/lit/ - Literature

Have you read Bernard Bolzano?

>>21281003
>Is there anybody from 1900 onwards who is an absolute must read?
Andrewth Tateth

>>21281003
Derrida

Not really, you can sum up the lessons of Wittgenstein, the British analytics and the French postmodernists and get a good grasp of what they're about, but philosophy pretty much died after the golden/dark age of German idealism.

>>21281084
>Not really, you can sum up the lessons of Wittgenstein, the British analytics and the French postmodernists and get a good grasp of what they're about
Just like you can "sum up" Plato and Aristotle. Please stay away from philosophy if you are not going to take it seriously.

>>21281003

E V O L A

No jokes tho maybe deleuze and guattari

>>21281003
>image has Sartre but no Heidegger

>>21281029
No
>>21281049
From what I've read he seems like an incoherent French pomo.
>>21281084
I could get a used copy of the Tractatus I guess. Not really interested in postmodernism as I've said above.
>>21281090
Is Anti-Oedipus enough?

>>21281003
>russel was a teenager in the 1880s and saw the world completely transform by the 1970s
What a ride it must have been.

>>21281003
Serrano
Devi
Evola
Guenon

>>21281256
This, especially serrano

>>21281246
Anglo nobles tend to have very long lifespans for some reason.
>>21281256
>>21281285
I'm sure Lemurians and asexually reproducing Hyperboreans are great fun, but right now I'm more interested in metaphysics, art, and the study of authenticity.

>>21281208

You will need to read anti-Oedipus and then A thousand plateaus. Together these two are the work called “Capitalism and schizophrenia”. Anti oed is only the first volume of the work.

In reality the question is how much do you wanna get in post structuralism and post modernism
. Foucault, Baudrillard, DnG, Derrida ,lyotard, even the human excrement that is Lacan.

If you are not interested or you are tired, just know their general concepts because there are genuinely great things to uncover. Sadly tho a lot of shit to shift through too.

>>21282190
>there are genuinely great things to uncover
Can you expound on some or explain what you got out of them?

>>21281003
Similar chart for 19th century??

>>21281003
The problem is that 20th century philosophy is so rich and complex and there's an explosion of ideas but unfortunately nobody really has systematically addressed it in secondary literature or tertiary literature the way they have for 19th century and earlier, so you're genuinely on your own studying this stuff. And that turns off a lot of people, they're just not ready for it. Too much, too hard. But I think it's all fantastic. Yes I think there are many absolute must reads but I like hard stuff and reading everything I can. My experience is not typical.
>pragmatism
Peirce, James, Dewey, Santayana
>lebensphilosophie/sociology/early structuralism
Bergson, Dilthey, Weber, Durkheim, Saussure
>early phenomenology
Brentano, Meinong, Husserl, Ingarden
>early analytic philosophy
Frege, Moore, Russell, (early) Wittgenstein
>existential phenomenology + more
Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus, Fanon
>religious existentialism
Marcel, Tillich, Buber, Levinas
>Kyoto School
Nishida, Nishitani
>ordinary language philosophy
(later) Wittgenstein, Ryle, Austin, Strawson, Grice
>neopragmatist analytic philosophy
Carnap, Goodman, Quine, Sellars, Davidson, Putnam, Rorty, Dummett, McDowell, Brandom
>Western Marxism + other continental political philosophy
Croce, Gramsci, Lukacs, Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, Bloch, Marcuse, Habermas, Arendt, Bataille, Althusser, Debord
>postmodernism
Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze (+ Guattari)
>post-postmodernism
Badiou, Zizek, Sloterdijk, Agamben, Plant, Land, Fisher, Meillassoux, Harman, Brassier, Grant, Negarestani, Gabriel
>analytic political philosophy
Rawls, Nozick
>communitarianism
Taylor, MacIntyre
>revived analytic dualism + anti-reductionism
Chisholm, Chomsky, Fodor, Searle, Nagel, Jackson, Block, Levine, Chalmers
>revived analytic metaphysics and meta-metaphysics
Kripke, Lewis, Armstrong, Fine, Schaffer, Sider

If you read everything here you become god but I think 4channers will never do it. But I'm in the process of doing it. You can ask me stuff if you want.

>>21281003
>>21282354
Oops I forgot to put Whitehead somewhere, but /lit/ already knows that guy so it's okay.

>>21281003
>No Heidegger
image and opinions discarded.

>>21281003
when charles sanders peirce talks about deductive, inductive, and abductive inferences he also includes 'mixed arguments.' does he mean a mixed argument like one that contains more than one of the three mentioned above or is there a compound form that he means here? he also talks about 'abductive induction' and 'probable deduction.' would you explain this as well?

>>21281003
Jean Baudrilard.

>>21282354
Wittgenstein intrigues me (as a character) but I'm not quite interested in analytic phil. Is there any point diving into the Tractatus anyway?

Can I read pic related instead of B+T and still get Heidegger? iirc it's a series of lectures he gave on it some years after that are more accessible and well written.

Is Whitehead as impenetrable as he's made out to be?

Is post-postmodernism a meme? If not then is postmodernism still worth studying? How well does the study of either of these intersect with film theory?

Does the problem of qualia add anything meaningful that the ancients hadn't already discussed?

What part of 20th century philosophy is useful to me if I'm strictly not a materialist or Marxist?

Is there any branch of modern philosophy (not strictly philology or anthropology mind you, but philosophy,) that concerns itself with Platonism or empirical mysticism of any sort? Algis Uzdavinys being an example.

Apologies if any of these questions don't make sense, I'm fairly unfamiliar with this part of philosophy. Coming from the grand metaphysical projects of the early moderns, Kant, and Schopenhauer this stuff seems very different honestly. I feel that modern philosophy is far more self-referential and obscurantist, and over-emphasises sociological phenomena. All things I have an inherent distaste for.

>>21282415
Tractatus is hard & opaque and you will probably not get it or have much motivation to stick with it if you don't already like analytic pohlosophy at least a little. But his later philosophy is much more similar to Heidegger and other hermeneutic phenomenologists like Gadamer. If you want an easier (but limited) intro to this kind of thinking, read someone like Rorty.

If you want to get Heidegger try listening to Dreyfus' Berkeley Being & Time lectures which are available free online in a few places. The syllabus used to be, and had good assigned reading, but I don't know if it's still findable.

Yes, Whitehead is incredibly difficult mostly because Process and Reality is ambiguous in terms of its ontology and requires a lot of circular reading and reading "around" it in order to figure out what the basic elements are and how Whitehead even purports to justify them in order to develop other elements based on them. Past the introductory methodological chapter, which is pretty easy James style pragmatism if you're already familiar with James, it just feels like you're reading a solid wall of arbitrary statements about ambiguous entities with ambiguous ontological statuses. Try reading Quantum of Experience first.

The notion of qualia is analytic philosophy's attempt to talk about both the "whatness" and the "thatness" of subjective conscious experience, i.e., both their subjective phenomenological character and their ontological status. It is a mutation of old discussions about subject-object dualism and the relation of mind to matter, but it is in a way an advancement on the ancients in the same way that transcendental philosophy and phenomenology are advancements on the ancients, namely, they don't take it for granted that thought is a subset of being. The ancients overdetermined thought with being, which is why they also had almost no meaningful discourse on free will. They just couldn't conceive of mind as a substance radically different from being. For them it is the mirror or vessel or "peak" of being, at best, or it's epiphenomenal, but it isn't something radically distinct, like it was for Descartes when he posited two fundamental kinds of substances that can't be reduced in terms of the other (thinking / being).

You should stil learn pragmatism (especially James and Sellars), phenomenology, hermeneutics, major research into neo-Platonism and esotericism and mysticism. Analytic philosophy is probably the least useful because it often presupposes the validity of physicalism or materialism even when it's claiming to problematize epistemological theories of reference/correspondence (it still assumes the world is "there" and "material").

>>21282469
Udavinys is a Traditionalist from what I understand. Some non-secular Buddhist currents do basically what you want, but only the seriously practicing ones. Check out Pannobhasa. Also check out Lonergan's book Insight, in which he uses a phrase that is close to empirical mysticism, and in general look into transcendental Thomism, which is basically Aristotelian Neoplatonism (as Thomism was) plus modern critical philosophy. Schelling also used the phrase empirical metaphysics in his late, "positive" turn (which nobody studies or knows much about), which is close to what you want but very difficult to understand. The very best Steinerians (Anthroposophists) also get close to what you want. Check out Jonael Schickler maybe.

>I feel that modern philosophy is far more self-referential and obscurantist, and over-emphasises sociological phenomena.
It's all downstream of Kant and has lost faith. You should still master its "negative" side (hermeneutics, deconstruction, categorial/ontological analysis, historicism) in order to clarify your mind to explore its positive side. It's only in the 20th century that the whole past opened itself up for original research and inquiry due to the critical efforts of many scholars who themselves lacked vision. The reason you can read Meister Eckhart and Pseudo-Dionysius alongside the entire Buddhist and Tantric corpora, in definitively high quality critical editions and convenient translations is, the fruit of 400 years of textual criticism and rising historical consciousness, which necessarily brought with it lots of sociological reductionists and historical materialists, but even these latter often act as useful checks to purify our knowledge of dross.

Also look up Bonevac's channel on youtube and look at his playlists to find his Ideas of the 20th Century and Analytic Philosophy courses which are good. And look up the playlist for Arthur Holmes' course at Wheaton College. Also try to get Copleston's history of philosophy and just start sniping off chapters that individually interest you.

Time for massive posts giving nothing but vague descriptors and superficial analyses that ignore the philosophical content in favor of cliches, buzzwords, and irrelevant historical contingencies. How fun.

>>21281003
Not really, you can sum up the lessons of Wittgenstein, the British analytics and the French postmodernists and get a good grasp of what they're about, but philosophy pretty much died after the golden/dark age of German idealism.

>>21282415
Honestly I think it's worth learning because you will at least know your opponents better, and I think they make insights that are valuable, but if you have such a distaste for that stuff I guess you're on your own. Maybe check out Buber and Levinas since they talk about the infinite and how it is experienced through the presentation of the Other to us.
>>21282469
Analytic philosophy is interesting if you do the more meta level stuff, which is what most of the recs I gave were. The neopragmatists are good for this reason, as are the meta-metaphysicians. The qualia people are good mostly for showing that we should take certain things seriously which other analytics weren't taking seriously. They don't go far enough but it's at least worth looking at.

>>21282469
Well that's interesting about qualia. The problem I see with subject-object and mind-matter relations is that they're fundamentally impossible to penetrate discursively, and therefore doesn't neuroscience mostly render that field redundant anyway?
>Dreyfus' Berkeley Being & Time lectures which are available free online in a few places
Thanks, they come up on a search. I'm also particularly interested in Dreyfus because he's the only person to look at AI through a Heideggerian lens and having studied AI his critique really appeals to me.
https://youtu.be/oUcKXJTUGIE
>hermeneutics
Is Gadamer a good intro?
>major research into neo-Platonism and esotericism and mysticism
Reading Culianu right now and loving it.
>>21282476
Thanks, this is a really good post. A lot to take in here and I doubt I can respond too meaningfully. Regarding what you said about Kant, it is honestly difficult to tell whether philosophy is in its infancy or death.
>look into transcendental Thomism, which is basically Aristotelian Neoplatonism (as Thomism was) plus modern critical philosophy
How do you feel about Gerson and his Ur-Platonism theory? (Keith Woods did a video essay on him recently but he's been on my radar for a while)
>Holmes
Already seen the whole thing (you see?)
>>21282544
I feel that German Idealism inevitably leads to conclusions that cross the line between episteme and gnosis and this is unacceptable to academic philosophy which has to sustain the metaphysical basis for science.
>>21282482
Meanwhile your post adds nothing besides cheap snark fit for reddit updoots.
>>21282565
Is Buber's "I and Thou" any good? Was considering picking it up.

>>21282582
>Is Buber's "I and Thou" any good? Was considering picking it up.
I liked it, it's not too long, written in an aphoristic way so it can feel mystical and in a way Buber is being mystical, but if you have the proper existentialist background you can see what he's doing fits in that tradition. But there's interesting ideas, you might like it if you want stuff like that, or you might not like it if you don't. I personally enjoyed it a lot.

There's nothing worth reading before or after the Age of Enlightenment

>>21281003
Evola

bump

>>21281003
>>21281256
>>21283574
>>21284356
>Evola

>>21281003
Heidegger, who isnt on that picture for some reason

>>21282354
>no bullet for poopoo-peepeeism
you don’t read

Gadamer, Ricoeur

>>21281003
Baudrillard, because he's very relevant to the current situation

>>21281003
Bertrand Russell is the only one on this list I've ever heard of. (maybe Whitehead)

>>21285297
Wow, go you, you're uneducated. Congrats bro, you've won.