/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18885581]

Philosophers who argue that everything in the universe is one, single entity?

[Anonymous No.18885584]

>>18885581
start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.18885591]

>>18885581
OM

[Anonymous No.18885596]

why do americans do this

[Anonymous No.18885600]

>>18885596
move on from the past?

[Anonymous No.18885662]

Hegel

[Anonymous No.18885673]

Zoomers who use 4chan like twitter and a google search?

[Anonymous No.18885675]

>>18885581
hegel
spinoza
schelling
schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.18886119]

>>18885596
Boston is the only city that I actually liked.

>>18885675
Which one should I start with (besides the greeks)?

[Anonymous No.18886132]

>>18885581
I refuse to believe this is america

[Anonymous No.18886140]

Alfred North Whitehead's process theology

[Anonymous No.18886141]

>>18886119
Start with Spinoza.
Lift weights, find a wife, exercise daily
End with Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.18886146]

>>18886132
Why? It looks like a typical American city.

[Anonymous No.18886177]

Many, but in terms of the ones I've found interesting and fun to read directly, Hegel and Boehme (mystic more than philosopher). Just bear in mind that Hegel's most famous book was also written in one draft in a rush and is famously hard to read. I highly recommend Hegel's Ladder as a commentary but skip the intro which is more academic framing and won't make much sense unless you are an expert in German Idealism. Bernstein tapes has a good free lecture series, a whole year PhD level course on tape on the Phenomenology. Hegel's lectures are an easier intro though. Boehme's Signature in All Things is my fav of his. Very mystical.

I've found summaries of Whitehead very intriguing but haven't read him directly. Same for Fichte.

[Anonymous No.18886183]

>>18886119
To read Hegel you must first read almost every philosopher before him.

[Anonymous No.18886188]

>>18885581
Parmenides was the first to come to this idea in the West according to Russell.

[Anonymous No.18886210]

>>18885581
Read Spinoza’s Ethics.

God, or Nature, is one infinite substance with infinite attributes. From these attributes arise modes, of which you as an individual are one. Your being is an expression of Thought and Extension and contained wholly within the nature of God. Pure substance monism, and as a work of philosophy, joyous and powerful.

[Anonymous No.18886226]

>>18886132
That is literally one of the most important spots in American history nigger

[Anonymous No.18886254]

>>18885581
Hey that’s that part in assassins creed where the dude fires the gun on the building and makes the soldiers shoot those people

[Anonymous No.18886265]

>>18886210
To add on to this, read some secondary literature as well. You could even start with his entry on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If you’re still intrigued after the Ethics, Deleuze’s “Spinoza: Practical Philosophy” is a nice short companion.

[Anonymous No.18886293]

>>18885581
G I O R D A N O B R U N O

[Anonymous No.18886648]

Most interesting one is Berkley

[Anonymous No.18886657]

>>18885596
Horrible zoning laws that don't consider aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.18886665]

>>18885581
all the smart ones, the rest dont matter they were plebs

[Anonymous No.18886730]

>>18885581
Adi Shankara (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.18886781]

>>18885581
Zhuangzhi

[Anonymous No.18886807]

Neoplatonism, Hermeticism

[Anonymous No.18886973]

>>18886730
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18888329]

>>18885581
Are you talking about Universality?

[Anonymous No.18888338]

Paracelsus