Philosophers

[Anonymous No.22280253]

What philosopher interests you most /lit/
Btw if you post a God forsaken bookshelf full of unread books with unbent spines and pristine edges we all know you don't read and you wikipedia everything you know about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22280356]

Schopenhauer abd Nietzsche /thread

[Anonymous No.22280446]

>>22280356
nietzsche was a whining faggot and is constantly overrated

[Anonymous No.22280554]

>>22280253
Emerson, and Nietzsche viewed through the lens of his infatuation with Emerson. He's worthless on his own.

[Anonymous No.22280616]

Fritz Perls
Rupert Spira
Ajahn Brahm

[Anonymous No.22280728]

>>22280446
>nietzsche was a whining faggot
All philosophers were. He says some quite insightful stuff in 'Human, All Too Human'

[Anonymous No.22280730]

>>22280253
Larry Marder.

[Anonymous No.22280737]

>>22280253
Right now its Kant. Even though I haven't read him and my knowledge of philosophy comes exclusively from this forum followed by wikipedia. But idealism is truly fascinating

[Anonymous No.22280835]

Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.22282115]

Quine, Carnap, Neurath, Frege and Meinong have been of interest to me lately.

[Anonymousn No.22282126]

I don't read a lot of philosophy. But I like Deleuze, because he seems like the only philosopher to write about art and imagination in a way that really 'gets it'.

[Anonymous No.22282163]

>>22280728
My ex-gf once told me very excited about "that Nietzsche quote" that said "Human, all too human". She didn't even know it was the title of one of his books.

[Anonymous No.22282189]

>>22282126

You should look into Schiller and Hegel when it comes to aesthetics. Alva Noe also has a good book on it called Strange Tools. It’s a pretty good read on it.

[Anonymous No.22282196]

>>22282126

Also, not a fan of Schopenhauer. His model of teleology seems very half baked, despite making basic sense. It seems very presuppositional. Richard Brockhaus put out an awesome book on him and Wittgenstein called Pulling Up the Ladder. It’s one of my favorites.

[Anonymous No.22282231]

>>22280253
I read a lot of philosophy, but most of it is contemporary, and a lot of it tends to be anthologies or on specialized topics, e.g., philosophy of information, philosophy of physics, biosemiotics, etc.

In general I like analytic philosophy more simply because it engages with science in a straight forward manner and it doesn't hit you with a tsunami of made up words and niche turns of phrase to decode.

That said, I do like what continental philosophy is doing, it's just that a lot of it is written in a stylistically unbearable way and uses a lot of words to say what could be said in very few.

Philosophy of language and philosophy of history, particularly speculative history are also areas that really interest me. I like philosophy of mind as well but I feel like problems tend to just circle around the Hard Problem without moving much. Ontology has always interested me but analytics just go in circles on the same set of issues, advancing piece meal arguments because they are afraid of stepping on the toes of science while continentals have the boldness I'm looking for but fail to lay out anything that is actually coherent. I even stole "Meeting the Universe Halfway," to see if it explains what an agent is in Agential Realism, and if it's there it is buried pretty deep.

Hegel is the single philosopher I'm most interested in. I am also a big Saint Augustine fan, moreso his psychology and semiotics. I also really like CS Peirce. I find Neoplatonism interesting but not convincing. I prefer Aristotle's philosophy to Plato's but it isn't fun to read outside the Nicomachean Ethics.

For political philosophy, I like Hegel best but also some of the work he has inspired, Honneth's Freedom's Right and Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man.

The Last Man thesis predicted how men would all start dumping their life savings into pick up trucks and tactical gear and le virgin/chad, manosphere, nu-right shit to a T.

Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos," is the sort of shit I'm looking for, but even he is fairly conservative and afraid to do more than question.

I should probably look at Fichte and Schelling more. I like Jung but don't find him super convincing. Nietzsche got me into philosophy, but I've soured in him over time. Dostoevsky is my favorite existentialist and I feel like that movement influenced art more than philosophy got a reason.

Honestly, physicists like Tegmark, Vederal, Davies, Deutsch, Bohm, and Lloyd seem to be more willing to delve into good speculative metaphysics than philosophers these days. Same for Hoffman (cognitive scientists) or Pinter (mathematician).

It's sort of a shame, it's either self neutered analytics or batshit pomo continentals.

[Anonymous No.22282251]

I’m trying to study philosophy properly. I’ve read Plato but got sidetracked and starting reading Kierkegaard, who interests me a lot. After I finish some of his stuff I’m gonna get back on track. Some philosophers who’s ideas I’ve only had summarized to me that I find interesting are Spinoza, Schelling, Wittgenstein, Leibniz, Hume, Husserl, Montaigne, James, Heidegger and Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.22282250]

>>22282231
bros but schoppy told me hegel is nothing but a clown, also i read a bit of hegel and none of it was understandable, who should i believe

[Anonymousn No.22282258]

>>22282189
>Alva Noe also has a good book on it called Strange Tools
Thanks for the rec!

[Anonymous No.22282320]

>>22280253
The three thinkers that have shaped me the most are Heidegger, Lacan, and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.22282424]

God I hate Hegelians so much