Enjoyable philsophers

[Anonymous No.16876223]

Which philosophers do you find the most enjoyable to read and why?

[Anonymous No.16876239]

>>16876223
Plato or Frege. Want to try out Leibniz at some point.

[Anonymous No.16876241]

>>16876223
Kierkegaard. His existentialism speaks to me.

Voltaire is a villain who died like a dog.

[Anonymous No.16876250]

>>16876223
Voltaire and Hume are all you need.

[Anonymous No.16876255]

I enjoy Edmund Burke. I'm a midwit, so most of what he says doesn't filter me.

[Anonymous No.16876257]

>>16876223
Even though he isn't an easy read, Bueno is a great stylist. I even remember when Jesús G. Maestro suggested that future philologists might study his prose and stylistic resources.
I think that a great example of this is his article/essay "Poetizar" (To poetize), a text he wrote at 28 if I remember correctly, where he talks about the ontological definition of poetry.

[Anonymous No.16876281]

>>16876223
I think Schopenhauer has been the most enjoyable, closely followed by Deleuze

[Anonymous No.16876337]

>>16876223
Schopenhauer for his simplicity and Kierkegaard for his ability to write aesthetically and religiously

[Anonymous No.16876397]

Nietzsche and Plato.

Aristotle is painfully boring.

[Anonymous No.16876400]

marcus aurelius because it's a bunch of nice lil fortune cookies i can read in an hour and im out, don't got time for philosophy because it's real gay

[Anonymous No.16876405]

>>16876223
My own philosophy, of course!

[Anonymous No.16876507]

>>16876223
Bruh I can't deal with Kant I am reading a philosophy anthology and I remember that when I finished the gnoseology chapter I could at least summarize in grosso mod every philosopher's point except for Kant. IDK if I got filtered by him or what happened but that chapter dealt with Hegel too which I've heard is one of the most impenetrable guys here and I could remember him but not Kant. Super weird shit.

[Anonymous No.16876522]

>>16876397
Aristotle is not -really- just Aristotle. It's more like what they would understand to be an encyclopedia - many of his writings are Lyceum notes.

He had personalized dialogues as well, like Plato, but those have been lost to antiquity. Plato taught Aristotle, so when you read a Platonic dialogue, in a way, you are reading The Organon (and specifically the Sophistical Elenchii) in action.

Nietzsche was a sophist. I always cringe when I hear people rave and rant about Nietzsche - his objective is, almost cunningly, to say nothing and everything at the same time. It's actually ironic that you idolize Plato, who was against sophistry (the pre-socratics), and Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.16876600]

>>16876522
Interesting take. I still can't decide on whether it's cringe or intellectually admirable to dismiss Nietzsche as a pedantic sophist...

[Anonymous No.16876612]

>>16876600
It's neither because it's a very regular take for anyone outside undergrad college. Extremely sterile

[Anonymous No.16876622]

>>16876600
>>16876600
>>16876600
Isn't that the point?

Marx has this same sort of appeal, it always seems to mean everything and nothing for people who read it. What if everyone killed each other in the early 20th century over that book for no reason?

What if literature, and ideas, can be, perhaps, not correct, or right to have?

The issue with the Nietzsche in this case though, despite him saying some admirable things about constructed reality, is the inevitable lack of objective meaning or a self contained system. Kierkegaard is a really decent alternative. Has a more fleshed out system for finding meaning in yourself. Not as chaotic as Nietzsche.

Just between you and me I am almost certain reading Nietzsche is bad for you, because you are... different after you read him. This being said however, he imparts with you some decent observations for the price you pay. You see some inner workings and dark underbellies of mentalities in society you did not see before.

This can help you, ironically, if you believe in God. You can perceive what is really evil - absolute loss in objective meaning.

[Anonymous No.16876754]

>>16876281
I've only read Schopenhauers essays and aphorisms but found it highly enjoyable. Particular the sections on aesthetics and books

[Anonymous No.16876780]

Hegel

[Anonymous No.16876800]

I think the most enjoyable to me is Aristotle. Clear, this is the only word can describe him. His sagacity is incomparable to any philosopher.

[Anonymous No.16876809]

>>16876780
You hate yourself

[Anonymous No.16877372]

Hume is very comfy

[Anonymous No.16877385]

>>16876397
>Aristotle is painfully boring
This. Especially coming from Plato who was unmatched even after Aristotle, it feels as though you've got rock bottom and can't get out

[Anonymous No.16877453]

>>16876622
Nietzsche is the best prose stylist of the German language (including Goethe), which is unfortunate. Reading Nietzsche feels like attending the Dionysian Mysteries, but he is a polemic sophist for sure and I don't think he would deny it, you could call Jesus a sophist too if you wanted to (Lucian called him the "crucified sophist"). Nietzsche's philosophy fully embraces the polemic and is something like a self-concious dogma of the irrational that doesn't even want to claim the truth. After even Kant failed to solve dogmatism and people became tired of trying to catch truth in the 1000th rational system, Romanticism searched for an alternative. Nietzsche is pretty much an attempt at doing away with all forms of dogmatism with a very crass method of subjectivity, that knows it can't solve anything, but does it anything, because it feels like it.

[Anonymous No.16877469]

Schopenhauer has the best style and his essays are very readable for amateurs and entry level readers.

Kierkegaard's essays are also very similar in style.

[Anonymous No.16878300]

>>16876223
Nietzsche, because he wrote his philosophy like literature and his love of life carried through it and was directly injected into your well being. It has and is like an explosive substance of sorts.

[Anonymous No.16878320]

>>16876223
Sebreli, truly a god among men.

[Anonymous No.16878358]

>>16876223
>Rousseau
>Hume
>Voltaire
>Nietzsche
The shittiest philosophers write the best prose.

[Anonymous No.16878561]

>>16876241
based, fuck voltaire

[Anonymous No.16878834]

>>16876397
Plato ist langweilig

[Anonymous No.16879351]

>>16876223
Sextus Empiricus

[Anonymous No.16879627]

Epictetus.

He seriously reads like a modern pop psychology book (depending on the translation).

[Anonymous No.16880499]

Adorno but he's difficult

[Anonymous No.16880546]

>>16876281
>>16876337
>>16876754
>>16877469
Based schopenposters. I like the parts where he shits on Hegel and calls him and his followers names.

[Anonymous No.16880616]

>>16876405
This, but unironically. Very easy and fun to read. I also found some parts straight up funny.

"They call that “liberty of faith” then, when brother and sister, on account of a relation that they should have settled with their “conscience,” are thrown into prison."

"To this day the Jews, those precocious children of antiquity, have got no farther; and with all the subtlety and strength of their prudence and understanding, which easily becomes master of things and forces them to obey it, they cannot discover spirit, which takes no account whatever of things."

Based jew-hater incest-lover-man.

[Anonymous No.16880660]

>>16876223
Rousseau because the prose is amazing in French. Likewise, Tocqueville or Diderot

[Anonymous No.16880817]

Plato, Montaigne, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.16881812]

>>16876397
>>16876522
>>16876600
>>16876622
>>16877453
>>16878300
>>16878358

OP here.
All the people mentioning Nietzsche. Does he have anything of value to offer? I've skimmed his works but haven't seen anything of substance, just the insatiable desire to tear down and criticize without replacing.
Did I miss something?

[Anonymous No.16882447]

>>16876223
Plato, St Augustine, alasdair macintyre

[Anonymous No.16883018]

Plato is the one I think most people would agree with. Machiavelli is also fun because you aren't sure how much of what he's writing is something he agrees with and when he uses "virtue" to describe all kinds of underhanded and violent actions (more people should read the Discourses on Livy). Conservatism was lucky that Burke was it's first modern writer. And for someone little known, Maimonides is an interesting one. Maybe because his views on the Hebrew Bible are so different from how I think about religion and how it should be thought but the Guide for the Perplexed I found engrossing (Shlomo Pines translation).

[Anonymous No.16883028]

>>16876223
Voltaire and Plato.

[Anonymous No.16883036]

>>16876223
Hegel. I give up after 5 minutes and then play 5 hours of video games instead.

[Anonymous No.16883358]

>>16876223
Leibniz and Plato for me

[Anonymous No.16884599]

>>16883358
I've never read Leibniz directly. What do you recommend getting into first?

[Anonymous No.16884613]

>Great prose
>Comedy gold
>BTFO's all his contemporaries
>Will emancipate your spirit
Name (1) better.

[Anonymous No.16884621]

>>16881812
You're looking for Thus Spoke Zarathustra and The Will to Power. Most of his works are just about blowing up convention but these two kind of get to the question of "what now?"

[Anonymous No.16884742]

Great writing style in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.16884969]

>>16876522
>he identifies the presocratics entirely as the sophists
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.16884979]

>>16876223
Hegel. I just love how explosive and rich his writing is, it stimulates my monkey brain to no end. I keep orgasming when reading him.

[Anonymous No.16884994]

>>16876223
Some of Schopenhauer is pretty fucking enjoyable. Something about his attitude is hilarious, I can’t really put my finger on it.

[Anonymous No.16886058]

>>16880616
I didn’t felt that line of Jews as something hateful. On the context he’s just grouping him among the classical religions rather than the modern ones. Which is true, they’re a dated religious group