/lit/ - Literature

>>8852983

I once took a modern philosophy course (rationalists, empiricists, later tying together with a little Kant), and the professor's personal interest was philosophy of science. He was a reasonable guy, and it was a pretty good course.

At one point in the course the professor addressed this exact issue as it relates to later/modern philosophers (who include two of the people you just mentioned, to be clear). The professor simply gave his own opinion that many philosophers are not good writers, and that as a result a reader ought to be willing to a little digging at times to get to the actual ideas under the poor prose.

Because they're writing for all time. In a regular conversation people can ask questions, rephrase, try again, and so on. But some philosophers really are trying to write in such a way that they're saying gets communicated to everyone, everywhere, forever.

Maybe it sounds retarded. Philosophy often seems like enlightened retardedness. Maybe it is. But it comes out in the writing. The point is for you to understand it. It will only seem like "meandering and masturbatory language" until you understand it. And then when you do you'll be glad that they were specific, because it's not like they're about to write any more books and you don't know when the next time a philosopher that good is going to come along again.

The guy in your pic is one of the most difficult people to read ever. I've read shitloads of philosophy and he is to me no joke the hardest. Easily. But it's not like I would want his writing to be easier if it meant his ideas were less profound.

The fact is that what you are calling genius - brilliant ideas expressed clearly - is simply rare. There are lots of good stylists with nothing to say, and lots of serious thinkers who can't write for shit. Sometimes you get lucky and get Nietzsche, who was both. More often you have to just work with what you got.

Good luck anon.

>>8853018
This is a good post. Thanks, anon.

>>8853018
>they're writing for all time
what an undialectical thing to say

If they don't understand you they can't criticise you.

>>8853018
>There are lots of good stylists with nothing to say, and lots of serious thinkers who can't write for shit
>Sometimes you get lucky and get Nietzsche, who was both
NEETche is clearly this.
>There are lots of good stylists with nothing to say

>>8852983
Philosophy is nonsense written by people who can't hack it in the real world.

>>8853183
Yea, fuck those high IQ cucks!

>>8853198
You damn liberals are the reason my country is going downhill. Get back to Starbucks and sip your latte while red blooded PATRIOTS like me keep our CHRISTIAN, WHITE nation from being taken over by shariah law.

>>8853018
Have to agree with >>8853179. Nietzsche is a really mediocre philosopher who has survived purely on his purple prose.

>>8853228
Nietzsche is an ANTIWHITE SATANIST ATHEIST who is the prophet of liberals who want to destroy our White American nation. DIVERSITY is code for ANTIWHITE. Pray to the Holy Trinity of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

>>8853198
>>8853210
>>8853248
XD ebin satire my fellow progressive redditors XDDD I fucking hate white males because theyre hateful amirite XDXDXD

no but seriously go back to tumblr

>>8853252
I speak the words of our LORD. He has not SWAYED my life from His divine PATH.

>>8853265
>XD religion is so dumb amirite fuck redneck christians
>>>/r/atheism

>>8853009
Your professor was really innocent. At least in regards to this subject.

>>8853270
You have to pretty dumb to be religious in this day and age.

>>8853284
*tips fedora*
heh....nothinn... personnel.... kid.......

>>8853228
>Nietzsche is a really mediocre philosopher

Nietzsche is only a "mediocre philosopher" to people who are already in love with their ideology.

>>8853294
Nice to see you agree. If you didn't you wouldn't be spewing me mes.

>>8853298
One can appreciate a philosopher without agreeing with their conclusions. Nietzsche is just a mediocre philosopher.

He got me into philosophy. I got swept up by the purple prose and then I read other philosophers and realized he was actually quite trite.

>>8853307
>then I read other philosophers

Like who?

>>8853179
Agree.

Nietzsche can be fun to read, but he's not even a real philosopher

>>8853319
Is this the part where I list of some favorites and then you go "no your favorites suck"

>>8853330
Not necessarily, but I am going to assume that since you say Nietzsche is mediocre, it's because you are reading philosophers who fall squarely within the analytical tradition instead of the continental.

Every time I hear someone deride Nietzsche, it's almost always because they either haven't read him, and understood what he is talking about, or because they actually have a bone to pick with anyone who dares to climb outside of a scientific and materialistic framework.

>>8853330
It's probably some psued analytic trash

>>8852983
Shintoism > the collective writing of the western world.

>>8853294

>I'm an Æutist

We know

>>8853228
>>8853307
>>8853324

Pic related.

He only seems that way to people who don't take the time to unpack his aphorisms - that is, they take the aphorisms/aphoristic style at face value.

Don't worry, you're not alone. He can afford to be 'purple' because his 'technical' meaning is buried behind the aphorisms, which he leaves to his readers to deduce. What Nietzsche leaves unsaid is key.

Maybe try ruminating for once.

>>8853334
>Every time I hear someone deride Nietzsche, it's almost always because they either haven't read him, and understood what he is talking about, or because they actually have a bone to pick with anyone who dares to climb outside of a scientific and materialistic framework.
This is why philosophers aren't taken seriously.

>>8853351
>Maybe try ruminating for once.
You might as well have said pray to god for a sign.

>>8853248
Nietzsche hides all his lack of reasoning and evidence in cool quotes and prose.He doesn't even bother to explain all his pointless rhetoric and hides everything in methapors. If you put Nietzche's work in Bible format and you put a name to it you would basically would have a religious book

>>8853362

Yeah, a retard like you needs a miracle.

>>8853354
>This is why philosophers aren't taken seriously.

Right, so I am guessing it was the latter in your case.

Philosophers probe outwards, conjecture.

Sometimes the concepts they arrive to have no name, so the philosopher has to invent a name. They may also summarize many statements in a single (complicated) word

>the ideas aren't that profound and could be expressed far more easily
Do you have an example?

>>8853351
>Pic related.
>It only seems that way to people who don't take the time to unpack its metaphors and verses- that is, they take the biblical style at face value.
>Don't worry, you're not alone. It can afford to have 'purple' because its 'technical' meaning is buried behind the metaphors , which itleaves to its readers to deduce. What the Bible leaves unsaid is key.
>Maybe try ruminating for once.
Nietzsche is literally a pseudo prophet.It is funny how underage edgy highschool students love him and hate religion when Nietzsche is as prophetic as it gets

>>8853372
Different poster but philosophical idealism is total shit

>>8853371
You should pray to a false god so that I become smart. Maybe one of those Muslim prayers.

>>8853387
That's not the point you moron. The only humans on this planet that contend with protons and electrons are actually scientists.

The rest of us(and even those same scientists) have to life a good life, and that has *literally* nothing to do with the little sliver of scientific knowledge that humans have accumulated in 500 years.

>>8853383

>It is funny how underage edgy highschool students love him

Where did this meme come from?

In my experience, highschool students associate him with the Nazis and thus detest him.

>>8853404
>Where did this meme come from?
It is not a meme.Nietzsche is fucking popular for people that begin philosophy.
>highschool students associate him with the Nazis and thus detest him.
Lol.Barely anyone associates him with the Nazis outside of some morons.Most know him because his ebin quotes and le god is death maymay.

>>8853415

>Popular = bad

You dropped your pseud card.

>Barely anyone associates him with the Nazis outside of some morons.

What, you mean the lion's share of highschool students?

Heh, use your brain kid.

>>8853420
>Heh, use your brain kid

If you use a rope first to cure your Æutism

>>8853420
>You dropped your pseud card.
I never said popular=bad. Nice strawman
>What, you mean the lion's share of highschool students?
Most highschool students get into Nietzsche in the philosophy class.They alredy have and idea of what he stands for but don't actually read him.
>Heh, use your brain kid.
I don't need my brain because I am enlighted by Nieztsche's aphorisms.

Can you clearly tell me even ONE non trivial thing nietzche said, or was he a Mr Motivator for pseuds?

>inb4 being obfuscatory is necessary

Sorry, state and explain your axioms

>>8853456

Can you clearly tell me even ONE piece of non Æutistic faggotry you've ever said, or are you someone who should seriously consider drinking bleach?

Hint: it's the latter, you Æutistic faggot

>>8853442

>Most highschool students get into Nietzsche in the philosophy class.

No they don't.

They get the Anglos like Hobbes/Locke/Burke/Hume/etc.

Maybe a bit of Kant/Hegel. Some Fukuyama/Feminists/etc for minority quotas.

That's about it.

>>8853464
>No they don't.
>They get the Anglos like Hobbes/Locke/Burke/Hume/etc.
>Maybe a bit of Kant/Hegel. Some Fukuyama/Feminists/etc for minority quotas.
>That's about it.
I studied NEETche in a catholic school btw.NEETche is studied in highschool

>>8853463
t.warrior of his daydreams

>>8853479

t. autistic faggot who engages in repetitive autistic behavior and should hang himself

>>8853464
What country has philosophy taught in highschool. In highschool only the pretentious edgy kids start studying philosophy and they usually go for the edgy big name philosophers.

E.g. Nietzsche. To a significantly lesser extent Machiavelli, Hobbes etc.

>>8853481
t.pls don't expose my prophet.

>>8853484

And in decent countries, Æutistic faggots like you are aborted

>>8853484
>Hobbes
More like Rousseau or Marx.Hobbes is not edgy enough for teenagers.
t.ex-teen

>>8853487

t. pls go kill yourself

>>8853484
>What country has philosophy taught in highschool
Everywhere in Europe

>>8853492
>PLease stop exposing NEETche as what he was, a prophet.
>Please I don't want to be put in the same bag with religious I am the warrior of his daydreams
t.NEETchean in damage control

>>8852983
It's only convoluted if you're stupid.

>>8853503

No, I said this

>Ælian is an Æutistic queer who should consider hanging himself, since christposting on /lit/ and /his/ is all there is to his pathetic life

>>8853484
I'm a Brazilian monkey and I had philosophy classes in High School.

>>8853442
>>8853464
Do they really have philosophy classes i high schools where you live? And kids in high school actually know anything about any philosophers?

More angry comments please. I need a laugh.

>>8853334
>>8853338
Tbh a big chunk of the continental tradition is shit. German idealism, phenomenology, hermeneutics, and existentialism are all respectable. However, most continental political philosophy/Marxist stuff, post-structuralism, critical theory, deconstruction etc. is trash.

Anyone who thinks figures like Foucault, Marcuse, or Deleuze can be compared to Chomsky, Richard Montague, or Searle are delusional.

>>8853557
>Do they really have philosophy classes i high schools where you live?
Yes
> And kids in high school actually know anything about any philosophers?
Kind of. We studied Plato,Aristotles, Agustin,Aquinas,Descartes,Locke,Hume,Rousseau,Kant,Marx,NEETche and Wittgestein

>>8853557
another brazilian here

in my classes they teached us a bit of history of philosophy and tried to make us have some sort of philosophical debate, it was shit but they gave us legit instruction on some things and tried to make us read a lot of books (that no one, except me and other kid, tried to read).

>>8853581
>Chomsky better than Foucault
This is the most retarded thing I've read all day. I don't even like Foucault.

>>8852983
Hegel fails to adhere to basic standards of clarity, probably because obscurity adds to his mystique, and prevents direct evaluation and comparison to clearer writers like Kant (managing to be less lucid than Kant is no mean feat).
As this guy >>8853009 says, unclarity doesn't serve a legitimate purpose, there's no good reason for it except maybe, in some cases, to obscure ideas that couldn't stand the light of day. It's just that many philosophers are bad at writing.

Try reading guys like Derek Parfit, JL Austin, and Isaiah Berlin. Nietzsche, too. Some philosophers could write, some can't.

>>8853281
Don't fetishize things you don't understand.

>>8853281

No, he wasn't. Dude's a PhD and has read it all, quite apart from the babby course that we were doing. Quite the opposite, he simply has an informed opinion that you don't seem to agree with.

But suppose that your assertion were true. Then perhaps we might take you to mean that "in truth, there really are a lot of abstruse/difficult texts that make that stuff you guys were reading look like the piss easy stuff that it really is" or a similar sentiment. This is of course a defensible position, but think about it. Either way there exist several difficult philosophical texts which vindicate the professor's view, leaving one's own tastes on the matter aside.

So either the professor was simply right, or he was "naive" exactly because there are a lot of difficult texts that he hasn't read or is not aware of (not likely per the above), in which case his point is still right.

>>8853284

Unrelated but I am glad that there are still people who express this sentiment with a possibility of sincerity.

>>8853581
Foucault, Marcuse and Deleuze are ideologues. They are not philosophers, even though people think of them.

And yes a big chunk of continental philosophy is shit, but so was a big chunk of analytic philosophy until Quine wrote "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism".

>>8853633
Even though that's what people think of them*

>>8853210

post yr redpilled af reading list plz

>>8852983
Philosophers use complicated language, since they need to be very precise and defining certain words before they use it is their daily bread. I studied Philosophy at university and 1/4th of the grade given was depending on precision (correct use of complex and therefore precise) of language.

Now our boy Hegel is merely an obscurantist mystic, not a philosopher.

>>8853627
>people express her ideas bad because they write bad.
no, they dont write bad, they write not clear. it´s different. and i think it´s a decision. i see it all the time. one friend of mine write completely different after goes to university. it´s a fucking personal decision for wathever reasons. they dont try to be clearer because they dont fucking want. it´s not that they give a shit about writing in a clearer way. that is what i think, anyway.
also, why philosophers write?

>>8853018
>Philosophy often seems like enlightened retardedness

>>8853627
Not the anon you're responding to, but isn't the other possibility that some philosophers might in fact right either obscurely or unclearly in order to make it harder for readers, either for political or pedagogical motives?

>>8853633
I have the sneaking sensation you've never read Quine nor any analytic before him and only picked out "Two Dogmas" because anything that *sounds* like it attacks empiricism appeals to you, even if it's nonsense like your froggy faggot heroes and neetchee

>>8853018
>Because they're writing for all time. In a regular conversation people can ask questions, rephrase, try again, and so on. But some philosophers really are trying to write in such a way that they're saying gets communicated to everyone, everywhere, forever.
nah. they speak do that other philosophers from their time and country can understand them

>>8853179
>>8853228
Nietzsche is probably one of the five most influential thinkers of all time. If he doesn't seem brilliant, it's probably because everyone has spent the whole 20th century ripping him off. There is no Foucault without Nietzsche.

>>8854204
Man the level of butthurt needed to conjure up this post could power the state of Palestine.

>>8854219
What's most annoying is that every single person who is supposedly influenced by him, thinks that his whole philosophy is reducible to "nihilism is good" and "everything we do is argue about power".

>>8853581
>Anyone who thinks figures like Foucault, Marcuse, or Deleuze can be compared to Chomsky, Richard Montague, or Searle are delusional.

Obviously they can't be compared. The former are geniuses, while the latter are deluded and dull.

>>8854233
That's just wrong. Maybe high schoolers who are influenced by him think that. Not serious philosophers.

Well, in the case Kant, he'd opted not to edit his work for fear that it would take another few years, after the 10 he had already endeavored on his critique of pure reason.

But I know what you mean, I read some excerpts on one of Gallilo's dialogue, and I couldn't wrap my head around what the characters were arguing, I had to look up quotes frequently.

>>8854248
Foucault thinks that. All the philosophers, or dare I say ideologues, of power think that.

>>8853284
Of course it's 2016 CMON PEOPLE

>>8853383
t. Never read Nietzsche or too cuck to get anything from it

>>8854225
sorry friend but this thread is perfectly emblematic of this board's inability to actually pick up a book and instead ground their opinions in baseless groupthink

>>8854294
Says the guy who literally doesn't understand that there is a difference between facts and values.

>>8854302
No projecting please

>>8854302

not that guy but maybe he is saying that because

>there are no facts there are only interpretations

you can reject that argument if you please. but have fun proving it wrong. nietzsche puts the burden of proof on you and that's why your argument doesn't work

>>8854309
Not projecting at all you retard.

Nietzsche was a philosopher of values. Not a philosopher of facts.

I get that you don't like him, but fuck off if you don't think he was influential.

>>8854219
>Nietzsche is probably one of the five most influential thinkers of all time
Lol.He is not even top 15.And considering him a philosopher is a bit of an stretch
>>8854277
Can you clearly tell me even ONE non trivial thing nietzche said, or was he a Mr Motivator for pseuds?

>inb4 being obfuscatory is necessary

Sorry, state and explain your axioms

>>8854259
I love Kant. I think he's my favorite philosopher of the ones I've been exposed to in introductory philosophy/ethics courses.

>>8854320
Yeah, but this is one aphorism about thousands he's wrote.

Are you going to say that I should assume his entire philosophy based on that one statement?

>>8853627
>Dude's a PhD

lel you think that means much?

>>8854353
Well, it means he at least read the required texts and understood them enough to write something sensible.

>>8853995
>but isn't the other possibility that some philosophers might in fact right either obscurely or unclearly in order to make it harder for readers, either for political or pedagogical motives?

This. "Obscurantism" is most often a means of escaping ideological impasses.
See it as related to Wittgenstein's maxim:
That of which we can not speak we must pass over in silence.
In turn that of which we can only hint at, must be disguised.

I never got the "Hegel is unclear" meme. I think his writing isnt particularly obtuse or autistic, its Just that his thought processes are pretty cryptic at times

>>8854348

of course not. only that it is uncharitable to argue that that other anon was guilty of failing to distinguish between facts and values when he is championing Nietzsche, who claimed that there was no distinction to be made between these at all since for Nietzsche facts did not exist.

>this is one aphorism about thousands he's wrote

this is a fair point; moreover, Nietzsche will indeed contradict himself. the difficulty in struggling with Nietzsche is in taking these contradictions into account and not dismissing them out of hand. you're well within your rights to do so - you will be welcome by the entire analytic community - but my point was that if you're going to take issue with that anon it is necessary to understand that you may be criticizing him for what he already believes in and understands. put another way your criticism done in that way will only confirm what he already believes to be the case, which is what he is attempting to communicate to you. or at least that's one possibility.

if you don't like nietzsche that's fine, of course. but this is the thing about criticism: it depends on a certain fidelity to the rules of the games that philosophers themselves supply. and while it seems unfair of nietzsche to create a game with contradictory rules, that is indeed how he viewed the world, and so far it has been hard to think other than that he was right.

Nietzsche doesn't have the final word on everything, and we should not stop with him. people who champion Nietzsche as having the high card on everything are obnoxious cunts. but in terms of facts and values he so far seems to have been correct.

>>8854392

tl;dr newtonian fidelity to einsteinian rules is a mofo

>>8854392
>only that it is uncharitable to argue that that other anon was guilty of failing to distinguish between facts and values when he is championing Nietzsche

I will take Nietzsche over any analytical philosopher any day.

People don't seem to understand that he was someone trying to find a way out of the pit of nihilism left by science destroying Christianity.

Anyone who takes lightly on the destruction of a culture's values is suspect. I fear them. Because more often than not the people who take it lightly are dangerous ideologues, who will let the world burn in order to see their incomplete theories dominate every facet of society.

>>8854392
If, by your own admission, Nietzsche made a "game with contradictory rules", then wouldn't that make what he says null and void? If his arguments are based on logical contradiction, then wouldn't taking them to heart be nonsensical?

>>8854410

so there you go. we agree and understand each other quite well. the danger is indeed in ideology, which is to my mind another way of saying ressentiment.

the thing about Nietzsche is that he is the greatest weapon for cynics and the terror of people who wish to do battle with cynicism.

i don't know if you've read Sloterdijk, but if you haven't he's worth your time.

>>8854410
>I will take Nietzsche over any analytical philosopher any day.

>>8854416

only if you think the deepest levels of the human psyche work according to the laws of classical Newtonian mechanics rather than like Einsteinian relativity. which I do.

it's all about desire and will. whether it's in Hegel - there is no consciousness of self without consciousness of other - or Freud/Lacan/Zizek/whoever, the point is that we are human beings situated *relative* to each other in the ways that Nietzsche considered most important: in a word, aesthetically.

The unconscious, the WtP, the drives, all of these things are not at bottom rule-driven. But to simply obey these forces unchecked like a wild animal is not to become human in any meaningful sense.

This is why Nietzsche will say the task is to *create* the rule you will yourself follow. And at a certain level you have to forge it out of total darkness. Obeying the law blindly will lead to the therapist's office. Making a law, or governing yourself, is what will take you all over the world in interesting ways.

>>8854421
>cynicism
I'm not so sure that Nietzsche is the greatest weapon for cynics if he, towards the end of his life, lost his fucking marbles. Do you think his mental breakdown had nothing to do with his philosophy?

>>8854434
He "lost his marbles" because of brain cancer.

Hardly someone's fault.

>>8854433
>human psyche
>classical Newtonian mechanics
>relativity

What in the flying fuck are you on about?

>>8854438
syphilis = brain cancer

You heard it here, folks.

>>8854441

Tragedy. The tragic mode of perception. Being unsettled and ill-at-ease relative to yourself, others, the world, God, whatever. The existential plane. Suffering. Looking for answers. Being disappointed. Being fucked up. Working through it.

Things people do. Eventually you settle down and even out. But most people who take Nietzsche seriously are struggling with that.

It's not really that hard to understand. A squishy and relative world of power, force, and desire is going to be topsy-turvy and weird. It's not going to be nice and stable and rule-driven. This is what Nietzsche is doing: thinking about the increasing relativity of life and human consciousness. He doesn't believe in rules because he thinks life itself is the will to power, force and discharge. But you don't do it in a vacuum. You do all of this relative to yourself and others in culture and in nature, and there really are no hard and fast dividing lines between these.

Have you read him? I'm not making this up.

>>8854433
>>8854450

A response like these is why I can't take Nietzcheans very seriously. You're on a totally different plane of reality - utter delusion.

>>8853484
>Hobbes
>edgy

>>8854459

wtf i hate delusion now, etc

Anyways, don't sweat it. If Nietzsche's not your thing he's not your thing. I'm not even trying to convince you to make him your thing. But you're doing yourself a disservice by dismissing him as being utterly deluded. He's not even my favourite philosopher. But he was a pretty damn good one.

>>8852983

Hegel is not just philosophy. The Phenomenology is the source code of consciousness. Realize he is trying to reprogram you.

>>8852983
Because they're psueds

Next

>>8853153
historicism is the transhistorical absolute of dialectical thought. so describing the proper method of historicism is transhistorical.

>>8854239
Richard Montague, e.g., provides a rigorous account of some of the logical properties of natural (and formal) language semantics rooted in the methods of model theory and lambda calculus. His account is intuitively plausible, mathematically rigorous, and solves significant empirical problems surrounding various semantic phenomenon. Then some sociology undergrad on /lit/ or an "expert" on early 19th century German Romanticism that works in some humanities department (not that such academic disciplines are inherently contemptible, they're just out of their element here) comes around and posses a trivial counterargument rooted in a misinterpretation of the theory.

On the other when Foucault writes a book whose entire thesis can be summarised as "lol guys, ideology permeates society, and relations of power and interest condition that ideology, lmao, aren't I deep", every dadaist art aficionado and a post-structuralist literary theorist in the world turns and stares in amazement, with drool running down the side of their chin at the sheer profundity and intellectual depth of his analysis that amounts to nothing more than the age-old claim that social values condition one's world view.

>>8854434

Not at all. I'm totally convinced - and others are also - that there was no way his philosophy was in any ways good for his health.

This is what makes him so complicated. He makes life equally hard for cynics and for virtue-signalers. If you think you're too edgy to take anything seriously, he will make you look ridiculous. If you think you're wonderful and kind and good, he will make you look ridiculous. If you attempt to copy or impersonate him, you will make yourself look incredibly ridiculous.

So what's to be done? Nobody knows. But pretty much all of the continental philosophy of the 20C follows from Nietzsche. And to some degree, however interesting, it has been a complete fucking disaster. But maybe it was a disaster that had to happen.

I have feelings or intuitions of my own where this is going to lead - in a word, it all has to do with mimetics - but I'll start a thread about that later on and get into it there. For now my own feeling would be that it would be better if we could get over our collective love affair with Nietzsche more than valorize him, but the only way forward to me at least is through. He can't be ignored, but he definitely can't be gone back to forever.

>>8854515
You never read Foucault. Dont pretend you did, pseud

>>8854515
>dat phallagocentric analytic ideology
Sounds like you need to learn a bit about the effects of western hegemony on contemporary scientific practice, my friend.

>>8854392

>people who champion Nietzsche as having the high card on everything are obnoxious cunts.

We don't want to do this, but there hasn't been a single respectable philosopher since.

>>8854445

Brain cancer = Syphilis

You heard for the thousandth time here, folks.

>>8854531
You're right, I haven't. I read Deleuze and Guattari 's Anti-Oedipus a few years ago and realized it was complete gibberish. I haven't touched any other post-structuralism, deconstruction, etc. since.

You see, I prefer to devote my time to more productive intellectual pursuits like studying pure math and linguistics. If I want to read philosophy that isn't philosophy of language, since that's my main philosophical interest, I'll pick up something with some substance like St. Augustine or Kierkegaard, but I have better things to do than waste my time trying to decipher shit prose that ultimately serves to convey nothing more than the idea that social constructs exist and shape our live to a certain extent.

>>8854546

Nietzsche was a big, big, big deal. Yuge. For me at least it's not that the other guys who follow from him aren't interesting in their own right, it's just that Nietzsche himself is an embarrassment of riches. And, as some super-fans will say, you really can just stop with him if you want and build your house on the side of a volcano. Nietzsche is that good.

But you can look at the 20C as a continuation of his project. Everybody's working out what was going on with the nerves that he struck.

It's not like you have to make him the centre of the universe. It's a pretty wild universe, but there are other options, other people to read also. But Nietzsche is a pretty big deal.

>>8854552
What the fuck are you even saying with this?

Syphilis != CANCER, retard.

>>8854564
>I'll pick up something with some substance like St. Augustine

>>8854574
>St. Augustine
t.hasn't read San Agustin but faps tp NEETche's theology
>>8854546
NEETche is not a philosopher he is a pseudo prophet

This thread is so bad.

>>8854588

pretty much this

>>8854588

>philosophy-induced nervous breakdown

What is "things that don't happen" for $500, Alex?

>>8854588

> pursuing passion, art, self-ownership and struggle

what did he mean by this?

series of footnotes etc

>>8854579
St. Augustine is literally the biggest cuck philosopher in history. Although leftism is largely responsible for the degeneration of Western values and the wholesale slavery of the Aryan race to muslim barbarians and nig-nogs, the blame, the issue we face has a much longer history and ultimately falls on Christianities cuckish slave-morality (in fact it was precisely this that has allowed the left, and cultural Marxists in particular to take over every area of modern life).

What we need is return to ancient European tradition and the religion of our great Aryan forefathers.

>>8854604
In an indirect way, one could argue that his contraction of syphilis was a result of his hedonistic (excuse me, "passionate") philosophy.

>>8854631

Nietzsche was the opposite of hedonistic.

He frequently rails against 'decadence', refers to hedonism itself as a sort of "world-laziness."

You clearly haven't read him.

>>8854640
And yet his philosophy is used all the time to justify such behavior. Odd, no?

>>8854646
>people misinterpret philosophers
hold the fucking phone

>>8854640
By the way, wouldn't the opposite of hedonistic be, oh I don't fucking know, chaste? Ya know, part of the "slave morality" that Nietzsche rails against?

>>8852983

Unclear writing betrays muddled thinking. Hegel was the murkiest of all philosophers, and also one of the worst.

>>8854652
So I guess it really comes down to "be decadent, but don't be THAT decadent" - Nietzsche

>>8854628
using the word "cuck" automatically invalidates your argument in my eyes, no matter how substantial
and considering that you also use the phrases "aryan race" and "cultural Marxism" as well as frogposting, why don't you just go to bed and let the grown-ups talk?

>>8854646

>And yet his philosophy is used all the time to justify such behavior.

When? I've never encountered anyone using Nietzsche to justify hedonism/libertine lifestyles/etc. Also >>8854650

>>8854646
lmao, I can't believe you actually took the time to write this post.

>>8854365
Exactly. Leibniz, in his letters, is pretty explicit about the fact that his popular writings were "exoteric" in nature, and that he wrote with different audiences in mind, trying to win them over through what he could portray as common ground.

There's a funny story that Heinrich Heine wrote about Hegel perhaps worth posting. I'm not sure if it's true or if we should take Heine to be inflating himself some.

"We now have monks of atheism who would burn Monsieur Voltaire alive because he was a hardened deist. I have to confess that this music is not pleasing to me, but it also doesn't frighten me; for I stood behind the maestro [i.e., Hegel] when he composed it, to be sure in indistinct and convoluted signs so that not everyone would decipher it. - I sometimes saw how he gazed around anxiously out of fear that he was understood. He was very fond of me, for he was sure I wouldn't betray him; at that time I even thought that he was servile. Once when I was annoyed with the phrase: "Everything that is, is reasonable", he laughed strangely and remarked: "It could just as well read, 'Everything that is reasonable, must be'." He glanced around hastily, but soon calmed himself, for only Heinrich Beer had heard what he said. I only understood such expressions later. Thus I also only understood later why he asserted in his philosophy of history that Christianity already represents progress because it teaches about one God who died while pagan gods knew nothing at all about death. What progress it would therefore be if God had never existed at all!"

speaking of hegel, is that dude who was doing the end of year bookclub for phenomenology of the spirit still around?

>>8854663
NEVER, huh?
>>8854664
well, thanks for the (You), in any case I guess.

People who take Nietzsche seriously are, in fact, mentally ill and incapable of logical thinking.

Because Hegel was a windbag who lectured to half-wit civil servants and insipid tradesmen.

>>8854664
A whole, whopping two coherent sentences. Time consuming!

>>8854676
>>8854678

It's always so patently obvious when someone hasn't read a philosopher. People who read philosophers almost never are inclined to call them or their readers mental ill, windbags, insipid, or whatever. It's always the ones who haven't who are clearly trying to signal their intelligence - or, rather, to justify their laziness - but it actually winds up working completely the wrong way for them. Because this happens:

>you're ignorant

And then they respond by calling whoever called them this some kind of stupid ad hominem garbage, or by referring to other philosophers that they like for whatever reasons. It is the lack of charity you will always detect among the insecure. Observe!

>>8854666
It goes all the way back to Plato. Its more than naive sense of politics and religion, the very act of reconstituting the world philosophically will always be met by repression by the hegemonic perspective.

>>8854699
Amazing, all of that writing to say basically fuck all. Good job. Reddit is that way.

>>8854699

>Hegel's philosophy is so odd that one would not have expected him to be able to get sane men to accept it, but he did. He set it out with so much obscurity that people thought it must be profound. It can quite easily be expounded lucidly in words of one syllable, but then its absurdity becomes obvious.

>Hegel published his proof that there must be exactly seven planets just a week before the discovery of the eighth. The matter was hushed up, and a new, revised edition was hastily prepared; nevertheless, there were some who scoffed.

>>8854676
>'''''''''''''''''''''logical''''''''''''''''''''''''' thinking.

>>8854666

muh esoteric so deep illuminati school of thought
check out this deep shit bro totally make u like a jedi braaah vyoooom powers up lightsaber

>>8854663
They are out there. Nietzsche is not understood by most people who have read him. He wasn't only a philosopher, but a educated man in many fields and this is reflected by his work. You read Nietzsche as biography of him, history of ideas lecturer, early psychologist, philologist and philosopher.

>>8854716
>lol what is logic in a post modern wooooorrrld
Do me a favor and kill yourself, yeah?

>>8854656
Unclear writing *can* betray unclear thinking; I'm quite honestly with you on this RE: quite a few followers of continental philosophy. But unclear writing is not connected to unclear thinking by necessity. Look, surely you'd perhaps be willing to admit that quite a bit of scientific, mathematical, and logical literature will always appear to the untrained mind as unclear? I was very iffy about Hegel for a long time, but my schooling required the reading of the key figures of Western philosophy, and by the time we hit Hegel, it seemed profoundly graspable. Hard, absolutely, but you can find elements of his terminology and ideas right there in Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, etc. He's not that murky, especially if you've gotten to read those other thinkers. Hell, whole swathes of his thought reminded me of Leibniz's attempts to offer philosophical reconciliation between and ancient and modern ideas.

>>8854723

I've read everything by Nietzsche, and struggle to see how he could be employed as a defence/justification of hedonism - unless someone horribly misinterpreted the Overman.

>>8854723
>Nietzsche is not understood by most people who have read him

I'm thinking it's because he's incoherent, and his ideas don't stand to scrutiny.

>>8853179
>>8853183
>>8853198
>>8853210
>>8853228
>>8853248
>>8853252
>>8853270
>>8853284
>>8853294
>>8853298
>>8853307
>>8853324
>>8853334
>>8853338
>>8853351
>>8853354
>>8853362
>>8853369
>>8853371
>>8853372
>>8853383
>>8853404
>>8853415
>>8853420
>>8853429
>>8853442
>>8853456
>>8853463
>>8853475
>>8853479
>>8853481
>>8853484
>>8853487
>>8853489
>>8853491
>>8853492
>>8853503
>>8853581
>>8854219
>>8854225
>>8854233
>>8854277
>>8854294
>>8854302
>>8854309
>>8854320
>>8854324
>>8854336
>>8854392
>>8854410
>>8854416
>>8854421
>>8854425
>>8854433
>>8854434
>>8854459
>>8854450
>>8854493
>>8854490
>>8854546
>>8854566
>>8854588
>>8854604
>>8854628
>>8854640
>>8854646
>>8854650
>>8854652
>>8854656
>>8854657
>>8854658
>>8854663
>>8854664
>>8854676
>>8854678
>>8854685
shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutthefuckupshuttheFUCKupshuttheFUCKupshutthefuckupshutthefuckupSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUPSHUTTHEFUCKUP

>>8852983
>>>8854588
>
>> pursuing passion, art, self-ownership and struggle
>
>what did he mean by this?
T. the one not read Nietzsche

>>8854628
t.Hasn't read St.Agustine but has read NEETche's dumb interpretation of history

>>8854736
k

So I'm guessing "you haven't read X" is the classic /lit/ insult to someone that they can't actually argue with coherently?

>>8854722
Its no different than when you express your every opinion in memes to escape criticism

>>8854704
>>8854713

And there you have it folks! My work is complete.

>>8854733

Consider suicide

>>8854702
Oh, absolutely. How the exoteric/esoteric fits into Platonic philosophizing is a big part of my own focus right now.

>>8854722
Kek, okay. Esotericism among philosophers can be compared to how writers under totalitarian or authoritarian conditions have gotten away with writing radical works. Same deal. Live in a society where there are laws established to punish overt critiques of religion or of atheism as a publicly affirmed belief? Just write in such a way that you can give the impression of a "reconciliation" that keeps religious life present, but which presents itself as the atheism it actually is to fairly bright students who work out the thought further.

>>8854747
Nah, I'm not a Nietzschean. :-)

>>8854713
He obviously has gone beyond what he was specialised in. Parts of his philosophy are interesting others aren't. I doubt there is a way anyone who is not a german native speaker could have deep understanding, since there is no way you can translate him without losing important parts of the meaning.

>>8854746
Yes, reddit and your upvotes are waiting for you!

>>8854743
t. Guy Who pretended to have read some philosopher in this very thread, got called out And now wants to samefag his waY out of this predicament

>>8854750

so is there a coherent system for translating the esoteric work into something understandable

>>8854770
How the fuck was I same-fagging, I wasn't even replying to anyone, dipshit.

>>8854770
There is literally no argument for Nietzsche, in this thread, other than incoherent nonsense and WELL YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY READ HIM.

This is: people who don't want to actually argue, and are fucking lazy themselves, so they accuse others of their own faults.

>>8853676
You mean precise, therefore complex, not the other way around.

>>8854754

Nope, you're just a poorly educated simpleton

>>8854799

>>8854772
Plato tried it and German idealism is just another attempt to get an entrance into the esoteric/methaphysical world, without losing the scientific rational perspective.

>>8854785
Mods, can we ban this redditor?

>>8854808
Yes, get someone banned for actually engaging in discussion. Excellent idea, /lit/. Didn't mean to burst the collectivist bubble, here.

>>8854810
You have to go back

>>8852983
Replace philosopher's with Germans and your observation is correct.

Germans includes some insufferable Frenchmen as well.

>>8854820
>tfw when /lit/ LITERALLY cannot argue a coherent defense and resort to memes instead

>>8854803
>he accused me of being dumb, I'll post a /pol/ meme to show him otherwise

>>8854772
Depends entirely on the author. How it works for Plato seems to be very different for how it might work for Hegel. Mind, there's a lot of argument in academia about the extent of exoteric writing. A good introduction is "Reading Between the Lines" by Arthur Melzer, which states the case for the existence of exoteric writing very clearly and persuasively.

A good rule of thumb though is to take a look at how an author speaks about reading and writing. Plato, for example, has passages in dialogues like the Protagoras, Theaetetus, and Phaedrus which all suggest what someone might look for. Nietzsche speaks about the exoteric/esoteric distinction in an early passage in Beyond Good and Evil, and offers some limited advice on how to maybe read him in the preface to The Dawn. Hegel brings up the distinction very early in the Phenomenology of Spirit, though I'd assume it means something less to him; almost solely protecting him from being harassed or jailed for atheism, is my own guess.

Are there any philosophers you had especially in mind?

>>8852983
It's because you're not reading enough analytic philosophy. The analytic philosopher values clarity above all else. The continental philosopher, fearing readers might discern the limits of his depth, uses incomprehensible language to safeguard himself from being too readily understood.

>>8854833
Yes, because there is so much to argue against an ad-hominem attack! You are so smart because you read so many books!

>>8854836
Yeah I am, whens the last time you even opened a book son?

>>8854831
>/lit/ is one person
Yeah buddy it's you against the word :^)

>>8854785
He has a work called Menschliches allzu Menschliches/human all too human which has helpful advices, for example how you can successfully interpret other cultures and their works, how to talk to certain people, how to develop your own sound moral systems and much more. Some people including me have successfully applied his tips, so his works has something to offer.

>>8852983

Because continental philosophers are shit.

>>8854839
it is when you are arguing against collectivists, yeah

>>8854838
Impressive argument here, really well done

>>8854846
Thank you for providing an ACTUAL response and not just resorting to memes, I will check that out.

>>8854832

>>8854852
>/lit/
>collectivists
woo boy reddit sure has warped your mind

>>8854857
Okay, memefag. You know there's no karma system here, right?

>>8854858
Actually, I think you're from reddit.

>>8854872
Epic troll, bro! Can we get some upvotes for this epic memester?

>>8854872
Wow, I bet you'll make front page with this one. Retard.

>>8854880
>redditer BTFOs 4chan "collectivists"

>>8854835
The analytical school and continental school are not really good classifications. I would say the idea of the analytical school was the project of building a ideal language of logic and nearly nobody is trying this anymore. Those who call themselves continental or analytical are purposefully playing into those sterotypes. Obviously you have to compromise between having your thoughts presented most authentically as possible or as easy to be understood as possible. You are right some are trying to sound deep, but aren't. On the other hand there are some who writte their thoughts as clear as possible and not deep, because they can only express them in simple terms or are lacking deep thoughts.

>>8854884
Dude, you'all never get any upboats by just calling everyone a redditter.

>>8854901
>>8854909

Know the risks of same fagging. You might end up a retard like this fucking idiot.

Why are /lit/ philosophy "discussions" always pure cancer? Can we start banning these fucking threads?

>>8854902
> I would say the idea of the analytical school was the project of building a ideal language of logic and nearly nobody is trying this anymore.

While this is true, there is still in the English speaking world a large contingent of academics who still act as if we have such a language.
There is absolutely still a divide and its a matter of tradition and ideology, your very attempt to classify them in conceptual terms displays your own background in the Analytic school

>>8854925
It's because of laziness. Instead of actually making an argument, many people will resort to just saying "well you haven't read X" instead of actually talking about the content that proves their point.

>>8854835

u r a snob

>not an argument
>check post
>read this:
>the continental philosopher, fearing readers might discern the limits of his depth, uses incomprehensible language to safeguard himself from being too readily understood
>feels need to project
>blames others for fear, hopes to make own side feel better
>feels need to do this on /lit/
>insecurity confirmed

y be a dick
just say u don't like books u don't like
stop signalling

>>8854939
t. Guy Who pretended to have read some philosopher in this very thread, got called out And now wants to samefag his waY out of this predicament

>>8854954
t. epic memester who literally doesn't know when to fucking give up because he doesn't have anything of value to say.

>>8854956
Yeah and I'm sure you're illiterate skull has plenty of value. Fuck off

>>8854964
Sure thing bud. Hey, throw out another meme!

>>8854954
>>8854956
t. autistic teenagers who think winning a philosophy argument on the Internet is important

>>8854967
The other dude literally provided nothing of substance this entire thread. He's just trying to "meme" his way to victory because he's some high school kid who idolizes Nietzsche.

>>8854933
While it is true i might be influenced by thoughts of people who are classified as analytic by some and I'm certainly interested in this concept of being able to calculate the truth of statements with a function, like Leibniz and many others envisioned. I disagree with all those arguments based on common sense. I don't believe a methaphysical argument can't be true because it violates our preconceived notions of whatever we understand as reality. However I can relate to being sceptical about extraordinary truth claims.

>>8853284
>Le I know true reality and you phony baloney religious ignorants don't

Fuck off and at least graduate high school before having the gall to spew shit as stupid as this

>>8854353

Why yes, yes as a matter of fact I do. And I say that with good anecdotal evidence that the qualificatation does not a priori necessarily demand real intelligence, whatever we happen to mean by that in-the-moment (let's assume whatever 4chan anon's dickwaving standard, say yours, in this case).

But it precludes genuinely dumb people to a vanishingly small degree. I know that there are dumb PhD-equivalent people (my estranged aunt and Michael Savage come to mind), yet even they had to demonstrate a very particular knowledge in this-or-that. Now let's leave aside the presumptive low-end of our PhD equivalent cohort, whether simply because they are genuinely dumb or because I don't like them (these both might apply to both of the above examples). Let's instead contemplate the /average/ PhD, or perhaps the slightly above-average one.

In his capacity as a teacher and a communicator, this particular person seemed to me to be "average" (this is intended as a compliment insofar as average PhDs are supposed to be quite intelligent), by which I mean that he clearly knew his subject (philosophy), and the little bit of his opinions that I got from the one class have generally held up as reasonable

So yes, it's a form of dickwaving, but actually finishing one is a mark of high intelligence or perhaps in extreme outlier circumstances extreme "grit" plus other qualities, etc..