Philosophy

[Anonymous No.8574868]

Do I have to read the greeks to understand the writings of Nietszhe, Evola, Hegel, Marx, Rand, Mussolini, Schopenhauer etc... More modern philosophers?

[Anonymous No.8574871]

>>8574868

No

Start with Descartes

[Anonymous No.8574878]

>>8574868
>Evola

[Anonymous No.8574879]

>>8574868
Schopenhauer incorporates elements of platonism into his philosophy, but it's pretty basic.
Nietszche was all about the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.8574889]

>>8574878
Why?

[Anonymous No.8575604]

No. The Greeks are fucking useless.

[Anonymous No.8575607]

>>8574889
Because le /pol/ boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.8575610]

>>8574868
Not really, and besides all the philosophers you mentioned beside Hegel and Schopenhauer are gay. You're better off reading phenomenology and analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8575704]

>>8575610
Why? Also give some recs

[Anonymous No.8575737]

>>8574879
>Nietszche was all about the Greeks.

Why?

[Anonymous No.8575745]

>>8575737
coz he thought the pre-socratics supported his position most of any philosopher.

[Anonymous No.8575752]

>>8575704
Why? Mainly because they're pretty niche and not really relevant to contemporary philosophical discourse.

As for recs, um Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Wittgenstein, John Searle, Thomas Kuhn, and Richard Rorty are all pretty good.

Tbh though it sounds like you interests are moreso in political philosophy? If thats tthe case than people like Nietzsche, Evola, Marx, and Rand are certainly worthwhile and will give you a better understanding of the development and basis of the various contemporary political denominations. It just that their work doesn't have as much breadth and isn't really important if you want to read and engage contemporary philosophy. To be honest though the most important figure in mainstream political philosophy (which is perhaps less deep and interesting than people like Evola and Nietzsche) are H.L.A. Hart and John Rawls.

[Anonymous No.8575936]

>>8574878
I'm very sorry that you have shit taste anon

[Anonymous No.8575944]

>>8574868
No

most of the modern philosophers misinterpret the greeks anyway

[Anonymous No.8575963]

>>8575752
I don't agree with Evola on some things, but to say he didn't have depth means you didn't even bother to read him.

[Anonymous No.8575968]

>>8574868
Why would you add Evola, Rand, and Mussolini to that list

They aren't philosophers

[Anonymous No.8575972]

>>8575752
breadth rather

[Anonymous No.8576402]

>>8575968
>a philosopher isn't a philosopher
>a person who wrote plenty on political-philosophy isn't a philosopher
>a person who studied philosophy and created his own political ideology isn't a philosopher

Just because Ayn Rand's ideas are shit and Mussolini didn't write much himself, doesn't mean they aren't philosophers.

[Anonymous No.8576406]

>>8576402
>a philosopher isn't a philosopher

>Rand

Author, not a philosopher.

>Evola
maybe but I'm hesitant to say people who believed in lost continents past the 19th century have very reliable information.

>Mussolini

Not a philosopher at all in any way shape or form.

[Anonymous No.8576415]

>>8574871
this guy is right

[Anonymous No.8576611]

>>8575963
It seems you didn't read what I said. Admittedly my post was littered with typos, but I think it's still clear that writers like Evola and Nietzsche have more "depth" (or breadth, rather) than more rigorous mainstream political philosophers like Hart and Rawl. That being said, while I'm not really into political philosophy, I prefer shit like Rawls, Hart, and Derek Parfitt to more alternative and radical political and moral philosophy a la Marx, Nietzsche, Evola, Rand, etc. Personally though, I prefer philosophy of language and mind, linguistics, and cognitive science (hence the recommendations I listed).

[Anonymous No.8576628]

>>8576611
I just wanted to know why you thought they were gay and all you had to type that it was because of you don't like the genre.

[Anonymous No.8576874]

>>8574868
Yes if you don't want to be a pseud

[Anonymous No.8576910]

>>8576406
Fuck off empiricist

[Anonymous No.8576934]

>>8576628
Well yes, that's true, but that wasn't really what I was getting at with the last post. I was moreso trying to say that I wasn't making the argument that Evola isn't deep. Quite the contrary.

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.8576940]

Don't read western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.8576960]

>>8574868
All those guys studied the Greeks though so it would help to know where they are coming from.

[Anonymous No.8577139]

>>8574868
I suggest you pick a book you like, read it, and then read some of the older books that it references, so you can keep reading stuff you like