/lit/ - Literature

>>19353127
Wittgenstein

>>19353131
/thread

>>19353156
He’s the only one you’re saying then?

>>19353181
I'm not that anon but unironically yes

>>19353188
But… Heidegger

>>19353357
No

>>19353357
Absolutely not, not once you've read the Tractatus

>>19353365
But…. Kant

>>19353413
>Kant
>highbrow
Saying that learning how to read philosophical texts because of the way they tended to be written is highbrow is like saying a game is hard just because it takes a long time.
It's all the difference between reading/being told/learning about something, or that thing showing itself to you.

>>19353429
So in that case who would you consider to fall in the category of “highbrow”? Aside of Wittgenstein

>>19353127
Hegel, Mainlander, Deleuze, Leibniz unironically Plato and Aristotle, Diogenes and Parminedes

>>19353127
i heard that niche liked to get fucked in the ass by other philosophers

>>19353567
is this true?

>>19353568
Figuratively yes

>>19353127
Evola

World-historical Geniuses : Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Parmenides

Revolutionaries : Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Hegel

Good shoulders to stand on : Schelling, Fichte, Husserl, Brentano, Schopenhauer, Hume, Descartes, Kierkegaard

Dogshit : Everybody else

>>19353622
Kant was not a revolutionary, anon? Really?

>>19353580

>>19353622
Replace Kant with Hegel then you’ve got it spot on

>>19353410
>Absolutely not, not once you've taken up the Anus

>>19353572
Imagine finding oneself privy to Deleuze intimations.... how unbearable a reality that must be

YIKERS KIKERS

>>19353567
Somebody bussin' rn I can hear it

Heraclitus

The rest of them are utter dogshit that just couldn't accept that life is in flux and that nothing will stop that

>>19353131
>It’s all just like language games bro
Absolute midwit philosophy that was already suggested by both Nietzsche and the Greeks

>>19353127
pic very unrelated. He's about the most normalfaggot philosopher out there.

>>19353622
>no A*glos
coincidence?

>>19353580
>>19353692
Are there any well-regarded esotericists? I know Evola is memed on but that's probably because of his politics, or at least they cast a shadow over the intentions of his critics. Any other esotericists that are studied in univerisities or anything though?

>>19354584
If that's your takeaway from Wittgenstein, then you're almost, but there's something preventing you from taking the last leap to true understanding
It'll be all the difference between seeing him as a midwit and a genius

>>19354768
Universities are the bastion of liberalism, positivism, materialism etc. you won't find esotericism as a discipline studied there. Best you will get is people studying esotericism historically but these people don't really understand the subject matter, it's like those guys who parrot Guenon and Evola for purely polemical reasons without actually understanding the material - it's the same sort of materialistic approach.
Traditionalists are very well regarded within the field of Traditionalism. Bourgeois materialist researchers won't be as fond of them. Perhaps you might be interested in Mircea Eliade, who is not exactly an esotericist but he was extremely close to the Traditionalists - he is the main pillar of the field of comparative religion, but even then tons of comparative religion scholars seethe at his very existence because Traditional perspectives are extremely disagreeable to them.

>>19354789
More midwit cope. What’s so special about him then?

>>19354768
Wolfgang Smith isn't necessarily an esotericist but he is heavily involved in the traditionalist school, and he writes, or did write, a lot regarding math and physics.
You won't find real esoteric knowledge being excalimed at universities, as it generally contradicts what they espouse, as >>19354807 said.

>>19354591
Wasn’t using him as an example, I was using him as bait since he’s all you utter plebeians discuss on this dreaded board

>>19354870
He took it up the shithole. Which turned him into a schizo

Spinoza

>>19353131
Is he? I thought he was commonly taught. Although I've met philosophers who have no clue who is.

>>19355495
OP said highbrow, not obscure. Shakespeare is highbrow and he’s taught in middle school

>>19356353
I guess.

>>19353644
>this is the typical level of reading comprehension on /lit/
I should have abandoned this place long ago

>>19353357
Lmfao no

>>19353127
His antisemitism saves him from being read by the masses, unlike Nietzsche.

>>19354516
Imagine having such a babby-tier understanding of Heraclitus.

You want your English translation anon?

>>19353622
>No Aquinas
I will add him, from best to worse in that list:

Plato >>> Aristotle > Kant > Aquinas > Wittgenstein > Hume > Schopenhauer > Nietzsche > Husserl > Hegel > Fichte > Heidegger > Schelling > Kierkegaard > Brentano > Descartes

Parmenides only have a single surviving work which its a poem, we don't much about him, that's why I don't put him in the list, but he can be considered the first philosopher.

From the list only Plato, Aristotle and Kant are true philosophers. And yes, Plato is the best, and the heir of Parmenides, Heraclitus and Pythagoras.

>>19357940
>His writings covered a wide range of topics, including autobiography, politics, philosophy, and detailed analyses of his own operas.
cringe as fuck, only insecure fags overexplain their own art instead of letting it speak for itself.

>>19357948
It has nothing to do with any translations. Aristotle spoke fluent Attic Greek, and he had full access to Heraclitus's teachings, and that's how he interpreted him as well. In Aristotle's Metaphysics, he devotes the section which refutes the "Protagorean Theory" also as a refutation of Heraclitus's denial of the law of contradiction. So, if Aristotle understood Heraclitus in such a way, that is likely what he actually meant.

>>19358079
The republic is the truest work of philosophy ive ever read, but not the most enlightening

>>19358119
Except Plato understood Heraclitus differently to Aristotle. He doesn't believe Heraclitus' denied the law of contradiction. You can read this in the Symposium and the Cratylus, and arguably some of Plato's later dialogues like the Parmenides were incorporating Heraclitus' ideas.

It's well accepted Aristotle had a rather shallow interpretation of Heraclitus.

>>19353622
>Fichte amongst those men
filtered violently

>>19358090
His analyses of his own works is relatively small, but it makes sense if you consider that his artworks were for him his greatest philosophical achievement.

>>19353127
After having read Nietzsche i came to find that he is your average Science™ and Onions™ enthusiast, just a hundred years before it was cool.

>>19358544
He had me till the end.

>>19353622
>Revolutionaries
>Heidegger
He wasn't the first to invent plagiarism tho

>>19353127
Literally just Plato, Aristotle, Kant & Hegel, thats literally it

>>19358562
He was the next step in philosophy after Husserl tho

>>19358516
He’s not even implying he was filtered by Fichte

>>19358281
Plato was wrong.

>>19358146
The Symposium, Timaeus, Parmenides and Phaedo are waaay better than The Republic

High brow died in the 1800s

>>19357940
Klages too.

>>19357940
He wasn’t less popular than Nietzsche at all