/comfy/ philosophy thread

no subversive bullshit allowed. what are your favorite fireside snugglebooks Veeky Forumsbros? pic related was perfect for a snowstorm i rode out recently.

Lady Philosophy is pretty comfy.

Looking for advices friends
I have a 40 euros gift card and planning to buy kant's critique f pure reason and practical reason as well as David Hume's inquiry. I've just finished Spinoza's ethics (which I have found delightful and surprisingly easy enough to understand, though I have read second lit before) and I already tried to read the critique of pure reason but unfortunetaly I didn't have the time to read it entirely and while I mostly get the big picture (thanks to Deleuze's intro) I don't quite get his reasonings and terminology. So I've decided to go back and read all plato and now I'm wondering whether Aristotle is an absolute required read for understanding Kant and later philosophers. I don't have a lot of money left so I was considering buying the metaphysics, would that be enough or are there other essential Aristotle books I need to read to really get Kant & other german idealists? I just don't want to be memed and realize it has no purpose after the scholastics that I haven't read either, though I'll get to it at one point but just not now

>inb4 pic related

Meditations is great, but comfy isn't how I'd describe it

I get the notion of comfyness in fiction, but what makes philiosophy comfy?

I find Rothbard comfy.
His polar opposition is warm and all-consuming like a thick cozy blanket.

I don't think that Aristotle is required reading, but he did heavily inspire Kant (for example, the categories) and Hegel can't stop wagging
his willy over how brilliant Aristotle was - Hegel considers him the greatest philosopher of all time and very heavily takes inspiration from him in nearly
all areas.
If you were to read Aristotle, I think the Metaphysics would probably be the most relevant as it gives the direction in which Aristotle tends to tackle problems.
You might get a real kick out of it if you already read Spinoza. Over time in German Idealism, epistemology (Kant & Fichte to an extent) loses ground to metaphysics
(Schelling & Hegel) and the notion of Spinoza's Substance and Aristotle's Primary Substances become increasingly important.
Also, is using LibGen out of the question for you? It is good to own physical copies, but if it is a manner of money I wouldn't shy away from just getting digital copies.

I can't read on a screen unless it's an ebook but I unfortunately lost my kobo reader. Futhermore english is not my first language, reading the parmenides in english was physically painful so I wager it would be even worst with the metaphysics
Thanks

Can I appreciate this if I'm not religious do you think?

>Plato's Symposium (i cry evertim), Phaedrus, Timaeus, and Laws
>Augustine's Confessions
>Plotinus' Enneads
>Iris Murdoch's Sovereignty of Good + The Fire and the Sun (shame her fiction is repulsive)
>any Kierkegaard, unreservedly
>Josef Pieper
>Spinoza's Ethics
>R.G.H. Siu's "The Portable Dragon: A Western Man's Guide to the I Ching"
Actually, I should talk about this last one, since it's an incredible work of art with a cheesy name. It is simply the I Ching, no interpretation or dissection or anything remotely textbook. For each line of the hexagrams, there's a short translation of the Chinese, followed by quotations from world lit. and philosophy. An incredible labor of love by a brilliant biochemist, the mystery I can imagine Chinese people feel about the Oracle comes across so effortlessly to well-read people. It has what Murdoch calls the combination of "intuited unity and random detail." Shame it's so obscure.

Funny, I think Meditations is comfy, but great isn't how I'd describe it.

Comfort is bad. Lulls you into a false sense of security.

>Timaeus
>Plotinus
>Kierkegaard
>Spinoza
All great works, but comfy? You're either a turboautist or merely pretending

The man might be batshit crazy, but Ragnar Redbeard is a fucking joy to read.

Yeah. Definitely.

I don't think I'm either. I have busted a gut laughing at the Timaeus:
>Dude, everything is triangles! Fire hurts because it's really pointy! The only quality of the receptacle is that it has no qualities! Your head is a sphere because spheres are perfect!
Not that I'm saying it's dumb; in some ways it was strangely prescient (like how it alludes to the rise of drug-resistant bacteria). Can you imagine that, for a time, the only Plato we had was Timaeus? Plato must have seemed so batshit!

>Plotinus and Spinoza
Anything that either speaks to my beliefs or provokes my ignorance (I mean, the things I ignore or don't commonly think about) is comfy to me.

>Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard was hilarious, there's no question. Even from less comic characters like Judge Wilhelm and Johannes Climacus, there are some hugely satirical parts that take the piss out of Hegel, modern women, hypocritical Christians, people who believe in free will, people who don't believe in free will, people who thought they were the reincarnation of Julius Caesar (like myself), etc. Beyond the humor, he was an excellent prose stylist and outstanding psychologist. There's something very comfy in the discovery of things you always believed but never gave thought to. But come on, he was a hunchbacked virginal pariah! It sets itself up for a joke.

Dostoevsky, is so comfy I end up staring at the ceiling all night clutching my shotgun.

and I haven't even read The Double or Notes From the Underground yet. I have to stock up on cigarettes first.

>cigarettes
yucky

Might is right

>Dostoevsky, is so comfy I end up staring at the ceiling all night clutching my shotgun.
Same, except instead of clutching a shotgun im clutching myself and im weeping

I dig his prose and his excitement and his historical references and all that but I can't fully appreciate him because every sentence fills me with tornadic self-hatred.

t. letztermensch living in unending fear of expiration

How's that pyloric valve, user?

define comfy

...

On Certainty - Wittgenstein

why do you cry at the symposium

I enjoy the way he describes marxist Ideas as 'crackpottery'

Nice trips! I disagree with her reading of the Symposium as a "cruel and terrifying book," but Martha Nussbaum's essay on the speech of Alcibiades really highlights the melancholy for me.

>So they go their ways—Socrates, sleepless, to the city for an ordinary day of dialectic, Alcibiades to disorder and to violence. The riot of the body conceals the soul of Alcibiades from our sight. He becomes from now on an anonymous member of the band of drunken revellers; we do not even know when he departs. The ambitions of the soul conceal the body of Socrates from his awareness. Just as drink did not make him drunk, cold did not make him freeze, and the naked body of Alcibiades did not make him erect, so now sleeplessness does not make him stop philosophizing. He goes about his business with all the equanimity of a rational stone. Meanwhile, the comic and tragic poets sleep together, tucked in by the cool hand of philosophy (223d). Those two—philosophy and literature—cannot live together or know each other's truths, that's for sure. Not unless literature gives up its attachment to the contingent and the vulnerable, and makes itself an instrument of Diotima's persuasion. But that would be to leave its own truths behind.

>When Alcibiades finished speaking, they burst out laughing at the frankness of his speech, because it looked as though he was still in
love with Socrates (222c). He stood there, perhaps, with ivy in his hair, crowned with violets.

>the consolations of philosophy
>written in prison by a Christian imprisoned by an Arian king
>not subversive

How can these figures have such love for aristotle but not aquinas ?