Who are the best /obscure/ philosophers?

...

No, because Rick is just what Dan Harmon wishes he could be, but Dan Harmon couldn't understand Stirner if he tried, so Rick couldn't either.

Stirner liked pickles as much as any other good salty German.

Kierkegaard is my all-time favorite, but he's been discussed with increasing frequency on Veeky Forums for the past few weeks. dunno why, but i welcome it.

some modern people i like are GEM Anscombe, Phillippa Foot (aka the trolley problem bitch), and ya boy Plantinga. Plantinga in particular is a slippery little devil, i love how he infurtiates people like Mackie and others.

Stanley Cavell

Stanley Rosen, Hans Blumenberg, Richard Bernstein, Kojin Karatani.

>No Proclus
Why not?

Maimon raised points against Kant that none of the german idaelists following him were able to. Even Fichte who was Maimon's biggest fan didn't fully understand and appreciare the depths of Maimon's observations on transcendental philosophy

Bolzano

>Maimon
Sounds Jewish
Care to inform us what his points were before /pol/ derails the thread?

Cavell is very interesting. I am taking a course on Emerson and we're reading a lot of his stuff. His book on Thoreau's Walden was fucking INCREDIBLE and I'd recommend it to anyone.

Normally, honestly, I don't like the sort of "liberal-ethical" (don't have a better term for it) philosophers who use Heidegger or Wittgenstein or etc. to do ethical things. I usually like philosophical anthropology that upturns life as we know it, or condemns present life as wrongly lived. But Cavell I really enjoyed almost in spite of myself.

I've been planning to take a year to dive into early Kant reception and try to read it with fresh eyes by bracketing subsequent scholarly consensus etc. Partly inspired by a very confusing night spent trying to understand Maimon, googling secondary sources on him, and palpably feeling my mind trying to "plug him into" shit I already know in order to reduce him to something tidily intelligible in !!!THE KANTIAN TRADITION!!!

The fact that I failed completely makes me really want to read Maimon from a perspective of (just learned about this recently) "agnotology" - read Maimon as if it's 1800 and I have no idea what the future of the Kantian philosophy will be, and Hegel hasn't come around yet, and everything is still fluid and open. No presentism, no attempting to plug him into "oh he's just a precursor to this insight in Fichte/Hegel" or "oh he's doing Response Type #2-B to Kant, as typologized by such-and-such." Do pure reading.

Am I the only one who here who like Rick and Morty?

To answer your question, David Lewis. On the Plurality of Worlds is well known among academics, but I don't think it's popular among casual readers of philosophy. It's a phenomenal book.

thanks for the diary entry
no one cares

Hermes is quite popular though. You just don't know astrology thots.

But if Rick is what Harmon wishes he could be, then wouldn't Rick be the type of person that could understand Stirner?

To be fair, you have to have a high IQ to understand what I mean.

The Kyoto School, which is like Japanese phenomenology.

Adolf Grunbaum and Wesley Salmon

/thread

As someone who actually got through the show, I don't think thats an accurate characterization of Harmon. By the end of the latest season its clear that Rick is actually Harmon's critique of "chemicals and shit" nihilism.

This.

People who see this show as some kind of self insert or power fantasy are blatantly mouthbreathers missing the point.
Rick and Morty is the new Fight Club

what someone intrinsically wants forever escapes the subject meaning what rick is cannot be attributed to Dans desires leaving the answer to does Rick understand Stirner in limbo until directly addressed

To be frank, one must possess a strikingly inflated intelligence quotient to understand why this is

RAW

Is Korzybski a philosopher?

This thread would be more useful with a short summary on the philosopher posted. I've seen stuff like this before and have to search philosopher by philosopher. No big deal but it could save some time with a short summary.

José Ingenieros is pretty good if you're still on your normalfag hating phase

you do know that you don't have to disagree with everybody you are replying to just for the sake of having the last word?

I wasnt disagreeing though, I was building on the premise created, using the meme against the anti-R&M rhetoric while also correcting why was wrong

>tl;dr: just jokez my guy

you keep doing it

.. I feel worthless without having the last word

any philosophers/psychanaly. on this

There's been a turn from atheism to Christianity on chan in general, and Kierkegaard is sort of the anti-Nietzsche.

baudrillard

Clement rosset

not a philosopher really, but orgone theory is based af

Is Peter Sloterdijk obscure?

Malcolm gladwell

>obscure
>philosopher
hmmm...

Plotinus is solid canon and doesn't get the respect he deserves.

Unrated kek, but presentation could have been better.

^

Francis Bacon

You’re giving him too much credit, user.

Best obscure philosopher: what a fucking concept. Ya, E.M. Cioran makes us feel pretty fuckin special. He's great, don't get me wrong, but what if we were to unite around a philosophy? The philosophy we would choose is that we could object to less than we could object to all other philosophies. Which philosophy is that? We all know which philosophy that would be right? And isn't that significant? Just recognize it. All I'm asking

...

Jung

You need to have an actually shred of valid self respect before you can stop trying to jam your false sense of self down other people's throats.

It's clear that Rick doesn't believe in the sophistry that he's actually peddling.

That is correct

I was gonna post this.

Stop posting her on here, /Weil/fag. I don't want 4chab pseuds memeing her because you want your interests validated.

This man right here.

Korzybski is fantastic and no one knows about him. I would recommend, if you want to get into Korzybski, looking at Hayagawa first, which is known as like a trimmed-down Korzybski with less cultlike aspects. For anyone interested in new-agey stuff, Korzybski smacks of mini-cult right away, and a quick google confirms it.

But that being said, he has a lot of interesting insights.

Other recommendations: Gregory Bateson, cybernetics.

Owen Barfield, anthroposophy-influenced and extremely subtle on poetics and phenomenology.

I'm sure everyone on Veeky Forums knows Collingwood already, but his philosophy of nature is unappreciated and relevant these days. His autobiography is short and easy and full of bon mots, like the famous hermeneutic description of the painting which is never finished.

Ortega y Gasset is also reasonably well known but underappreciated.

Sloterdijk is obnoxiously prolific when you are just trying to get into him. He keeps releasing stuff.

Wubbazubbazubbub

I think they are referring to Moses Mendelssohn who was a contemporary of Kant and have mistakenly called them Maimonides who was also a Jewish Philosopher. But they may not have

Lol I appreciate your concern.

I'll stop ... for now ;)

Anyone else here just horde their knowledge of obscure philosophers and don't bother sharing it with Veeky Forums?

>tfw massive list of philosophers with their works that already includes most philosophers named in this thread

Michel Clouscard, Jean Claude Michéa, Dany Robert Dufour, Paul Ricoeur and the Tiqqun group.

harmon is too dumb to criticize anything

Zapffe

I think he criticizes a lot of things, it is just that he thinks obfuscation = good storytelling so it is unclear what the point or even subject of his criticism is most of the time.

I liked it too user

>Korzybski smacks of mini-cult
i tried to get my wife a book of general semantics (because i thought it was related to semiotics or ... something) but didn't read it until after i purchased it. i bought the ravings of a lunatic.

LOOOOOOOOOL

They're talking about maiming. Who was also a contemporary of Kant and Moses Mendelssohn

Gian-Carlo Rota

>maiming

...

Archetypes are horseshit. These golden ideals the archetypes supposedly represent are abstractions, not concrete- we never know what it is we truly value in our heroes. Thus we aim somewhat misguidedly towards something we dont really understand

Is my hero

Parmenides
Iamblichus
de Maistre
perhaps Boethius although he was very well known during the Middle Ages

Post-WWII Ernst Jüngerism

Who

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Hamann

Es oscuro en el sentido en que casi nadie lo lee. Pero es un muy buen autor, muchos de sus temas siguen siendo analizados actualmente.

Is the book on Thoreau called "The Senses of Walden"? I'd like to read it.

> it's a fucking lifestyle
No, I'm pretty sure it's a foreveralone lifestyle.

What's some essential Trismegistus-core? I want to learn more about him without looking like an astrology thot.

>they can't into Jacob Böhme

>Parmenides
>literally one of the big guys of the pre-socratics
>"obscure"
Xenophanes is far more obscure, and far more underrated too since he came to conclusions that lads like Kant came too only a couple of millennia after.

/thread

the method you describe is called "reading normally".

As for secondary I enjoyed Samuel Atlas's book on Maimon. Also you aren't going to understand Maimon without a *solid* understanding of the schematism chapters in the CoPR and also the deduction. gl

The Corpus Hermeticum would be a good start, Just avoid the modern new age stuff if you don't what to be astrology thot.