/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3069069]

What is the densest philosophy ever written?

[Anonymous No.3069073]

Of Grammatology

[Anonymous No.3069074]

>>3069073
>Derrida
>philosophy

lel.

[Anonymous No.3069106]

That I've read, Hegel.

[Anonymous No.3069113]

All philosophers are pretty dense, otherwise they would be scientists.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069123]

>>3069113
>>3069113

[Anonymous No.3069150]

>opinions

[Anonymous No.3069179]

>>3069113
True, in the sense that, if they were shallow, they would overvalue the importance of materialism and/or believe medical advancement to be an objective good despite overpopulation and an increased threat of super-viruses.
Wait, who am I kidding? Most scientists can't think that clearly-- or should I say densely. Quid pro quo, no?

Anyway, as far as continental goes, Nietzsche with his numerous allusions and sarcasms is dense. I've heard Hegel and Kant are dense. As for analytical, Wittgenstein, maybe.
Zizek is dense only because of his tangential way of writing.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069185]

>>3069179

pls leev

[Anonymous No.3069194]

heidegger

[Anonymous No.3069200]

>>3069185
HES RIGHT SO U LEEV PLX

[Anonymous No.3069215]

Heidegger Hegel Aristotle

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069220]

>>3069200

one wouldn't need more than a rudimentary knowledge of Western thought in order to understand Nietzsche's allusions and zizek is nothing but pop culture really, more of a 'comedian' than a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3069233]

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is the endgame of philosophical learning. There's loads and loads of philosophers who are just hard to read because of obscurantism (see: french philosophy; also: "eastern" bullshit), but Kant is totally coherent and explicit about what he is doing, i.e. he is hard to read because of his long, finely modulated sentences, describing intricate parts of a grand and fully thought-out epistemology.

[Anonymous No.3069241]

I really wish philosophers knew how to write or wrote as simply as possible.

[Anonymous No.3069276]

>>3069241
Plenty of them do. But it's only appropriate when it suits the message. The style is always part of the message, so weird and obscure meandering can be very fitting for what one is trying to bring across.

Philosophy is closer to poetry than science anyway. When done right, it's a creative genre, not a descriptive one.

[Anonymous No.3069292]

>>3069276
>Philosophy is closer to poetry than science anyway. When done right, it's a creative genre, not a descriptive one.
Can't help but to think of Terence Mckenna you say that

[Anonymous No.3069300]

>>3069220
lel are you serious? I guess if you are describing "rudimentary knowledge of Western thought" as "2-4 years of liberal arts study at a top 10 college", this would be true...

um...
I can save you from your ignorance if you want, Satan.

There are certain central concepts that it is essential to keep in mind about Nietzsche's philosophy. He takes it for granted that the Enlightenment analysis of religion is correct, and that religion is a comforting but limiting self-delusion. He infers that all values (including religious values) are the creations of human beings and that therefore we are all responsible for creating high values and living up to them. Yet these values need not be shared. He is a thorough relativist, arguing that one person's virtue is another's vice. Once these basic principles are understood, most of his writing becomes quite clear. Another obstacle to comprehension, however, consists in his constant cultural references which may be unfamiliar to the untrained reader. Most of these will be explained in the following notes.

[Anonymous No.3069305]

Originally educated as a philologist, Nietzsche discusses the history of the tragic form and introduces an intellectual dichotomy between the Dionysian and the Apollonian (very loosely: reality undifferentiated by forms versus reality as differentiated by forms). Nietzsche claims life always involves a struggle between these two elements, each battling for control over the existence of humanity. In Nietzsche's words, "Wherever the Dionysian prevailed, the Apollonian was checked and destroyed.... wherever the first Dionysian onslaught was successfully withstood, the authority and majesty of the Delphic god Apollo exhibited itself as more rigid and menacing than ever." Yet neither side ever prevails due to each containing the other in an eternal, natural check, or balance.
Nietzsche argues that the tragedy of Ancient Greece was the highest form of art due to its mixture of both Apollonian and Dionysian elements into one seamless whole, allowing the spectator to experience the full spectrum of the human condition. The Dionysian element was to be found in the music of the chorus, while the Apollonian element was found in the dialogue which gave a concrete symbolism that balanced the Dionysiac revelry. Basically, the Apollonian spirit was able to give form to the abstract Dionysian.

[Anonymous No.3069308]

Nietzsche's philosophy, while highly innovative and revolutionary, was indebted to many predecessors. While at Basel, Nietzsche offered lecture courses on the "Pre-Platonic Philosophers" for several years, and the text of this lecture series has been characterized as a "lost link" in the development of his thought. "In it concepts such as the will to power, the eternal return of the same, the overman, gay science, self-overcoming and so on receive rough, unnamed formulations and are linked to specific pre-Platonics, especially Heraclitus, who emerges as a pre-Platonic Nietzsche."[177] The pre-Socratic Greek thinker Heraclitus was known for the rejection of the concept of being as a constant and eternal principle of universe, and his embrace of "flux" and incessant change. His symbolism of the world as "child play" marked by amoral spontaneity and lack of definite rules was appreciated by Nietzsche.[178] From his Heraclitean sympathy Nietzsche was also a vociferous detractor of Parmenides, who opposed Heraclitus and believed all world is a single Being with no change at all.[179]

There aren't many people who could understand this...

[Anonymous No.3069330]

>>3069179
>thinks overpopulation is the problem
>calls others shallow thinkers

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069390]

>>3069220

honestly, i don't see how you having to go through all that schooling in order to understand nietzsche (when in reality you only need to have a fucking wikipedia-esque grasp of plato, kant, schopenhauer, etc.) points to my being wrong...

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069394]

>>3069300

honestly, i don't see how you having to go through all that schooling in order to understand nietzsche (when in reality you only need to have a fucking wikipedia-esque grasp of plato, kant, schopenhauer, etc.) points to my being wrong...

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069402]

>>3069394

inb4

>wikipedia-esque grasp

herp derp yaah it shows stan,

[Anonymous No.3069492]

>>3069394
Sorry, I forgot a knowledge of medieval vernacular song is a part of everyone's education. It's covered in middle-school, right after contrasting Dionysian and Apollonian effect, right?

God i hate tripfags...

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069519]

>>3069492

lelhonestly you thickheaded retard, you wouldn't even need to have any secondary knowledge in order to understand the Dionysian/apollonian effect as its spelled right the fuck out in The birth of Tragedy.

[Anonymous No.3069528]

>>3069492
>trying to justify pissing away a fuckton on further "education"

[Anonymous No.3069551]

Discordianism

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3069569]

Nietzsche's not even so complex tho, part of his interest in stuff like the Lutheran Bible is in communicating with people forcefully and clearly. Bataille is a successor to him (in some respects) and much more of an obscurantist if that's what you're into. I'd probably say Kierkegaard's is the most dense philosophy I've read: he said somewhere that he purposely wrote in a convoluted style "to confuse the heathens" but I can't find the source.

e.g.
THE notion that every scientific problem within the great field embraced by science has its definite place, its measure and its bounds, and precisely thereby has its resonance in the whole, its legitimate consonance in what the whole expresses this notion, I say, is not merely a pium desiderium which ennobles the man of science by the visionary enthusiasm or melancholy which it begets, is not merely a sacred duty which employs him in the service of the whole, bidding him renounce lawlessness and the romantic lust to lose sight of land, but it is also in the interest of every more highly specialised deliberation, which by forgetting where its home properly is, forgets at the same time itself, a thought which the very language I use with its striking ambiguity expresses; it becomes another thing, and attains a dubious perfectibility by being able to become anything at all. By thus failing to let the scientific call to order be heard, by not being vigilant to forbid the individual problems to hurry by one another as though it were a question of arriving first at the masquerade, one may indeed attain sometimes an appearance of brilliancy, may give sometimes the impression of having already comprehended, when in fact one is far from it, may sometimes by the use of vague words strike up an agreement between things that differ. This gain, however, avenges itself subsequently, like all unlawful acquisitions, which neither in civic life nor in the field of science can really be owned.

[Anonymous No.3069581]

>>3069569
>he purposely wrote in a convoluted style "to confuse the heathens"

what a dick

[Anonymous No.3069596]

Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead

[Anonymous No.3069640]

>gdfg dsfgsdg s

[Anonymous No.3069683]

>>3069569

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.3069687]

>>3069581
Well, the crowd is untruth, after all. But Kierkegaard himself said Hegel was dense and confusing, so maybe he wins out.

[Anonymous No.3069688]

>>3069683
Fuck off, Godboy.
>Objective morality comes from heaven.
You make me sick, Kierky.

[Anonymous No.3069697]

>>3069687
>the crowd is untruth, after all
Maybe if he told them they'd changed
stop being so passive-aggressive, kierkey

[Anonymous No.3069706]

>>3069519

But you do need some familiarity with Sophocles, Euripedes, and especially Aeschylus thicktard.

Read his work on the pre-socratics. It's one of the best books I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.3069707]

>>3069569

>scientists lose track of the center of the study of science
>they should concentrate more on the problems, not the answers
>material answers to existential questions are false

maybe.

also
>>3069706
this

[Anonymous No.3069708]

>>3069688
Remember Spinoza—God is the totality.

[Anonymous No.3069713]

>>3069569
>Bataille is a successor to him (in some respects) and much more of an obscurantist if that's what you're into

Bataille isn't an obscurantist. He writes in a very clear style. You've obviously never read him. . .

Kierkegaard is, like, channeling Hegel in that passage. Expressive causality and all that. . .

His first sentence is basically: There is a place for everything, and everything is in its place.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069722]

>>3069707

>maybe
>this

arent you the analytical heavyweight fucking commit suicide you waste of space.

>>3069706

>sophocles, euripedes and aeschylus

so i guess basic high school lit amirite, so much for your decades at princeton lelele

as for the recommendation, ive been meaning to read that book for a while now, thanks for reminding me, i just finished ordering it.

[Anonymous No.3069728]

>>3069233
This. Kant was a genius, and all lesser minds (re: everyone else) have trouble understanding his work.

[Anonymous No.3069742]

>>3069069
What do you mean by "dense"?

[Anonymous No.3069751]

>>3069123

He is right though. Philosophers cant amount to the basic simplicity and truth of scientists so they have to be wordy and dense instead.

[satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.3069760]

>>3069751

[Anonymous No.3069770]

>>3069728

Absctracted inapplicable fanaticism. So wrong about everything.

[Anonymous No.3069827]

More recently?

Sloterdijk or Gadamer.

[Anonymous No.3070494]

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is the philosophical equivalent of osmium.