimmed, that the essays you are taking about are full of elementary errors - think, for example, of the supposed internet luminaries who are still repeating the tired old line of the NSDAP as a middle class movement - and that they are unlikely to produce work of any worth, precisely because they spend so much of their time showing off to everyone on the internet instead of actually doing work.

>>18000930
I'm sure you are right, and I doubt the people I (not OP) have in mind have read such an absurd number of books. The people I have in mind are the kind that are undergoing their 3rd or 4th study of the Critique

you've got lots of time

>>17999075
>there’s more important things that fucking reading.
Careful, now, /lit/ will get mad.

>>17998818
I missed your post. You are entirely right. It's a chore and a half, but a necessary one if the discipline is to go anywhere. What are you working on?

>>17998089
>How do you cope with knowing you will never be well read?
My ego isn't dependent on comparing myself to "just random incels.

>>18001090
Already more enlighten than most here.

>>18000930
>the tired old line of the NSDAP as a middle class movement
What was it then?

>>17998089
never going to make it.

Don't compare yourself to others, get to where you want to be, in your own time.

Are the people here who are well-versed in philosophy self-taught or are they philosophy majors? I want to become well-read too, I don't know anything about philosophy

>>18001255
A coalition that attracted large membership from all classes of society. The elite were overrepresented in both general membership and the upper echelons of the Party, and, according to what I've read, the different values held by Party members from different classes led to frequent internal conflict.

>>17998089
I was going to say read less think more, but
>invent a very cool idea
>find out its already covered in fucking phenomenology of spirit
You don't want to be like that nurse got ridiculed on /sci/ because she re-invented calculus

>>17998089
they usually never go deep into something and read wikipedia pages of bunch of philosophers + watch video essays on youtube instead of reading said philosophers' books. so they have the basic knowledge about various different topics but nothing more than that. i don't know if this is considered pseudo-intellectualism or just being adhd zoomer in general. because most zoomers, including me, are like this. it's time-saving but you don't actually 'learn' about anything, you just "get an opinion" on stuff. basically you repeat the opinions of wikipedia page authors or your favorite youtuber. read 4 or 5 different books on a certain topic and try to have a debate with these people on that topic. you'll realise how baseless and empty their arguements are.
or they might sound smarter because they're more confident than you. OR they're actually more intelligent than these academics

>>18000930
I always feel that I'm missing out by reading philosophy because I move extremely slowly whereas everyone else around me bangs books left and right. And then I talk to them and realize what you said is true.

My ego still suffers because of it, but at the same time I'm amazed at just how much and wide an understanding one will develop from reading just ONE original philosophical work. The amount of knowledge, direct and indirect, related and unrelated, hidden in the nooks and crevices of difficult to read works is unreal. Some entire ideas for books are concentrated into one page.

That's also what makes them a difficult read, because such an influx of knowledge can be tiring. My pace is 10 pages a day with current book.

Those are just retarded kids with 0 life experience chewing old dusty books. They just juggle with smart buzz words without understanding the meaning of them.

>>17999210
share with the group

>>18002344
>Some entire ideas for books are concentrated into one page.
My field is not philosophy, but I have this experience when I read carefully. Genuinely well-written works are full of hints and inspiration.

>>17998089
>I wonder what academics are like
Mediocre, sociopath, narcissistic usually.

>>17998258
>J.S. Mill
> the gentle & docile character which seems to distinguish the negroes will prevent any mischief on their side, while the proofs they are giving of fighting powers will do more in a year than all other things in a century to make the whites respect them & consent to their being politically & socially equals.
How can someone so well-read be so utterly clueless?

>>17998089
Reading is not what makes you smart, understanding what you read is. If you were to hunker down and study until you completely understand the Bible you’ll understand more than any philosophyfag

>>18002738
This. More value in being a hedgehog than a fox.

>>17999210
I'm still waiting on being sent the names if you don't mind.
>>18001076
Dissertation work starts in a few more semesters so I have time to figure that part out still. I specialize in analytic metaphysics but I have other interests, especially historical.

>>18002988
you been had son

>>17998117
>With the revival of Neo-Kantianism and German Idealism happening rn in philosophy
>this is a good thing

>>17998089
By writing fiction in menippean satire genre duh.

>>17998089
>mfw autists are reading philosophers who don't mean shit.

Just because you read complex shit that doesn't mean you're well read

>>17998117
literally just the underground man lmao

>>17998089
Who cares about this shit?

>>18002344
>10 pages
yeah that's around my limit of reading this stuff at the dense parts and you better bet i'd be doing that for most of the day baby (i really need to stop, im not a philosophy student, and my grades are suffering because of it)

>>18007037
>you better bet i'd be doing that for most of the day baby
Yes that's almost granted.

But honestly I think it's well worth it. There you area, slogging, struggling, alone, in confusion and difficulty, in the dark, until you get out of the tunnel. And suddenly you realize after every work you're so far ahead of those your ego envies that you really stop bothering to discuss or debate things with them (which is a theme/problem entirely into itself).

Some people are just wired not to settle with mediocrity.

>>17998089
One day when you don't have to work so much you can read and the books will fly off the shelves to their last annotated pages. On that day they will be calling into work or putting out fires because life is too chaotic and demanding for even the most insulated to focus and read well everyday.

>>17998089
I am literally trying to read all of ancient philosophy. So that would include not only Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, but also Philodemus, Apuleius, Hierocles, Sallustius, Aeneas of Gaza, Diogenes Oenoanda, St. Hippolytus of Rome, Stobaeus and many more

>>18000834
>Maybe I am just a bit of an optimist and I admit that this is just a feeling, but for some reason I think that the zoomer generation often gets overlooked and undervalued. When they're dull they're pretty dull, but when they're good they're really phenomenal.

I think you are 100% right here

>>18007139
Completionism is fine in the long run but it's a terrible idea if it stands in the way of reading other, more important or significant stuff. Focus on getting basic expertise in a broad area and getting down all the basics and even a bit more, ahead of sequential completionism and you'll be okay.

>>18008000
But what if theoretically he has no interest outside of ancients. Should he still first focus on a general understanding of philosophy?

>>18008000
>those digits
I kneel

My reason for going full-completionist mode is that I think it will be easier to do that for ancient stuff than anything posterior to it. I agree with you on the point that getting the most important philosophers like Leibniz or Kant down is better than reading medieval randos

>>18008059
I think that path will exclude much interesting philosophy, e.g. St Thomas, Schelling, and so on

>>17998128

If >>17998117 assumptions are true, do you honestly believe that aspiring, gifted thinkers will just succumb to 4chan and reddit discussions in their entirety?

if a golden age of philosophy is upon us then they surely would want to branch out of whatever shell they reside in.

And, not to mention, these young philosophers should be painstakingly aware of the dangers of self-isolation and intellectual pacifism to begin with, if they ever have experienced some sort of mild form of internet neurosis.

>>18003878
>>this is a good thing

>>17998089
>How do you cope with knowing you will never be well read?
I don't, stop caring about fame and fortune.

>>18009830
Glory, fortune, joy and fame

https://youtu.be/uP0j7F95XJU?t=156

I cope by writing blogs. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that hard to read maybe 10-20 philosophers and few papers and come up with something original sounding. I wrote this after reading around contemporary philosophy-of-mind, Hamann, a few other philosophers in ethics and theology. https://psychedral.medium.com/revelation-hamann-and-divine-idealism-f562bdec1faa

>>18010407
Looking good anon. Hamann, Derrida, Zagzebski, very interesting stuff. Maybe I should write a blog too. Most of the times /lit/ people post blogs they're really not that good, yours is the first I've seen that looks nice.

>>17998089
Damn, they must have been reading some really bad material if they can't get the essence of philosophy by then.

don't care
maths > literature anyway

Being well read means avoiding those modernist faggots.

>>18002344
how long do you read for? 6 hours? 8 hours? if it's less than this, you gotta get real.

>>18010488
You should. If anything it helps you think through things properly. I’ve had some helpful feedback too.

>>18011120
>>18010407

GLORY, FORTUNE, JOY, AND FAME

https://youtu.be/uP0j7F95XJU?t=156

This is actually very good. Do you have a degree in philosophy? If so, at what level?

>>18011166
>Do you have a degree in philosophy?
No, I’m a STEMfag. I just read books, papers and some blogs. I bet most people ITT are more well read than I am.

>>18011217
A lot of people on /lit/ have irrational hostility to breadth and thus you'll see people who are partisans for only ancient philosophy, or only German Idealism, or only continental philosophy, or only analytic philosophy. The fact you're reading Hamann, Derrida, and Zagzebski already makes you better than many of those people, in my opinion.

Reading through Musonius Rufus, the teacher of Epictetus - he spoke thusly

"Therefore practicing each virtue always must follow learning the lessons appropriate to it, or it is pointless for us to learn about it. The person who claims to be studying philosophy must practice it even more diligently than the person who aspires to the art of medicine or some similar skill, inasmuch as philosophy is more important and harder to grasp than any other pursuit."

>>17998089
Look at kids who stumbled into programming at a young age by fucking around on the computer. You have to imagine the same thing happens with philosophy. The internet is going to create some insane-level savants out of the kids with talent and willpower.

>>18011217
Very impressive. How old are you if you don't mind me asking

>>17998089
Do you honestly want the secret? I will tell you. Read secondary literature. Biographies and meta-works about general movements and so on. That's really all most of these commentators do. Very few of them read the original works. In fact, even philosophy students—even professors—rarely read entire works like "the critique of pure reason." At most they read excerpts. The big opinions they spout off about the historical movements of ideas all come secondhand from secondary literature they read. If you read the actual works you will feel as if you have less expansive knowledge but in fact your knowledge will be of a much higher caliber than theirs because it will be from the source.

>>17999210
Post it ITT or your mother dies in her sleep

by not being a bugman like the people youre referring to

>>18000834
If you like Kastrup, check out Joscha Bach. He's a computer scientist/AI researcher with a deep philosophical background.

>>18010845
I do read approximately that long.

Philosophical works or otherwise condense, make me often take pauses to think about what was being said. Sometimes I go off the topic with my thoughts and sometimes I don't even regret it. Other times I need to reread one part several times. I just feel you can't and shouldn't rush these things.

>>18011448
>>18012044
Thanks for the positive feedback. I’m honestly quite surprised. Gives me encouragement to keep writing. I’ve taken a break recently while I’ve been reading through Shakespeare’s plays, which I intend to connect to exemplarism. I think I want to spend the next year reading a lot of literature and maybe literary theory as I wasn’t happy with how it fitted into this Hamannian/idealist system.

I’m 27.

>>18000893
How people can be 24 and feel like they already missed out is disturbing.
If you live till 80, you still have 56 years to read philosophy. 56 years. Reading is something you can always do, as it's not physically reliant, or is a short career like most sports is.
You can literally read on philosophy book, or one philosopher a year, and you will have gone through the complete works of 56 philosophers in that time. And that is as a layman, if you study it seriously you can plow through texts and books throughout your life, and actually absorb it unlike these "2000"book reading 20 year Olds. That's pure posturing, how much do you actually think they remember from those 2000 books? General knowledge and lots of reading is fine, but a slower paced and hyper focused reader can easily compete in the topic they study in depth.

>>18002018
Link to what you're referencing? A nurse thought she invented fucking calculus?

>>18002055
You described me, but I'm trying to correct myself by reading Plato.

>>18013976
started reading Plato at 19 and all I can think about is how far I would be if I started at 13

>>17998089
>How do you cope with knowing you will never be well read? I
Don't have to, I already am.
>I read these online essays from people who aren’t even academics just random incels who can tell you the entire history of philosophy
But can they tell you anything actually useful or joyful? Because, you know, philosophy is nothing but futile pointless air shaking that is built upon the non-existent authority of the philosopher himself.

>>17998117
>With the revival of Neo-Kantianism and German Idealism happening rn in philosophy
can you expand on this

How do you read 80 books just on romanticism while holding a real world job? Thats like giving away years of your life on a subset so narrow that you cant use it for anything other than to claim youre a romantics expert online.

>>18014208
To learn?

>To learn?

>>18010407
What did you start out with? Thanks

>>17998117
I encountered these kids as well when semester abroad students from England came to our University. It is very impressive to hear them be able to hold a discussion on near every topic and any niche aspect.
They are so different to the typical philosophy student we have here who would not even consider the possibility of reading the entire western canon but instead only reads the books he finds interesting at the moment (typically fairly contemporary). Even in comparison to the more rigorous readers we have they outshine them by remaining on par with their knowledge and depth of insight on the relevant subject or philosophers but also being able to go outside of it onto less related topics and hold their weight there to the same extent. They are better academics than ours but I still felt that even on Kant or Hegel their approaches into the philosopher to be rushed and at the most intricate points to be superficial where they escaped to other interpretors of the relevant topic.
All of them had really high education, were taught the classics since age 12 and did extracurricular philosophical reading by age 13 (mostly Plato and Aristotle) and by 17 or 18 had read the three Critiques. One kid even was taught an extra foreign language by his parents outside of school solely because the parent had studied it in University and this became really helpful for him to be able to read a lot of western philosophy in the original language.

Practically none of them were proficient enough to actually read or speak in German, French, Latin or ancient Greek though (with the last one being the most understandably difficult), but were still very apt at working with a text in any of those languages. None had the certificates for these languages but still had the necessary philosophically academic erudition in handling them.

Most were big into drug use and all have a personal invested interest in philosophy outside of academia. Great people to hang out with. Such a pelasure to finally be able to discuss near the entire western philosophical spirit with someone since 99% of students here would completely fail at this. I dont expect any of these to be the next Kant, Hegel, Heidegger or Co. since none of them seemed to give off the autism that was excited about creating or finding something new. really stubborn about being suggested new philosophers though. Couldn't even get one to consider reading Spengler or Gadamer.

>>18015579
>All of them had really high education, were taught the classics since age 12 and did extracurricular philosophical reading by age 13 (mostly Plato and Aristotle) and by 17 or 18 had read the three Critiques. One kid even was taught an extra foreign language by his parents outside of school solely because the parent had studied it in University and this became really helpful for him to be able to read a lot of western philosophy in the original language.
I'm surprised these people exist in numbers enough to have even come to visit your school, and to be all from England no less. I believe it, but I find it particularly weird that all the people like that came to visit you. Nobody I've met has told me that was their background at any of the top 50 PhD programs I visited when I was visiting schools. I don't think it's true at my current PhD program, or my past master's (much less undergrad), but they're all American, even if top 50. Not even my professors have told me about having such a background. For one, you have to be wealthy and for two, your parents have to care about you and philosophy incredibly highly for that to happen. Don't doubt it exists but I didn't expect it in a concentrated fashion, and from England, all coming to your school. Eerie to say the least.
> still felt that even on Kant or Hegel their approaches into the philosopher to be rushed and at the most intricate points to be superficial where they escaped to other interpretors of the relevant topic.
To be expected honestly. Though I do think breadth is better in the long run. You might look a little like a pseud in the short run but you can overcome it. Though obviously what matters most is that you yourself are smart and synthesize and go beyond what you read, ideas-wise.
>Most were big into drug use
What, like amphetamines?

>>17998818
I thought it would be interesting to continue this post with some specific references to current continentals and who they're drawing from.
>Badiou
Being and Event combines readings of people like Hegel and Holderlin with readings of analytic-adjacent mathematical logic (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, Cantor, Godel, etc).
>Meillassoux
After Finitude itself gets advertised by Badiou's introduction as potentially appealing to analytics as well as continentals. When Meillassoux criticizes correlationists, he somewhat tries to salvage the notion of an Absolute that we can still reach past the correlation. Here he makes allusion to Hegel (though he spends little time bringing Hegel into his work past that).
>Gabriel
On the one hand, he straightforwardly goes back to German Idealism in his book Transcendental Ontology. On the other, in interviews he mentions how he did postdoc work at NYU with analytics like Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers being an influence. He also had communications with speculative realists.
>Negarestani
You tell me:
>With a nod to Rudolf Carnap's project of explication, Negarestani instead proposes a conceptual engineering whereby the concept of intelligence is progressively replaced by its explicata, or refined concepts which methodically address different issues with regard to the question of "what is intelligence".[15] For Negarestani, such issues span ontological, epistemological, methodological, technical and axiological concerns. Negarestani's emphasis on the necessary link between what we mean by intelligence and what it takes to render the world intelligible borrows elements from transcendental philosophy, German idealism and systematic skepticism.
There's some /lit/ anon who keeps spamming some people like Irad Kimhi and one thing I noticed is that they start with critiques of Frege before turning in Kantian and Hegelian directions. Anyway I think people get the idea. The trend seems to be one where continentals are engaging more with analytic philosophy and going back to German idealism as well. Badiou, Meillassoux, and Gabriel have a specific project in mind. The idea is this: Since Kant, a sort of anti-realism has propagated. How do we move past it without lapsing into pre-critical dogmatism? Badiou was an influence on Meillassoux, while Gabriel apparently sees one of the two sides to be avoided by him as actually being the Badiou/Meillassoux wing, and he wants to open a new third middle way. So these guys are preoccupied a lot by this problematic and that's what they're about. I think turning to analytics and German idealists makes sense when you remember Deleuze turning to Hume and to Scotus. Empiricism and scholasticism are untapped markets, and analytic philosophy and German idealism (besides maybe Hegel) are likewise slept on.

>>18016191
Saying they came from Engalnd I did not mean they were english. Our University just attracts a decent amount of foreign students due to two philosophical institutes we have (ancient philosophy and logic-philosophy of science) which are seemingly highly respected. All these kids were either from Cambridge or Oxford and only one being actually british.
I am surprised by your experience with american students of such stock, since I find the majority of american philosophy students to not be superior to even the chinese students we get, with both often failing to grasp a foreign language outside of the influence of their own language. But maybe those simply weren't the best ambassadors for american philosophy students.
> Though I do think breadth is better in the long run. You might look a little like a pseud in the short run but you can overcome it
Definitely. I still had my reserves about certain modern philosophical writings, but seeing how they managed to employ them in general rigorous discourse was impressive. I would have dropped most of the american philosophers never to go beyond what was required or relevant reading for lectures and seminars. But their approach convinced me otherwise (even if I still do not take any american philosopher into consideration for my very personal necessity in philosophy).
>What, like amphetamines?
No. All LSD, DMT and with the rumors of the esoteric Ayuhuasca connoisseur. Though most grew up in London, still had apartments there and enjyoed the social party life there they looked down on the typical cocaine and MDMA users.

>>18016354
So you think there is a correlation between mind altering drugs like LSD and Ayahuasca and the ability to think and synthesize abstract ideas and concepts?

>>18016354
Oxford and Cambridge seem to be something else. On the one hand, cool that these kids are learning a lot, but on the other, wow this sounds like the most upper class manufactured thing to be raised that way, even if they're international rather than properly English. How lucky they are. But what's weird is, as far as USA goes, most philosophy professors are not Oxford or Cambridge graduates. What's up with that? Where are most of these Oxbridge students going after their PhD? For all the effort seems it does little more results-wise than going to an American top 50 school.

>>18016563
Do you think*
Didn't mean to accuse you

>>18016576
Don't many of them get a corporate position and make big bucks doing big thinking?

>>18014749
I’ve been interested in philosophy and politics since high school (reading utilitarians and Marxists). But more recently I read David Chalmers, which then got me into metaphysics and eventually ontological idealism, so Berkeley, Eastern mystics like Ramakrishna and Bernardo Kastrup — he made a lot things click for me and I real all of his books. But I was left unsatisfied with his anti-theism, which led me to people like Swinburne and Hartshorne. Then I got into German Idealism, reading Kant closely - as well as Beiser’s books, which ultimately led me to Hamann. I’d also been a fan of Linda Zagzebski ethics for some years, so I basically attempted a synthesis of a lot of this stuff in an attempt at a complete system of metaphysics, theology, ethics and aesthetics. I’d probably get BTFO by actual philosophers but it makes a lot of sense to me. I think the aesthetic version of Zagzebski’s exemplarism might be the most original idea.

Overall I just jump from thinker to thinker trying to plug gaps in the “system”. Some are read in depth, others not so much.

>>18016563
Nah, psychadelics can't reveal more than what has already been revealed..
Plenty of these kinds of people also totally abstain from drugs because they fear drugs can simulate a similar state as that which is to be achieved through philosophical insight and they fear being lead astray or deceived. We never went into the topic itself since it seemed a unusually sensitive topic, rather always returned to Kant's short writing on drugs.
>>18016576
>w this sounds like the most upper class manufactured thing to be raised that way
I have met plenty of students now who simply did not have the painful and demanding parents most people are used to and instead had parents who sacrificed Everything for their child to do what he wants even if they were not well off. A single mother putting up with her 25 year old son still studying philosophy off her paycheck with only some governmental aid. Other's have parents who simply do not expect anything from the children in return, not even to no longer be dependant on them. Absolutely zero pressure on them to achieve especially financially. None of these households were poor but putting them above lower middle class would be exaggerating it.
>Oxford and Cambridge seem to be something else
all these kids were like this before oxbridge though which I find so amazing. It just seems those are cool places for these people to come together. I am at my top 1 or 2 university in my country and the students here are rather disappointing in comparison to the british ones I have met.
> Where are most of these Oxbridge students going after their PhD?
most were set up through previous internships for jobs at banks, governmental positions or university somewhere. Like this guy said >>18016608
>most philosophy professors are not Oxford or Cambridge graduates
maybe not graduates but doesnt near everyone have at least some time in his CV spent there? That's how it is here.

>>18001061
>>17999075
If this is your opinion why are you even on this board literally dedicated to reading

>>18016608
>>18016669
Interesting about the corporate positions but you don't really need super in-depth philosophy training for that. These people probably already have the networking power to get anywhere they want to anyway. I did forget one person who seemed "smart" (more just confrontational, but professors gave her good grades for whatever reason...) was from India, she literally had butlers and a mansion. Rich and entitled but she could pull the multicultural and female card. I personally like it when minorities can get ahead against odds but this was not an underprivileged person at all, just getting benefits on top of benefits.
>I have met plenty of students now who simply did not have the painful and demanding parents most people are used to and instead had parents who sacrificed Everything for their child to do what he wants even if they were not well off. A single mother putting up with her 25 year old son still studying philosophy off her paycheck with only some governmental aid. Other's have parents who simply do not expect anything from the children in return, not even to no longer be dependant on them. Absolutely zero pressure on them to achieve especially financially. None of these households were poor but putting them above lower middle class would be exaggerating it.
I'll tell you about my background. I don't have a parent who could have sacrificed for my education even if she wanted to. She's too poor and not mentally able to do that sort of thing. I got ahead through scholarships and financial aid, then stipends and so forth with graduate school. She did not contribute a penny to my university education cause she couldn't have. I think I am the poorest person I know in my philosophy program, background-wise and I've only met a few other people with similar backgrounds (both girls) in the past. Nobody was there to help me with education, I had to stumble through things to even end up a philosophy major, and to learn things needed to get into schools, and learn stuff all on my own. I think if I got handheld like them I could have made it to Oxbridge or NYU, I'm in a top 30 US program right now instead but honestly it's a great fit for my interests so I'm not complaining. Social/cultural/economic capital goes such a long way for these kids and I am not a huge fan that I have to compete with them. I don't resent them though, in the end it's not their fault, they're blessed and I'm happy for them. People with my background usually end up with no college education, with Cs in high school, wage slaving at some convenience store, and having mental illnesses and depression.

>>17999489
this is what I did/do in my free time. And I liked it

>>18016782
I'm starting to think I should have gone to university for philosophy, instead of information science and IT. In my free time I try and read philosophy and am sort of obsessed with learning and reading it. I was just afraid of being a jobless academic, but I let my fear make my decision perhaps. Did I fuck up?

>>17998258
Mill if anything is kind of disappointing when you compare his upbringing and preparation to what he actually brought forth intellectually.

>>18016994
There’s thousands of people who study philosophy and end up jobless or actually make it into academia and hate the hyper-specialisation, bureaucracy, etc. Grass is always greener.

>>18017114
Very true my friend. I cope by saying philosophy is not an academic discipline, it's a life project. And by not being in academia I have more freedom of what I read. Also I am able to transfer my knowledge to most topics, since philosophy is pretty much the most interdisciplinary field there is, I think.

>>18016994
It depends a lot on how secure you feel with a) your chances of making it in academia given your own self-evaluation of your philosophical merit, and b) how ok you are with the worst case scenario. If you're like me and only know poverty, grad school is actually a nice honeymoon period where I don't have to work much and get to do things I like. It's still occasionally stressful but that's alright. The worst that will come of this at the end, is that I'll still have some saved money (from the stipends), no job in academia, and I'll have to do some kind of low-paying work. But even that will probably be better than my life under my mother ever was. It literally can't get worse for me. If anything, having a PhD does open up some job opportunities besides academia which are still more enjoyable than working at a convenience store, even if they don't pay the best. If that's really the worst scenario for my life, it's honestly not that scary for me to give philosophy academia a shot. So here I am.

>>17998089
The best way to get into philosophy is by chance. Introductory philosophy classes are taught so wrong and on right schedules at universities now. It’s not wonder people lose interest after one class, because the Professor makes you read Descartes and his letters to a Princess and relates it to Wilhelm Amo discussing racism and sexism of the day. If I didn’t read Novalis in my history class, I would have probably never voluntarily picked up philosophy again

>>18013468
>make me often take pauses to think about what was being said. Sometimes I go off the topic with my thoughts and sometimes I don't even regret it
this. i spent the entire day today pacing around my kitchen table re-explaining a position i held in terms of kant, which i had before reading something kant said today

literally two fucking sentences and i spent like 1.5 hours on them

>>18017623
>Introductory philosophy classes are taught so wrong
Got any good recs on introductions to philosophy?

>>17998117
While some of this, I believe, is true. You have to remember that highly educated young intellectuals as a phenomenon is not new. Take for example J. S. Mill. At the age of three he was taught Greek. By the age of eight, he had read the six dialogues of Plato in depth as well as other Greeks. He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic, physics and astronomy. He began studying Latin, the works of Euclid, and algebra. By the age of ten could read Plato with ease. I don't believe, even with the vastness of knowledge provided by the internet, that these people know more. However, I do believe that the variety of information and the ability to take on different intellectual subjects (like AI) as a main occupation provides an interesting (and new) outlook on classical philosophical thought.

>>17998128
but if for every 100 kid who get into philosophy to look smart there is 1 that actually gets invested in it, than it's worth it

>>17998818
>>18016316
These are completely irrelevant, philosophy isn't going through a "renaissance" of any kind

Badiou is shit
Meillassoux is shit
Gabriel is a joke
Negarestani is a joke (on twitter)

these are just intellectual fashions

The only areas that are making any real "movement" today in philosophy is analytical metaphysics, logic and scholarly studies of Aristotle-aristotelianism

>>18017756
I'm the anon you're replying to and as I said, I'm trained as an analytic, I specialize in analytic metaphysics in particular. I think it's absolutely on the frontline of exciting progress in philosophy right now. My point was to explain what continentals are doing right now, in a way that ties back to OP's observation of a German idealist revival: they're looking back to German idealism, but also to analytic philosophy. But on the latter front they often recreate wheels and do an overall sloppy front. For example Meillassoux' basic idea of the arche-fossil and anti-correlationism comes down to the basic idea of metaphysical realism, both the semantic and domain variants, especially the latter, and you can see a nice defense of the latter in Nagel's The View From Nowhere. Markus Gabriel's denial of "the universe" is more just a denial of a universal domain and it isn't a new idea to analytics who push the same idea (or better yet, reject it). Still, I can't say it's unwelcome that they're turning to analytic philosophy or even recreating its wheels. I just want the analytic/continental divide to end.

>>17998089
You shouldn't have to.know.so.much about things you are not passionate about

>>18016782
>>18016669
>>18016354
>>18016316
>>18016191
>>18015579
>>17998117
This is extremely fascinating for me. As someone from a shit background in a bumfuck country I'll never get to experience that life. Are there any books or some other way for me to get a glimpse of what it's like, being an elite kid from an elite family, filled to the brim with knowledge and doing elite sports since 3? God motherfucker I'm so jealous I could kill them.

What happened to our very own philosophers like Schizojak and neo-kantian scholars like Deep&Edgy(oldfag)?

>>17998089
it's also really easy for zoomers to just watch a couple of 20 minutes video summary on various philosopher to appear well read

>>18018075
F Scott Fitzgerald's books often give off that vibe.

>>18018715
If you knew anything about those philosophers, you would know that there's very little material on them in writing, let alone in video format