/lit/ - Literature

>ctrl+f peterson
>0/0

>>21863536
You're kidding, right?

>>21863533
Maybe Nick Land, Hume, and UG Krishnamurti?

>>21863544
yes

>>21863533
Have you actually read all of them? What the fuck.

>>21863554
Am I missing someone? I feel like I'm missing someone. I always do... Never enough... Never enough...

>>21863563
The only person you've not read is yourself.

>>21863533
Benj Hellie, J. J. Valberg, Caspar Hare

>>21863533
>idiots like Heidegger
into the trash with you. also you haven't read not one of those authors, but thanks for downgrading the quality of this board further, little zoomer bitch.

>>21863576
Heidegger bastardized the whole project of phenomenology, you ad hominem whore.

If it weren't for Heidegger, mathematicians wouldn't be so confused and feminists and other sorts of pseudoscientific vermin would have no ammunition.

Heidegger is not only the symptom but a large part of the cause of decay of contemporary philosophy.

>>21863533
Don't read Hofstadter, anon, he's a redditfag pseud.

>>21863602
actually read a book in your sorry life, loser.

>>21863715
I don't know why you insist on defending him.

>>21863719
It's not me defending him in any personal capacity. It's just the fact that he might actually be the last great philosopher and no one with any sense of dignity would discredit him as being an idiot.

>>21863734
Look at the 2 of you. Reading philosopher after philosopher. Thinking there is some special insight in word play. I repeat what I said >>21863565. The only person you haven't read is yourself. This is the the most important person to read. But you won't. You will look for the next cool writer who will blow his load in your mind.

>>21863757
please elaborate

>>21863533
Read Ellul.

>>21863734
No he's not. Deleuze is. Heidegger was merely Husserl's idiot student.

>>21863762
Wow an actual book recommendation! Thank you, anon.

>>21863763
Donno about Deleuze personally but I know that Heidegger was the biggest inspiration to Foucault, Derrida and even Lacan.

>>21863757
What the fuck does the pursuit philosophy have to do with well being and hippieness?

>>21863757
Word play? Merleau-Ponty, for example, isn't even a very abstract thinker. He makes general conclusions from empirical studies of perception, among other more ontological reasoning.

Check pic related out, it’s an attempt at a systematic philosophy (and in another work, theology proper) done by synthesizing analytic philosophy and using German idealism+phenomenology as glue. Puntel is an interesting thinker.

You should also look into laruelle since you’re big on deleuze, you should also look into a man named “Edward Zalta” whose metaphysics and computational ontology ultimately stems out of a strange fusion of meinong and Platonism among other sources.

>>21863808
thank you, anon

>>21863565
Nah there’s entire large schools missing, ain’t nothing of Kyoto school on there, nothing of the deeper philosophy of the Muslims such as subrawardi or mulla sadra, nothing particularly Jewish like Isaac luria or gikatila, nothing Indian, the French is lacking, the Neoplatonism is skinny, Don’t see anything out of the Renaissance esotericism the likes of ficino, and multiple important Germans are missing like boehme, not to mention many men who informed and influenced his dudes are just missing. Realistically his list isn’t comprehensive and if he wants to expand it I don’t see why that should be something bad or to insult him on, a man like Hegel read much more than probably every poster in this thread combined!

>>21863825
Thank you anon. Can you go into a little bit more detail about the Indian, French, and German?

derrida has to be up there gramatology is one of the best reads ive had in a while

>>21863757
what the fuck did he mean by this?

>>21863855
mental illness of the homosexual kind. he means that he is gay and can only view things in metaphors of penile insertion and ejaculation

>>21863760
>>21863783
>>21863794
>>21863855
OP has read 26 philosophers but not spent a moment looking inward. He seeks to sustain this addiction, the joy he feels when he reads someone else's thoughts and has "aha!" moments. Snap out of it. You are the most important person worth reading ie observing, assessing, understanding. This obsessive pursuit of philosophy is no different from a drug addiction (just not as physically harmful).

>>21863895
as if one could bite their own teeth! did you ever get your head out of your ass just enough to see that one can better recognize themselves in their opposition to others? as if it were so unthinkable that someone could insert line-by-line, their disagreements with a thinker as they read his works. you're literally the guy on the subway thinking everyone else is an NPC while everyone else on the tram is thinking the exact same thing. as if a fighter could know himself any better by sparring in the mirror all day.

>>21864127
ok my mistake anon. you got me. clearly im an npc who thinks im not an npc. but you've read 26 philosophers so you're obviously a cut above the rest. go ahead

>>21864137
i'm not even that guy and you've run out of arguments after a single prodding. it is good that OP reads. besides, Emerson already elucidates your point in much better fashion in his address to The American Scholar. as books by great men contain a bit of that guiding light when the sun is down, so too must the true scholar put down his books come daybreak.
and why does this reply reek of normie cope? i've seen this format too often. playing dead and washing away the rightfully aimed ad hominem by pretending to accept it. even attempting to place conceit as some kind of weakness for an argument. you think you're deeper than you are. if you were true you wouldn't be here: you'd be busy "reading yourself"

>>21863533
>I. Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Stirner
>II. Descartes, Husserl, Whitehead, Deleuze
>III. Merleau-Ponty, Debord, Baudrillard
Skip these
>IV. Berkeley, Leibniz, von Hartmann, Aristotle
>V. Plato, Plotinus, Aviccena, Averroes
Read these
>VI. Quine, William James, Pierce
>VII. Brandom, Dennett, Hofstadter
>VIII. Freud, Jung, Žižek
Skip these

And stop making retarded lists

>>21864165
Uuuuggggghhhhh. Reading philosophy and works of great men is good. Obsessively reading 26+ writers as a substitute for your own fucking thoughts is obviously bad. I have read myself. Does that mean I should keep reading myself and never point out something I observe. Uuuugggh fuck. Everyone has addictions. These addictions limit us. Best way to solve it is to get out of those behavior patterns.

>>21863895
>OP has read 26 philosophers
He didn't. That's his reading list you illiterate cunt. OP hasn't read anything.

>>21864176
How the fuck did OP make a tier list of writers without having read them. What the fuck. This is worse than an obsessive pursuit of philosophy. This is an obsessive pursuit of the image of reading philosophy.

>>21864175
>85% chance of AI detected
how is it that someone so enlightened by their own intelligence could end up being so unoriginal

>>21864182
>How the fuck did OP make a tier list of writers without having read them.
By speculating which philosophers will make him look smarter to other pseuds

>>21864176
OP here, this is the case, precisely. I'm parasitic scum which wants the greatest ideas for the least legwork and reading and my first instinct is plagiarizing the greats, such that I don't waste my time on the idiots.

>>21864168
What do you have against German Idealism?

>>21864182
I'm casting nets of most interesting thinkers to read and then doing a priority/triage list of them. I obviously crave, or at least deluded myself to think that I crave, to understand German Idealism in depth. I have also been quite impressed by Whitehead and Deleuze. The remainder is just there as an attempt to be more exhaustive and comprehensive, though they're not ex nihilo.

>>21864202
You could've just said you're an attention starved pseud

>>21864190
Yes, I am a pseud, but I wish to fertilize my mind with interesting ideas to jerk off to. Additionally, I do not wish to share my pseud status. I shall plagiarize and appropriate all of the ideas I read and pretend I came up with them. As such in spite of being a pseud I wish them to be of high quality.

>>21864204
There are easier ways to get attention than going to a dead board, anon. ;)

>>21864205
I have a suggestion. Take a break from reading. Think for yourself for a while. "read yourself". You're not an academic. You don't need to be comprehensive. And whatever insight you think you're missing out on from those other works aren't that special or original. You will miss this hobby. You will miss the intellectual high of reading complex syntax. But take a break. Use your own head for once.

>>21864182
This is the issue with philosophy and why it needs it own board. Reading isn’t necessary and reading is the basis of this board

>>21864168
The Republic is required reading to be allowed in discord about conspiracy and skepticism.

>>21863848
It’s too wide a net if you’ve not already started the people listed in OP, and if you’ve finished it is still a lot to ask for since india alone has such an immensity of schools, France has a ton of philosophers and theologians, from the French theological turn people like michel Henry and Jean-Luc Marion, to older writers like Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, and if you’ve studied any of the German idealists in op you’ll already know there’s a metric ton of German thinkers who simply aren’t spoken of on /lit/

Take your time my dude!

>>21863533
bump

>>21864243
Hi, Frater!
I heve been lurking around philosophy (or related) threads lately, from time to time I notice you join in to the conversation with some high quality effortposting. Your depth of experties seem limitless, always bringing up a new face or topic inside the existing convo. All this to say, I'm deeply impressed by and admire posters like you.
As a relatively newfag to theology and philisophy, I would like to shoot some questions, if you don't mind!
1.: How do you find philosophers to read? Just look at this thread as an example, you effortlessly itroduced dudes and doctrines from all ages, who never gets mentioned on lit. How do you sorce all this stuff?
2.: Do you have a place to go for books? I must imagine it's not easy to find obscure chinese texts. Not a Barns and Nobels best seller I guess.
3.: Have you ever written a reading list, or something that expands upon your philosophical development? I would love to read that.

I know it's a lot, but even a half answer to one of these questions would help me out! Thanks!

>>21865225
Is it summer already?

>>21865225
By no means limitless, I just know what I know!

>1.: How do you find philosophers to read? Just look at this thread as an example, you effortlessly itroduced dudes and doctrines from all ages, who never gets mentioned on lit. How do you sorce all this stuff?

The dudes you see mentioned on here aren’t islands, they have students and teachers, if they themselves don’t directly mention other philosophers, you’ll find on Wikipedia lists of influences you’ll find in interviews list of influences, and when arguing or just talking to people into the same material you are, they’ll introduce you to people to read to elaborate on points or to get their spin on things, the only reason the writers I mention seem uncommon is because they’re not in the common threads, but let’s go with Heidegger he’s mentioned often, if you study him you’ll learn his teacher was husserl which you can then find out had various other students and their influence is where you’ll learn about michel Henry and luc-marion, for example.

>2.: Do you have a place to go for books?

For a long time I read in physical and collected a library but soon as I found out about book pdfs and epubs I switched almost completely to reading online, just check libgen, pdfdrive,internet archive and a variety of other sites, if all else fails just googling the name of the book you want + pdf can turn up good results.

>Have you ever written a reading list,

A couple but they’re all very specific to specific fields and schools and it wouldn’t really make sense to shill them since they’re all on very different things. Ya know? If another time you have interest in a specific field and I actually know that field, I’d absolutely be down to give a reading list.

>>21865308
list all reading lists you have

>>21865333
On hand here

>>/lit/thread/S21849505#p21851066

>>21865406
Alright, it got a bit more messy, but this is the revision of my reading list per your suggestions:

My reading list, ranked by importance to me:
I. Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Stirner
II. Descartes, Husserl, Whitehead, Deleuze
III. Merleau-Ponty, Debord, Baudrillard
IV. Berkeley, Leibniz, von Hartmann, Aristotle
V. Plato, Plotinus, Aviccena, Averroes
VI. Quine, William James, Pierce
VII. Brandom, Dennett, Zosimos of Panopolis
VIII. Freud, Jung, Žižek
IX. Nick Land, Hume, UG Krishnamurti, Kitaro Nishida, Hajime Tanabe
X. René Guenon, Hermes Trismegistus, Iamblichus, Poryphyry, Proclus, Boethius, al-Buni, Sohrevardi
XI. Subrawardi, Mulla Sadra, Ficino, Pico, Agrippa
XII. (on) Isaac Luria, Paracelsus, Gikatilla, John Dee
XIII. Bruno, al-Hakim, Umayl, Lazzarelli, Ricoeur, Marion, Michel Henry, Gikatilla, Nishitani
XIV. J. J. Valberg, Caspar Hare
Ranks of importance (for me)

>>21865521
Gikatilla twice. Order might be wrong.

>>21865527
My reading list, ranked by importance to me:
I. Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Stirner
II. Descartes, Husserl, Whitehead, Deleuze
III. Merleau-Ponty, Debord, Baudrillard
IV. Berkeley, Leibniz, von Hartmann, Aristotle
V. Plato, Plotinus, Aviccena, Averroes
VI. Quine, William James, Pierce
VII. Brandom, Dennett, Zosimos of Panopolis
VIII. Freud, Jung, Žižek
IX. Nick Land, Hume, UG Krishnamurti, Kitaro Nishida, Hajime Tanabe
X. René Guenon, Hermes Trismegistus, Iamblichus, Poryphyry, Proclus, Boethius, al-Buni, Sohrevardi
XI. Subrawardi, Mulla Sadra, Ficino, Pico, Agrippa
XII. (on) Isaac Luria, Paracelsus, John Dee
XIII. Bruno, al-Hakim, Umayl, Lazzarelli, Ricoeur, Marion, Michel Henry, Gikatilla, Nishitani
XIV. J. J. Valberg, Caspar Hare
Ranks of importance (for me)

>>21865589
My reading list, ranked by importance to me:
I. Kant, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Stirner
II. Descartes, Husserl, Whitehead, Deleuze
III. Merleau-Ponty, Debord, Baudrillard
IV. Berkeley, Leibniz, von Hartmann, Aristotle
V. Plato, Plotinus, Aviccena, Averroes
VI. Quine, William James, Pierce
VII. Brandom, Dennett, Zosimos of Panopolis
VIII. Freud, Jung, Žižek
IX. Nick Land, Hume, UG Krishnamurti, Kitaro Nishida, Hajime Tanabe
X. René Guenon, Hermes Trismegistus, Iamblichus, Poryphyry, Proclus, Boethius, al-Buni, Sohrevardi
XI. Subrawardi, Mulla Sadra, Ficino, Pico, Agrippa
XII. (on) Isaac Luria, Paracelsus, John Dee
XIII. Bruno, al-Hakim, Umayl, Lazzarelli, Ricoeur, Marion, Michel Henry, Gikatilla, Nishitani
XIV. J. J. Valberg, Caspar Hare, Laruelle, Zalta
Ranks of importance (for me)

>likes merleau ponty
>thinks heidegger is an idiot
>thinks he can jump from hegel to deleuze without nietzsche and heidegger
what did you mean by all this?

>>21865604
Psychoanalysis and Ponty supplement Deleuze. Also, contrary to popular consensus although it's justified as it can lead to misreading the text, I don't think so-called "prerequisites" are necessary and merely are a matter of depth. For example, Whitehead's Process and Reality is easy to me even without secondary literature and it seems I didn't misunderstand it at all when discussing it afterwards with academics.

>>21863825
Frater, you know sometimes your posts scare me. You always knows some random shit I’ve never seen anyone else mention.

Where’s Russell, Frege, Hare, Quine, Kripke, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Putnam, Sellars, Davidson, Chalmers, Dennett, Ayer, Ryle, Strawson, Austin, Nagel, Mackie, Sidgwick, Schlick, Kuhn, Popper, Goodman, Grice, Rawls, Lewis, Brandom, Rorty, Searle?

>>21865809
Quine, Dennett, and Brandom are there.

Don't care about philosophy of language and similar. Might read philosophy of science later, but this list are the more conceptual philosophers, not the empiricucks.

>>21863533
I found Von Hartmann difficult. Maybe you might get something out of him

>>21865838
Already on list

>>21863536
The only worth of Peterson's work is as a doorstop

>>21863533
This shit is bait for arguing rather than discussion. None of you fans are actually thinking for yourself.

>>21863533
>no ligotti
dropped

>>21863565
No, he'll have read that once he finishes Stirner

>>21863533
bump

>>21863533
>my list

QURAN
AL-GHAZALI / RUMI
BIBLE
BRESSON
HISTORICAL READING (PRE-1 AD, 1ST MILENNIA & 2ND MILENNIA)
HEGEL

>>21863533

the best reading is something that will lead you to the Light

i.e. mystical reading rather than rhetorical-linguistic conception of concept which is basically like flying a plane without landing it.

best reading is reading that lead you to the Truth. instead just exercising your intellect.

exercising your intellect is fine, but you are exercising your intellect for nothing.

athleticism of the mind isn't equal to arriving to the gate of Truth.

>>21867650
Alright then, recommend me some stuff that will help me reach the 'Light'.

>>21867650
>>21867607
I don't care about your religious delusions.
>>21867650
I'm not reading analytifags, I'm only including Brandon, Quine, and Bennett out of those and only because they're metaphysical.

>>21867680
Not OP, but the works of A.H. Almaas may be a good place to start. His approach to spirituality, which he calls the "diamond approach", synthesises various spiritual traditions (but does not explain these traditions as such; for this you'll need to look elsewhere, perhaps to religious scripture). His writing explains how to apply the diamond approach and explores the subtle difficulties and variety of experiences one may encounter while doing so.

I haven't read all his books, but Spacecruiser Inquiry is perhaps the best place to start as far as I know. The opening chapters give an overview of the approach and what experiences it may lead to. One of these experiences is the experience of essential truth.

Hope this helps anon!

>>21867845
*NTA

>>21867680
>Alright then, recommend me some stuff that will help me reach the 'Light'.
I don't have any time right now, if I have time tomorrow and thread is still active I will lay in my thought for your sake.

>>21867826
>I don't care about your religious delusions.
>I'm not reading analytifags, I'm only including Brandon, Quine, and Bennett out of those and only because they're metaphysical.

I had dreams from both Quran, New Testament and Hebrew bible.

I had dream meeting with awliya/saint who had died a 100 years ago.

My favourite western philosopher is Hegel because I like the way he uses language

but like I said mental atheleticism sometimes is just hollow academic masturbatory rhetoric — because they do not come down to the Truth. Mere gnats dancing around the fire.

Orbiting, never coming through.

To me word is only word, and it will stay word.

Look at David Foster Wallace (ended up killing himself), Foucault (died of AIDS), Nietszche (having a nervous breakdown due to syphilis-induced insanity due to excessive visit to male brothels).

All words — are no use — if it doesn't lead you to the nature or The Source.

All great sublime non-pomo arts are about describing this source of light and beauty.

If you wanted to die, die like Guénon.

>>21867965
I don't give a fuck about Foucault, he's a politifag retard. Nietzsche was just some weakfag plagiarizing Stirner. I'd bully Nietzsche at school, curbstomping on him next to the school lockers and then spitting on his little dumb face, and then drag his crying pool of piss, tears, and blood outside to a creepy alley rape his boipussy besides the bin and a drunk homeless man sitting on a cardboard. Then I'd toss him to the homeless man to have a go as I piss on him, laugh, spit on him a last time, and then go home to lift from my testosterone-induced rush.

>>21867965
Also, I don't even know who Wallace is, but googling him just now, he wasn't even a philosopher, just some New Age hippie faggot. He deserves more spite and disgust than the religious.

>>21867998

I think Infinite Jest is admirable, although I do understand your spite for him but — his intelligence is admirable.

Try to appreciate Pynchon or other postmodern writers, Wallace actually tried to emulate his postmodern influence.

I think postmodern work (literature or film) is fun — like sometimes I read Hegel for pleasure — I admire pomo art in that way — because you have to walk through the stairs instead of merely taking the lift or elevator.

>>21867995
Stirner is someone I still haven't read yet.