[ 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: 49 KB, 459x600, the_thinker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341385 No.2341385 [Reply] [Original]

hey /lit/. Who is your favorite philosopher and why? Also, recommend me some philosophical reading. I'm pretty untainted on that subject.

>> No.2341389

Hegel

He's given the best definition of Philosophy so far.

>> No.2341392

jacques derrida because i cannot understand anything he says

>> No.2341400

Nietzsche. He says some very honest things and gets away from spectulative crap to get right to the heart of humanity.

Try No Exit, Fear and Trembling, and some of Kant's work. Good foundations for modern philosophy.

>> No.2341410
File: 44 KB, 480x418, PureJoy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341410

You just want to do philosophy for doing philosophy?

>> No.2341414

>>2341392
*said

>> No.2341441
File: 21 KB, 200x310, sophie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341441

>>2341389
Hegel is probably not a good start into philosophy. Only worse start could be Heidegger.

If you have no idea, OP, start with Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder and find out what you like most.

>> No.2341443

I want to read Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein. The trouble is, I don't think I would be patient enough to read all the stuff necessary to understand these philosophers - The World as Will and Representation assumes prior knowledge of Kant, and I've heard Critique of Pure Reason is very hard going. I don't know what's necessary for understanding Wittgenstein.

Should I just read introductions to Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein, instead of the original works?

>> No.2341449

>>2341441
>Hegel is probably not a good start into philosophy
You're right, I was only really answering the first question.

>> No.2341454

>>2341443
i don't think you really need to have read anything specific to read wittgenstein, especially tractatus

>> No.2341456

>>2341443
david pears has a cool text on wittgensteins work. id recommend it. very accessible

>> No.2341457
File: 58 KB, 300x460, sicknessuntodeath.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341457

I really love Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Hume. I won't say I'm in a position to judge philosophical quality, I just like reading them.

>> No.2341459

Im not really into philosophy (will try to fix that in the near future) but Diogenes was the fucking man.

>> No.2341461

>>2341454

You should know Frege and Russell's phil of lang and be acquainted with the predicate calculus if you want to understand all of it. The most interesting parts about that book are nontechnical, however.

>> No.2341462
File: 40 KB, 317x500, Thus-Spoke-Zarathustra-by-F.-Nietzsche-ebook-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341462

enjoy

>> No.2341475

>>2341443
Just read The World as Will and Rep, Schopenhauer fills in the blanks.

>> No.2341487

The Master of those who know.

>> No.2341489
File: 415 KB, 1276x1600, 87984-050-7C5547FE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341489

>>2341487

Er, pic related.

>> No.2341502
File: 215 KB, 434x655, Picture 4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341502

>> No.2341503

>>2341475
Oh right, fair enough. I might just check it out then. The only philosophy I've read is some of Schopenhauer's essays by the way.

>>2341456
Looks good Hakas. It's a little pricey, so I might ask for it in the library or something.

>>2341454
I'm worried that I might find the austere style a tough introduction.

Thanks for the advice.

>> No.2341568

Camus, he just seems like a bro.

Nietzsche a close second. Then Stirner.

>> No.2341631

Saul Kripke

>> No.2341634

Quine

>> No.2341648

Inb4 a bunch of french poets and obscurantists who are merely good authors and not even okay philosophers

>> No.2341651

Camus, by far. Life-affirming, anti-authoritarian absurdism.

>> No.2341658

>>2341648
you mean like des cartes ?

>> No.2341662

>>2341651
>Suicide is the most legitimate philosophical question
>right guys now we've agreed, let's precede from there

>> No.2341665

Stirner, Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Jacobi...

>> No.2341689

Because Schopenhauer is a post-Kantian thinker, people assume they must understand Kant before reading him. Seems logical. But from experience, I would say it's the other way round - reading Schopenhauer makes it possible to understand Kant. Schopenhauer is a brilliant writer and is in my opinion far likelier to excite you into philosophy than... most philosophers, especially Kant.

>> No.2341692

>>2341648
better than those fucking obscurantist germans who aren't even poets

>> No.2341708

Hegel, Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Quine, Rorty, Dewey

>>2341665
Terrible.

>> No.2341720

>>2341708

>implying you understand any of the listed philosophers

>> No.2341733

>>2341720
I'm aware that I do so more than you from the redundancy of including Stirner in a list already containing Nietzsche.

>> No.2341762

>>2341733

Stirner was a social thinker where Nietzsche was an individualist thinker.

>> No.2341780

>>2341441
This. I read that and honestly, I learned a lot. It was a great introduction.

>> No.2341786

>>2341733
>Not knowing the difference between Stirner and Nietzsche

Someone hasn't read them.

>> No.2341828

Great intro
Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers by Will Durant

>> No.2341843

Hobbes.

>> No.2341844

Hume.

>> No.2341853

can anyone come up with a definitive list for reading philosophy chronologically? Also, which authors require little to no knowledge of other philosophers?

>> No.2341866

>>2341853
Just read Sophie's World. Not only does it introduce Philosophy in a chronological order, but it also teaches a summary of each philosophy, examples of philosophers from the time, and other such things.

>> No.2341873

Bertrand Russell and Kurt Godel for their contributions to logic and set theory

>> No.2341877

Descartes. Nigguh be crazy.

I'm writing a novel on solipsism and Cartesian Doubt has actually helped me along a lot.

>> No.2341879

paracelsus

>> No.2341894

I am torn between Schopenhauer and Kant. Schopenhauer was fantastic at what he did but he's an existentialist, pessimist, and misogynist Reading him in excess can get one quite depressed.

Kant was a genius in my opinion. He gets into morals and picking up a bit on epistemology which I find fascinating. That "how do we know what we know?" kind of talk is a mindfuck of the highest caliber.

>> No.2341927
File: 132 KB, 420x629, kali2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2341927

Stirner and Marquis de Sade for my liberation of external values that I dislike but were still forced upon me. The 'negative' Nietzsche as well, as in Nietzsche in destruction mode.

Heraclitus and Hindu/Buddhist thinkers for metaphysics. The skeptics to keep me on my toes and the cynics to keep me materially humble.

The value creating, positive Nietzsche concerning ethical values.

It would be hard to pick one, but I would have to say Nietzsche had the greatest influence on me I guess.

>> No.2341935

>>2341879
I'm more impressed by Deep&Edgy's favs

>> No.2342417

Either Plato or Nietzsche, though I like Voltaire too.

>> No.2342451
File: 40 KB, 378x500, 1316897711987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2342451

Aurelius, Augustine, Laozi, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Camus, Marx, Zizek

>> No.2343443

Schopenhaur and Camus. Neitzsche is pretty good too.

>> No.2343455

A favorite philosopher? That's something like your favorite shoemaker in Azerbaijan.

>>2342417
>trolling
>2012

>> No.2343466

the Buddha

>> No.2343484
File: 49 KB, 500x333, 573323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2343484

>>2343455
>buying shoes in Azerbaijan
>not buying superior handcrafted european shoes.
>shiggydig