/lit/ - Literature

>>2677269
Kierkegaard.

I quite like Descartes for some reason. Aristotle is pretty pimp too for being a scientist and all that.

>>2677270
Haha you did that on purpose didn't you? (If you didn't get it OP, Russell left Kierkegaard out of his book for some reason)

>>2677282

I remember someone mentioning it when discussing the book before, but not why he left him out. Anyone know why?

>>2677290
Russell was childishly atheistic. His book is full of little omissions of metaphysics/religion. It's not a bad book per se, just really biased.

Plato.

Russell was a tool, BTW.

Plato and Nietzsche

>>2677306
>Plato and Nietzsche

>Plato and Inverted Plato

how does that work?

>>2677319

Dialectics, motherfucker.

Not that poster, by the way.

Hi Op.

In your reading you will come across a lot of people who will claim that they have deciphered how the world works.

The question you should be asking is if thats:

1) Possible?
2) To who, if it is?

Besides that probably the important question you should primarily address is what do they all mean when they answer this question. Since many of them reach different and even contradictory answers, its probably a sound start to check what you are expecting to find in the first place.

If you, like me, are not looking for anything in particular but just the means to understand what is the best way to acquire knowledge then look to Aristotle for inspiration. It is not his method but the way he constructs a method, is something you will find particularly enlightening: he is clearly working with what is essentially the most rational way of thinking. Unfortunately I can't explain that last and ambiguous sounding statement since I am working on that topic too.

that a certain philosopher is one of your favourites doesn't mean you agree with everything he said. it means you enjoyed him/her and appreciate their influence on philosophy, etc etc

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas

Hume.

>>2677326

where's the synthesis?

Bill Hicks.

>>2677371
>.............
>*sigh*

>>2677371
This.
I'd recommend reading ALL philosophy though.
Although I'd start with the scholastic philosophers first, like Lenny Bruce.

Then the moral philosophers, like Bill Hicks and George Carlin

And end with the existentialists, like Doug Stanhope

Max Stirner.

I just started reading Nietzsche and he's blowing my mind even though I don't get half his references. I feel like it would be easier to understand had I been around in his time.

"blah blah blah metaphysics, harsh criticism, which can best be summed up as "dead french expression"".

>>2677382

Most of the Greeks aren't worth shit now. Epicurus and lucretius are about the only ones worth reading.

lol at people saying nietzsche. he's not even a philosopher. he just had some manic ideas. he's just a writer.

Stirner again lol. fotm

I'd say Descartes but he's more a mathematician, along with liebniz and spinoza.

for proper philosophy, i'd say Kant on the rational side and john locke for the empiricists

>>2677429

I'd check out eastern philosophy

>>2677448
what's up?

>>2677448
you still post here? nice seeing you

>>2677454
>Most of the Greeks aren't worth shit now. Epicurus and lucretius are about the only ones worth reading.

That is some lame trolling

>>2677468
Yeah, I haven't been tripfagging here much recently, but I slipped....

>>2677429
Kant wasn't a rationalist though...

Kant and I did my thesis on Nietzsche. Without Kant you have no Schopenhauer or Nietzsche.

Don't read his precritical philosophy.

>>2677559
>Kant and I
How old are you?

>>2677559

>Likely older and better educated in philosophy than you are.

Why deride Kant and those who see his metaphysics as integral to all modern and post-modern philosophy?