/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>355
Marx - Metaphilosophical materialist critique of philosophy itself. It's a strange name to the method since materialism in this sense has pretty much nothing to do with anything material. Many people don't know that Marx's concept of materialism was a version of the concept of internal relations in which the whole is necessarily implied in the parts. You need a universe to bake an apple pie, and that universe dictates how that pie can be made at all.

Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science In Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The speculative materialist (meta)physics of a nobody named Glenn Borchardt in the book The Scientific World View gave me a really good example of how science is inherently opinionated by the implicit assumptions of theory. Change the assumptions, and interpretation of what is fact changes.

Hegel - Introduction of historicity into philosophy. His analyses and rebuttals to Kant's problems. The elaboration of dialectical logic. Hegel is pretty much the last great classical philosopher, and the failure of his system was the death knell of the belief in the analytic objectivity of reason for many.

Alan Watts - stripping eastern systems of thought to their bare minimum, he does a good job I think at hitting western concepts of self and subjectivity out of the ballpark. The idea that we confuse ourselves with our experiences instead of looking at ourselves as the empty experiencer has interesting monist consequences.

Kierkegaard, Camus, and Wittgenstein, I think.

Epicurus, and Epicureanism.

His beliefs on how to attain happiness are astonishingly simple, and they make so much sense.

Marx. The real red revolution cannot come soon enough.

Plato and Epictetus

Friedrich Nietzsche got me into philosophy, but I ended up leaving him for Martin Heidegger. I'm making it a point to check out Maurice Merleau-Ponty.

Heidegger - Dasein, Inderweltsein etc. (Being and time) - Profound insights into authenticity and relation. (I suppose we have to learn to separate the philosopher from the philosophy).

Descartes - Methodical Doubt, Cogito ergo sum (Meditations). - Absolutely amazing retraction to nothing and an unbelievable attempt to stabilize that doubt to find a truth. (Who hasn't read Descartes and went.... "Dayum!" xD).

Augustine, Kierkegaard, and Aristotle

Aldous Huxley, if he can be counted as a philosopher.

Yes Anon, I do think he can be counted. Philosophy is such a broad school that anyone who offers insight into almost anything can be considered. And Huxley paints a great picture of a dystopian possibility which, for his time, was shockingly accurate. Yeah sure, he's not exactly offering any categorical explanations as such, but his ideas aere valid nonetheless.

Did any of theses philosophers really give you new ideas? Or did they just serve as a posterchild of different ways of thinking?

Aristotle was THE philosopher.

My philosophies all branch off of his

>>355
Machiavelli.

I'm not an edgelord faggot, I genuinely really enjoy reading his shit. Sure, the time period and contrast between him and his contemporaries has something to do with it, but he's still honestly my favorite philosopher. Even if that does just mean I have shit taste.

>>998
The Prince is satire m8

Marcus Aurelius, Niccolò Machiavelli and Sun Wu.

The Stoics probably influenced me the most. The whole school of thought; not just the ethics. I think too much emphasis is placed on the ethics in modern times when there are supplementary contemporary theories which support their physics. As for logic, especially dialectic, it is important to literally everyone.

>>999
Not that anon but... No it's not, it's obviously sometimes written in a sarcastic way but absolutely no modern historian of political philosophy would agree with you on that point. We know for sure that he meant what he wrote. It's Rousseau who started this whole shit about the Prince being a "guide to the people in understanding the way the power works" or whatever.

Nice devilish halfatripledubs tho.

Diogenes, Sartre, and Camus.

>>984
That's a unique combination man. Heidegger is effectively the anti-Descartes. The whole reason Being and Time is so hard to read for many people is specifically because Heidegger employs grammar and terminology which make no distinction between subject and object.

>>1284

Haha I know right? They are very different, but the study of both, nonetheless, really weighed on me (in a good way). Also I might add a third, Thomas Hobbes, the social contract (leviathan) to the mix, which I completely overlooked when I last posted. While not in my own opinion, the strongest of the "contractarian" thinkers (Rousseau, Locke, Rawls etc.), I will say he is the one who affected me the most. I remember on my reading of Leviathan, just being awestruck. And that is, I suppose, what the question is all about.

That said, yes you are completely correct about Being and Time and Heidegger's incredibly convoluted grammar structure. I will say it was one of the more difficult works that I have tackled. Another one, off the top of my head which I found difficult was Habermas' "The Inclusion of the Other". Although truthfully, that was a good while ago at this stage, and it might have just been the case that I was not as "practised" as I am today. >.<

The answer for every man is "my self".

>>410

I remember reading his works when I was 16 and thinking I'd fucking love to live out on a commune with my bros and live the simple life.

8 years have passed and not much has changed (including my severe lack of funds to start such a project).

Discovered Nietzsche pretty young, then got into Stoicism, mainly Marcus Aurelius.

>>355
funny question.

Philosophy as it came to being was like a snowball.
Every new philosopher is inspired by the former, one way or an other.
The writings of Platon has infected politics on a big scale, while Aristotle has shape the people who practice politics the most, the Aristocrates. When Rome conquered the world they used that knowledge to create their own library, which became the christian bible, while in the Muslims created their own spinoff, the quran. After that almost every philosopher wrote about their own view about the christian god not being a reality or tried to protect god from dying. At the end, the neophilosophy a.k.a. imperial science toke over. Still religions try to keep people from practicing philosophy (loving wisdom).
Who started the snowball?
No one knows, but it all started with the people in India, who, because they were able to grow large amounth of food, created for themselfs some thing new, time to relax and therefor room for the mind to think about their experiences in depth and take time to share it. So the awnser god or gods was born and from their the awnsers trandformed to more realistics ones such as nature has its way and they are not so hard to understand once you take time to look for reasons that are based on the only to principles of nature. Push or pull.

Ricardo Semler, maybe not your classical philosopher but certainly a thinker, read one of his business books and it got me into Jung and Nietzsche, interview with him below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaX3NKFYeOI&feature=youtu.be&t=18s