/lit/ - Literature

>>18480236

>>18480236
The rest of the pragmatists, JS Mill, and other anglos

>>18480236
Hume

>>18480236

>>18480236
Almost all continentals, but you’re probably reading them in translation so it doesn’t really matter. You can only really appreciate the English/American ones cause that’s what you can understand. Supposedly Schopenhauer’s writing is beautiful according to Borges, Einstein and others.

>>18480306
Shut the fuck up pseud retard

>>18480354
>thinks he can judge an author’s writing style through translation
Nothing more pseud than monolingual ignorance

>>18480363
Never post your garbage opinions again subhuman

>>18480371
This is the intellectual power of the anglo saxon. No surprise the anglosphere is the way it is.

>>18480327

>>18480327
Engels is clearer. If massively less erudite as a philosopher. Anti-Duhring contradicts itself in the first chapter.

>>18480399
how does he contradict himself?

actual philosophers: schopenhauer alone. and kant in his own way. sometimes the pragmatists. giordano bruno is worth a mention, but he is still a pre-modern.
the 17th century french moralists, the french enlightenment followers, hume, lichtenberg, goethe, leopardi, kierkegaard, nietzsche, etc are above all essyists.
the worst of all all are the german idealists, husserl, heidegger. but their style is deliberately involuted because they have nothing to say.

>>18480272
Peirce and Dewey write like shit

>>18480236
James, Bergson, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Bataille, Sextus Empiricus, Plotinus

>>18480236

>>18480236
BAP

>>18480402
“Duhring fails as he sets up a massive non praxic bourgeois idealist metaphysics”
>Sets up massive non praxic bourgeois idealist metaphysics *of the left*

>>18480327
Marx is a fucking horrendous writer. Capital is terrible to get through.

>>18480465

>got filtered by

>>18480444
Engels' metaphysics are thoroughly materialist, though. How are they idealist in anti-Duhring?

>>18480441
this

>>18480475
No i read it. But it was horribly written. Just endless spasms of language combined with the dryness of a textbook, except it's not even a good textbook, as his economics was already outdated by the turn of the century.

>>18480465
Chapter one is clear for dialectics.
Marxs examples are fucked because of £sd and imperial units. He should have used francs and metric. Marx was notably bad at clear mathematical thinking (like pedagogic example selection).

The core text was designed to be read by self educated 19th century unskilled industrial workers. And was. Voraciously. You’re dumber than a machine attendant.

>>18480497
>And was. Voraciously. You’re dumber than a machine attendant.
Anon, we're talking about skill as a writer, not whether i understood it. And Marx wasn't a great writer.
Nor a great economist, but that's a different thing.

>>18480477
Because they’re not historically materialist: they’re not praxic. Engels claims that all matter is determinant and determined by dialectics. If you don’t see how that’s german idealism even if via vulgar materialism you have problems.

Engels makes claims for all time about all things: this is a Spanish castle in the sky.

>>18480504
The chapter on Perth explaining the socially determined nature of capitalist relations as not proceeding from commodities means and tools or proletarians buy the compulsive relationship.

>>18480504
Unless you’re talking about vol 2 & 3 which were prepolish drafts of course.

>>18480428
>husserl
>deliberately involuted
Absolute pleb, you've never opened a book by Husserl.

>>18480439
And how many of these have you read in the original language?

>>18480522
> materialism
retarded word invented by spiritualists. i think any object, any idea, etc can be broken down to mathematical relations. what am i, a materialist? a pythagorean?

>>18480595
Regardless of who it was invented by materialism, dialectical materialism and historical materialism all have stable meanings to the extent that scholarly terms do.

>>18480619
i meant what you called "vulgar materalism" of course, from which both "historical materialism" and "dialectical materialism" are derived. no need to say neither of the latter are actually "materialist". they aren't even metaphysical stances. they are just journalistic labels used by journalist-philosophers such as marx.

>>18480497
>The core text was designed to be read by self educated 19th century unskilled industrial workers.
no it wasn't. marx said he worried it would be too dense for proletarians to read
that said young marx is very nice prose-wise if somewhat hard to understand (and he retained some of this nice prose fir the rest of his career, capital included), and middle marx is pretty clear

>>18480639
They’re not metaphysical philosophy. They’re more “practical sociological analytical positions,” or “ways for groups of workers to learn who and decide when to shoot”. Engels point in the extract of antiduhring published as utopian and scientific is that proletarian self empowerment can only proceed through self learning in groups by action.

That’s a more interesting claim than everything is dialectically ordered in the physical world.

>>18480667
And it wasn’t. VPP was enjoyed but capital was readily accessed. Unsurprisingly capital has prole lit reception studies.

>>18480677
>That’s a more interesting claim than
no that's just journalism, sociology, "cultural studies". stuff even inferior to empirical psychology. its practical effect on real thought is just to muddy the waters.
"vulgar materialism" doesn't exist. it is called atomism. but the "atom" itself is a mathematical principle. so what you believers call "vulgar materialism" is actually mathematical rationalism.

>>18480693
Literally what did anon mean by this post, either I'm having a stroke or that is barely English

>>18480619

Explain dialectical materialism to me please.

I understand historical materialism is basically the class conflict whose nature is fueled by the technological level of the time and thus it always leads to progression.

But I don't get what dialectical materialism is about exactly, it sounds like historical materialism to me.

>>18480716
Oh you believe there’s a transcendent aeternal. I can see why you’re fixated on metaphysics rather than my class shooting your class. I’d like to help you experimentally verify your ideas on the after life.

>>18480747
>my class shooting your class
never happened, anon. It's always been a lot of bougie revolutionaries who lead other bougies and defectors.
"The proles" never rose up, and never will.

>>18480747
How many posts are you going to make about shooting people lmao

>>18480280
Treatise on Human Nature is pretty bad(considered his best work). It's only his later work that's good.
>>18480327
Rule of thumb for Marx. Is he writing in german? It's shit. Too much influence from Hegel. Is he writing in english? It's quite nice, but not worth reading other than for historical interest.

>>18480236

>>18480747
nah , that's just you confusing your faith and religion with reality.

>>18480236

>>18480236

Tfw no one in this thread can explain dialectical materialism. Ngmi.