What's your favorites books?
- Thread starter Etzel Andergast
- Start date
That sounds nice. I should personally read in Turkish but I don't know the turkish authors good enough to know what I would like.
It's basically a nietzschean way of seeing things. He pulls out his uNivErSaLL concepts outta nowhere. "trust me bro, I felt it it's good and this is wrong, this is how ethics work, because I FELT it"
I also really lost it with stuff like "you must not lie at any circumstances" and various other kind of examples of his.
It's a philosophy for saints who seek a world that doesn't exist.
It's basically a nietzschean way of seeing things. He pulls out his uNivErSaLL concepts outta nowhere. "trust me bro, I felt it it's good and this is wrong, this is how ethics work, because I FELT it"
I also really lost it with stuff like "you must not lie at any circumstances" and various other kind of examples of his.
It's a philosophy for saints who seek a world that doesn't exist.
My favorites philosophers until this moment:
1) Charles S. Peirce = pragmaticism (not pragmatism), semiotics, evolutionary realism, criticism to nominalism
2) Kant = to explain I like him would be long
3) Wittgenstein = "use" theory of meaning
4) Wilfrid Sellars = criticism to the myth of given, process nominalism, scientific vs manifest image of man (metaphilosophy)
5) Jurgen Habermas = communicative action, discourse ethics and views about public sphere
6) Karl Otto Apel = transcendental semiotic pragmatism, discourse ethics and performative contradiction
7) Robert Brandom = inferentialism, expressivism, normative pragmatics, modal kant-sellars thesis
8) John McDowell = his epistemological externalism and naturalism of second nature
1) Charles S. Peirce = pragmaticism (not pragmatism), semiotics, evolutionary realism, criticism to nominalism
2) Kant = to explain I like him would be long
3) Wittgenstein = "use" theory of meaning
4) Wilfrid Sellars = criticism to the myth of given, process nominalism, scientific vs manifest image of man (metaphilosophy)
5) Jurgen Habermas = communicative action, discourse ethics and views about public sphere
6) Karl Otto Apel = transcendental semiotic pragmatism, discourse ethics and performative contradiction
7) Robert Brandom = inferentialism, expressivism, normative pragmatics, modal kant-sellars thesis
8) John McDowell = his epistemological externalism and naturalism of second nature
Kant is what i call White Rich Man's philosophy. Compared to Greek philosophers 2000 years before him he doesn't say anything new, he basically repeats what they said it just more fancier way to be smart.
His philosophy makes little sense in practical sense IMO, philosophy should have tangible benefits for the person.
I personally love Absurdism and Albert Camus is my G
His philosophy makes little sense in practical sense IMO, philosophy should have tangible benefits for the person.
I personally love Absurdism and Albert Camus is my G
Well, any concepts are universal by its nature, by the simply reason that concepts are rules that works like a set of particular perceptions. Any particular perception is under a rule and the rule is universal because allow particulars be under the rule or outside the rule. This is the universalism of concepts...
About Kant pulls the concepts of nowhere:
Kant give two deductions of the pure concepts, one is metaphysical and other transcendental. Its not from nowhere. I never heard about any philosopher that made an enterprise like that to give a foundation to concepts. And this was Kant main criticism about Aristotle categories: it lacks of a foundation
"I felt it"
Nothing in Kant philosophy, as in almost any serious philosopher, "I felt it" is a justification for something.
[automerge]1708713173[/automerge]
I dont think you would enjoy philosophy at all since it work with a high level of abstraction
About Kant pulls the concepts of nowhere:
Kant give two deductions of the pure concepts, one is metaphysical and other transcendental. Its not from nowhere. I never heard about any philosopher that made an enterprise like that to give a foundation to concepts. And this was Kant main criticism about Aristotle categories: it lacks of a foundation
"I felt it"
Nothing in Kant philosophy, as in almost any serious philosopher, "I felt it" is a justification for something.
[automerge]1708713173[/automerge]
I dont think you would enjoy philosophy at all since it work with a high level of abstraction
Abstraction is fine, but philosophy is science of soul and mind, and every science is only good as its tangible effects on a person.
It is for a reason why Kant - Aristotle line is drawn so often, they basically have same philosophy wheres Kant goes a bit too hard to explain certain things. For all its worth world isn't a complex entity and you don't need Kant level explanation to understand it. Both philosophies revolve around same things - you are either in the circle or outside of it.
Kant for all its praise in terms of what I said IMO deserves way more praise for his concept of Unmündigkeit
It is for a reason why Kant - Aristotle line is drawn so often, they basically have same philosophy wheres Kant goes a bit too hard to explain certain things. For all its worth world isn't a complex entity and you don't need Kant level explanation to understand it. Both philosophies revolve around same things - you are either in the circle or outside of it.
Kant for all its praise in terms of what I said IMO deserves way more praise for his concept of Unmündigkeit
I have two big disagreements:
First, I think the world is a complex entity and complex philosophies can give better explanations about it than simple ones.
Second, because of Peirce influence, the idea of "tangible effects on a person" is incomplete. I think you take this idea from some pragmatists like William James, am I right?
In Peirce version of pragmatic maxim, it's not only the result or the effects that matter, but all the set of possibilities that can effects a person or something. So the conception about an object is not the consequences of what happened, but the set of all possible consequences that could happen. This is a different way of pragmatism
[automerge]1708714708[/automerge]
@Kumathegoat maybe you will find interesting
First, I think the world is a complex entity and complex philosophies can give better explanations about it than simple ones.
Second, because of Peirce influence, the idea of "tangible effects on a person" is incomplete. I think you take this idea from some pragmatists like William James, am I right?
In Peirce version of pragmatic maxim, it's not only the result or the effects that matter, but all the set of possibilities that can effects a person or something. So the conception about an object is not the consequences of what happened, but the set of all possible consequences that could happen. This is a different way of pragmatism
[automerge]1708714708[/automerge]
@Kumathegoat maybe you will find interesting
I would disagree, world is as simple as it can be, follows golden rule of all creation - Every action has an opposite and equal reaction. It is universal concept of the world and it is its simples and purest form.
If you understand that rule you understand the whole concept of the universe
Not at all, it based on our human nature. We humans give value to anything the more use we have of it. Science is no different in that matter. The more use human/humanity has of it the more value it holds.
Non of the possible paths matter. The only path that matters is the one we pick. Otherwise you can loop around and go "What if..." until the day you die. Once you pick a path all other paths die.
If you understand that rule you understand the whole concept of the universe
Not at all, it based on our human nature. We humans give value to anything the more use we have of it. Science is no different in that matter. The more use human/humanity has of it the more value it holds.
Non of the possible paths matter. The only path that matters is the one we pick. Otherwise you can loop around and go "What if..." until the day you die. Once you pick a path all other paths die.
What matters in this pov is that it's not necessary to wait for every single possibility, but recognize that the set of possibilities count in the understanding of something and not only the effect that happened. Agree with this thesis is agree with an interesting modal realism, that is more fundamental than human choice, empiricism about effects and psychologism
Too many contemporary because I still didnt read ancient, medieval and some of modern philosophers. The kind of philosophy I most read is analytical philosophy, I didnt read much continental philosophy yet. But the topic of these philosophers is not much about logic. Most of my favorites has pragmatism in common
Last edited:
Yeah I meant analytical. I had forgot the right word so I said logician instead.
Well I guess you’re American then. I heard you guys only do analytical in universities.
I’ll try to post my favorites too :
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Balthasar Gracian
Rousseau
Kierkegaard
Other nice philosophers out there like La Rochefoucauld, Erasmus, LaBoétie, Plato, Diogenes the Dog and sooooooo on. Basically everyone is good except Kant 🤡
Well I guess you’re American then. I heard you guys only do analytical in universities.
I’ll try to post my favorites too :
Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Balthasar Gracian
Rousseau
Kierkegaard
Other nice philosophers out there like La Rochefoucauld, Erasmus, LaBoétie, Plato, Diogenes the Dog and sooooooo on. Basically everyone is good except Kant 🤡
I'm Italian. Habermas and Apel are not analytical. Habermas is from Frankfurt school and Apel was influenced by continentals, analyticals and pragmatists.
But do you know that Schoppenhauer is very influenced by Kant, right? And not to forget that Kant take the concept of freedom from Rousseau.
Kant is the synthesis and the peak of enlightenment
[automerge]1708731918[/automerge]
Kant is also the found father of german idealism, pragmatism and even phenomenology (in some way) 
But do you know that Schoppenhauer is very influenced by Kant, right? And not to forget that Kant take the concept of freedom from Rousseau.
Kant is the synthesis and the peak of enlightenment
[automerge]1708731918[/automerge]
I'm Italian. Habermas and Apel are not analytical. Habermas is from Frankfurt school and Apel was influenced by continentals, analyticals and pragmatists.
But do you know that Schoppenhauer is very influenced by Kant, right? And not to forget that Kant take the concept of freedom from Rousseau.
Kant is the synthesis and the peak of enlightenment
But do you know that Schoppenhauer is very influenced by Kant, right? And not to forget that Kant take the concept of freedom from Rousseau.
Kant is the synthesis and the peak of enlightenment
Last edited:
I'm Italian. Habermas and Apel are not analytical. Habermas is from Frankfurt school and Apel was influenced by continentals, analyticals and pragmatists.
But do you know that Schoppenhauer is very influenced by Kant, right? And not to forget that Kant take the concept of freedom from Rousseau.
Kant is the synthesis and the peak of enlightenment
[automerge]1708731918[/automerge]
Kant is also the found father of german idealism, pragmatism and even phenomenology (in some way)
But do you know that Schoppenhauer is very influenced by Kant, right? And not to forget that Kant take the concept of freedom from Rousseau.
Kant is the synthesis and the peak of enlightenment
[automerge]1708731918[/automerge]
Kant is also the found father of german idealism, pragmatism and even phenomenology (in some way)
About Rousseau I'm a bit less aware. I like lots of stuff in Rousseau, but I don't really much believe in free-will. I think the leverage is very thin toward "freedom".
Kant can't really be the peak of enlightenment because he didn't influence the Revolution haha. Guess who did it ? Yeah you guessed right, it's Jean-Jacques aka Rousseau.
to be the peak is not necessary to influence the revolution. Kant is simply the synthesis of rationalism, empiricism and contractualism. And he was the greatest influence of western thought in the period. If we consider only who influenced political movements, we have to consider Locke, Marx and Giovanni Gentili as the 3 greatest modern/contemporary thinkers since they influenced the liberalism, socialism and fascism respectively.
Last edited:
- Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Silmarillion (anything Tolkien related)
- the little Prince
- Alice in Wonderland
- Melt the Ice in your heart written by the Greenlandic Shaman Angaangaq (I just translated the German name of the book. I don’t know if there’s an English version)
[automerge]1708735224[/automerge]
Nazim Hikmet is a famous Turkish author
Maybe you should read his books
- the little Prince
- Alice in Wonderland
- Melt the Ice in your heart written by the Greenlandic Shaman Angaangaq (I just translated the German name of the book. I don’t know if there’s an English version)
[automerge]1708735224[/automerge]
Nazim Hikmet is a famous Turkish author
Maybe you should read his books
Last edited: