Who are some thinkers that nobody reads but everyone has opinions about? Pic very related

Who are some thinkers that nobody reads but everyone has opinions about? Pic very related.

Attached: frued.jpg (1200x1632, 234K)

1. Marx
2. Nietzsche
3. Hitler

is freud any good? should I read any work by him?

Plato

me

this af


uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

To be fair, Hitler is the only one out of the three who directly put his ideas into practice. You don't necessarily need to read about them to form an opinion.

I can't even name this dudes books. Civilization and it's discontents is all I know.

Nietzsche
Jung
Heidegger
Capitalism.
Aristotle
Machiavelli
Voltaire
Hannah Arendt

No one really reads. Had you ever read a book you'd know this.

this list reads like a fucking highschool English class.

>Voltaire
dont think that people actually know he wrote, apart from candide..

Nobody on Veeky Forums actually reads anything

Pretty much. Reading Marx blew my mind, insofar as I realized the only person who read it and understood its meaning where extreme marxists à la Land, Ellul, Camatte... And others thinkers more spiritually oriented. People capitalize knowledge in our society as a social status commodity, but nature never intended the majority to think. I do believe that only an extremely limited amount of people are capable of philosophy,. Philosophy is art afterall, capturing the essence of our time. It is like poetry in many ways. You cannot force meaning or praxis, it does so organically.

Adam Smith.

Schopenhauer

Rec me some good books by this Capitalism guy.

He started off alright but got a lot worse towards the end of his career with works like "Instant Gratification & The Ensuing Depression", "Sacrificing Passion for Material Wealth" and "Competition is More Important Than Compassion". The stuff he wrote in youth was alright though. I'm a pretty big fan of "Get Off Your Ass, Get A Job, Invest Your Money"

>guys i found it! everything boils downs to dicks and shit!!!
>awesome job! lets dig into all the evidence of yours and really understand this new discovery!
>evidence?

he was so bad he literally caused a decades long backlash against pseudoscience that was so strong it probably even ended up doing even more harm to the field

Attached: 1518644210666.jpg (1692x1252, 109K)

yes

except that most people never even listened to a single Hitler speech but instead just get all their opinions from (((hollywood))),

>Hitler is Darth Vader very bad, he wants to take over the world and kill all non blondes, don't forget about the 6 gorillion

the only people who have an opinion on Machiavelli have at least read the Prince

Richard Capitalism

>Good Times Never End (1929)
>Escrow and Raven (1930)
>The Rapes of Graphs (1936)
>I Killed the President and You Can Too (1965)
>Time and Fucking Over the Other (1970)
>Bank On It (1996)

Jesus Christ

Yes, read Civilization and Its Discontents

Basically for this reason I’ve come to the position that if some name is taken extremely seriously by smart people for a long period of time there is probably *something* there.

That isn’t to say they are correct about anything, but I’ll at least believe they are worth the effort to try to look at for myself.

Like Foucault, I’m not inclined to like what I’ve heard, but damn, considering he died in the 80s and is still a massive spectre, I’ve gotta believe there is something there. Same with Lacan.


I was definitely somebody who reflexively said Freud was a crank everytime he was mentioned, but then I bothered to read him, and after heading The Short Outline of Psychoanalysis, and On The Interpretation of Dreams, while I can’t say I buy the whole thing, it’s obvious he’s not just a crank.

Marx is another that I had a very wrong idea about until I read first hand.

Trotsky also I had a very bad opinion about, and I still think he’s wrong, but he’s not obviously, comically, bizarrely wrong like some people try to suggest.

Heidegger is somebody who feels like bullshit when you are first trying but slowly it dawns on you.


With Hitler his writings aren’t really that important for understanding him. The NSDAP was officially a ‘leadership party’ meaning that the dictates of the leader were more important than any set of principles or doctrine so it’s not super useful for getting the picture with him.


I’ll admit though that the one person I’ve been unimpressed with is Jung, and especially with Jungs followers. I listened to a couple espisodes of a Jungian podcast with people who are supposed to be foremost Jungian scholars and it was so obviously magical nonsense.

>The Rapes of Graphs (1936)

Smirked.

yes

Tier 1 (Most normies even have opinions, exclusively things they’ve heard)
Adam Smith
Freud
Jung
Nietzsche
Marx
Darwin


T2;
Sartre
Hegel
Derrida
Foucault
The Frankfurt School (mainly Marcuse, Adorno, and Horkheimer)
Zizek
Keynes
Piketty


T3;
Gramsci
Lacan
Althusser
Judith Butler
Deleuze
Wittgenstein
Rawls
Nozick

T4;
Badiou
Bergson
Schelling
Quine