/lit/ - Literature

>>18797394
I don't read anyone but the ancient Greeks sorry you modernist homo

>>18797928
>ancient Greeks
>you modernist homo
>modernist homo
>homo
>not greeks
Pseud

>>18797394
lao tzu the anti-argumentation chad

>>18797394
He's good up til around the 1920s. Once he went political and popular he really tanked. It's because he wasn't actually architectonic in those matters, he wasn't being theoretical or structural, he was just a very fired up advocate of views he accepted but they weren't particularly new or argued for in new interesting ways. Whereas his epistemology and metaphysics and logic were very innovative at the time and are still compelling to some people to this day. Wittgenstein is right, read his red works but throw out the blue works. Anyway the pre-20s Russell had an interesting evolution. He began as a British Idealist. By the time of the Principles of Mathematics (not to be confused with the Principia Mathematica) he was a Meinongian. He then developed descriptivism (and abandoned the Meinongianism) and knowledge by acquaintance by the time of "On Denoting" and other papers of the time. During this period he was a dualist, believing in Cartesian souls separate from all else. But he read William James and eventually endorsed the Jamesian neutral monism. In the first stage of this he was a phenomenalist (in the same style as the early logical positivists) who constructed everything, both mind and matter, from sense data. This is his view in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. But after this, during the 20s, he developed what's called "Russellian monism," which is the view that the entities of physics have intrinsic qualitative natures distinct from their structural (and physical-causal) natures. Those intrinsic natures he allows might be mental/sensible. All these stages are interesting. But if you read his politics or ethics or history or other popular works he's very subpar. Follow Wittgenstein's advice.

>>18797394
Russell and his teapot are a shallow and boring waste of time. You'd be better off forcing toddlers to watch you give yourself prolapse.

>>18797394
Why you chose the worst one

>>18797394
It's probably Foucault for me. Archaeology of Knowledge, Power/Knowledge and discourse analysis are ideas that have really changed the way I view things. Marshall McLuhan is a close second though I wouldn't call him a Philosopher

Russell understood logic, but if you read his history of Western philosophy then you'll realise that he had a very weak grasp of philosophy in general.

My favourite philosopher is J.L.Mackie probably. Maybe Nietzsche, that 100% devil and 100% genious.

>>18797394
my boy M.H

>>18798566
J. L. Mackie used to be my favourite as well
Now that would be John Anderson

>>18798537
Why you choose shild molester

>>18798537
>Archaeology of Knowledge
kino

Anon.
He resolves.
Anon resolves.
He does resolve.
Anon.

>>18799776
Because I can separate ones ideas from their personal lives silly

>>18800857
I can't. that's why my favourite philosopher is Martin Heidegger.

>>18798484
good post. i wish there were more like it on this board.

>>18797394
Spinoza for his ideas. Neech for his writing.

>>18797394
Kant and Deleuze. Couldn't pick one because I like them based on a problem that both engaged with: how can we concieve the asymetrical relation betwen sensibility and thought?

>>18798484
>"On Denoting"
This is what made me lose a lot of respect for him. I had my suspicions when he was talking about the theory of descriptions in The Problems of Philosophy but decided to check out "On Denoting" to be charitable. Meh. Much midwit ado about nothing.

>>18798484
Proposed Roads to Freedom, while not strictly a work of political philosophy, is under rated. He'd covered a lot of leftist ideology far better than any libertarian, liberal, or conservative has since. I've never read a single person, or listened to a conversation, where someone has given as much attention to the actual opinions of the left, while still rejecting it. Russell admitted his political work is not philosophical, and that his technical work in philosophy was irrelevant to it, but that doesn't mean his political writings are trash.
plus, if we want to follow wittgenstein's advice, then we should disregard L.W.'s later work as being irrelevant, since, according to Russel, he abandoned serious analysis. (but that's just a petty remark)

>>18798537
self-admittedly not a philosopher

>>18802686
On Denoting is probably one of the most important and impactful of Russell's work.
>Much midwit ado about nothing.

>>18802686
What is your problem with it?

>>18797394
Epictetus is my favorite. He was such a renowned stoic philosopher that he's actually the reason that not that much stoic philosophy survived: everyone just decided that Epictetus was the height of stoic philosophy and so the works of, say, Chryssipus are lost to us. He was once the most widely admired and innovative stoic. But instead of anything by him, we just have a million copies of the Enchiridion and the Discourses.

>>18797394
Probably Jordan Peterson

>>18802293
Stay away from me you yucky Nazi!

>>18797394
To love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance."
-Oscar Wilde