[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.21 MB, 1464x1986, 8B1C3656-E382-42F4-879A-9FE5C9E4E430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15296158 No.15296158 [Reply] [Original]

Which philosopher had the best prose?

>> No.15296163

>>15296158
Probably Augustine or Montaigne.

>> No.15296171

>>15296158
If anyone disagrees, they have no taste.
Kant.

>> No.15296201
File: 7 KB, 177x285, okboomer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15296201

>>15296171

>> No.15296229

Aristotle

>> No.15296251

>>15296201
Who is this semen demon

>> No.15296282
File: 48 KB, 393x382, 29B744B0-A5C2-44D1-8D4E-7530ED92BD3A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15296282

Schopy, not even close.

>> No.15296318

>>15296158
Schopenhauer

>> No.15296999

plato

>> No.15297029
File: 93 KB, 635x470, Schopp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15297029

The Big Schopp my guy

>> No.15297035

lucretius ;)

>> No.15297036

>>15296163
>Montaigne
>>15296171
>Kant

Based

>> No.15297441

>>15296158
Honestly what philosophers have bad prose? I'm not exactly well read, but i haven't read a philosopher who i thought had bad prose.

>> No.15297472

>>15297441
Hegel, or so the meme says.

>> No.15297646

>>15296251
Oh no we've lost another one

>> No.15297658

>>15296158

Rei.

>> No.15297664

>>15296158
Not really a philosopher but have you read Chateaubriand? My god I cum with every sentence

>> No.15297665

>>15296158
kripke

>> No.15297668

>>15297441
ze germans (minus N and S)

>> No.15297679

>>15296282
>>15296318
>>15297029
Based

>> No.15297705
File: 47 KB, 304x372, 4132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15297705

>>15296158
That would Jacques "Jackie" Derrida aka "L'homme orange"

>> No.15297707
File: 2 KB, 104x125, 1582050781909s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15297707

>>15296282
>>15296318
>>15297029
>>15297679
Based Schopiebros

>> No.15297739
File: 246 KB, 700x536, seneca.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15297739

>>15296158
Seneca

>> No.15297763

Adorno

>> No.15297847

>>15296158
Hume, Berkeley

>> No.15297867

>>15296171
Kant is clear as water. Then you have fucking Hegel, who is a mess.

>> No.15297872

>>15297441
Marx and his students are generally fucking awful to read. It reads like some sort of technical manual, with an ever expanding lexicon of jagged sounding invented words. I think "lumpenprole" is a great one though, and Im glad marx retroactively refuted niggers

>> No.15298053

Heidegger

>> No.15298062

>>15296171
kant is responsible for the worst terminological mistake ever made in philosophy.
he calls "vernunft" what was perviously called "verstand", that is "understanding" (eg in locke's "essay on etc") or "entendiment" , that is more or less consciousness, intellect, ecc and calls "verstand" what was previously called "vernunft", that is "reason" or "raison" (eg in descartes's "discourse etc"), that is rationality, logic, etc.
so, after kant "vernunft" means "reason" and "verstand" means "understanding". even today "reason" means one thing (rationality) generally speaking, and another thing (consciousness) in kant's jargon.
that was a tragic mistake, which contribuited giving birth to the monstruosities of the german idealism.

>> No.15298074

>>15297441
the french

>> No.15298108

>>15298062
You sound retarded, Kant precisely defines the terms he uses, so any "misunderstanding" is the fault of the reader.
Vernunft = the faculty to go from generality to particularity, from particulary to generality and the faculty of understanding particularities and generalities as a fluid spectrum
Verstand = the faculty of synthesis (unity)

>> No.15298124
File: 99 KB, 625x1000, yhst-137970348157658_2586_1972988714.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15298124

>>15296158
Swerve, peasants.

>> No.15298180

>>15298108
> Vernunft = the faculty to go from generality to particularity, from particulary to generality and the faculty of understanding particularities and generalities as a fluid spectrum
Verstand = the faculty of synthesis (unity)
lmao these are not definitions and by no means kant's definition. the best clarification about the difference between the two in kant's jargon is from the metaphysics of morals:
>Now man really finds in himself a faculty by which he distinguishes himself from everything else, even from himself as affected by objects, and that is reason. This being pure spontaneity is even elevated above the understanding. For although the latter is a spontaneity and does not, like sense, merely contain intuitions that arise when we are affected by things (and are therefore passive), yet it cannot produce from its activity any other conceptions than those which merely serve to bring the intuitions of sense under rules and, thereby, to unite them in one consciousness, and without this use of the sensibility it could not think at all; whereas, on the contrary, reason shows so pure a spontaneity in the case of what I call ideas [ideal conceptions] that it thereby far transcends everything that the sensibility can give it, and exhibits its most important function in distinguishing the world of sense from that of understanding, and thereby prescribing the limits of the understanding itself.

now this is opposite to the common use of the words verstand and vernunft, and this is why locke's "essay on human understanding" (understanding, that is intellect, which includes reason) was translated as "eine abhandlung über den menschlichen VERSTAND" which in kantian language would be "an essay on human rationality"

>> No.15298437

>nobody mentioned kierkegaard yet

>> No.15298451

>>15297739
this and schopie

>> No.15298499

Nietzsche had the best prose, but his philosophical insights are worthless so it wasn't of much use to him.

>> No.15298581

All the people on here shitting on Hegel have never read him. Phenomenology of Spirit is strangely poetic.
Also, Bataille. He has some of the most beautiful prose in both his essays and short stories.

>> No.15298599

>>15296158
Plato, Seneca, Montaigne, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche

>> No.15298729

>>15298499
Expand on this

>> No.15298874

>>15298074
muuuuaaaaaahaaaahhhhhhhhh

>> No.15298880

>>15298729
no

>> No.15298893

>>15296158
Schoppy or Søren

>> No.15299490

>>15298880
I love a half-baked opinion

>> No.15299575

>>15298108
>>15298180
sweeties that's not how rigorously structured semantic accounts even look like

>> No.15300357
File: 80 KB, 850x400, 1478215703-Ralph-Waldo-Emerson-Quote.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15300357

Emerson

>> No.15300370

>>15296158
William James

>> No.15301178

>>15298729
About his ideas being worthless? More emphasis on rhetoric over argument, lack of clear elaboration of his main notions (eg. the overman), contradictory thinking, barely qualifies as philosophy due to lack of systematization.

>> No.15301219

>>15301178
>t. lastman

>> No.15301250
File: 56 KB, 736x733, 9bf6fa31c9b27fb3e2769081ab602d93--beef-bodies.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15301250

Me.

>> No.15301321

>>15301219
>le last man
Nietzschetards cannot into arguing

>> No.15301904

>>15296158
you already posted him

>> No.15302143

leibniz should be considered a classic of the french prose. he is synthetic, clear, exemplificatory, original, sometimes even icastic.
too bad his philosophy is highly phantastic, still, he writes so well that the introductions often overcomplicate the text instead of simplifying it.