Has there ever been a bigger hack than this man?

Go read "On Denoting." While he was wrong about everything, he was not a hack.

>he didn't want his philosophy proliferated *that* much
I can't remember much specific to this, but I remember taking it as his philosophy *couldn't* be proliferated that much. Most people can't accept his thinking and misinterpret or ignore him.

Well at least he wasn't a faggot like Hegel, who claimed only one person understood him; and he "got it wrong."

Strangely, I can't remember any mention of Hegel in what I've read of Nietzsche so far. Plenty of reference to Schopenhauer/Plato/etc, however.

Did he not know Hegel existed, or just not care?

All I can remember off the top of my head is a lot of people badgered him to read Kierkegaard and he never got round to it. I would imagine if there'd been a Nietzsche/Kierkegaard crossover we'd have had Nietzsche kicking some Hegel ass

He only read Greeks and Schopenhauer.

Deleuze had some theory that Nietzsche was very familiar with Hegel's work, however. No real proof though.

Maybe the lesson from Nietzsche is quality > quantity.

Read less, and read well.

>He only read Greeks and Schopenhauer.
And the Bible. He read quite widely as well, he went through quite a lot of scientific papers too.

I find it impossible to believe the man who wrote The Birth of Tragedy and Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (his best book incidentally) did not read Hegel. They are both stuck in an invisible but gauzy web of Hegelian Dialectic.

In either The Case of Wagner, or Nietzsche Contra Wagner ( I can't recall which) he mentions Hegel.

I think Hegel is mentioned in both. But mostly his influence, so in The Case Of Wagner he talks about Hegel's influence on the Hegelians, he also mocks Wagner's devotion to Hegel in Nietzsche Contra Wagner (Wagner used to mock Nietzsche being interested in Schopenhauer ' s philosophy btw and thought it was silly or something).

There's also the Master/Slave link between Hegel and Nietzsche amongst other bits.

is he not a good intro to the greeks though? His History of Western Philosophy book?

>(Wagner used to mock Nietzsche being interested in Schopenhauer ' s philosophy btw and thought it was silly or something).

Are you fucking retarded?

That book is good at signposting certain groups of thinkers or periods or w/e. Basically if you could get a list of everyone he mentions and look them up independently of the book you're not wasting your time.

For knowing shit you don't? you do that shit irl?

Don't you postmodernist dummies know that this man and Wittgenstein refuted everything said by Nietzsche and the rest of edgy continentals back in the 1920's using logic and mathematics and such?
The entire canon of philosophy was a shitfest before them.

On-par with Sam Harris and the like, really.

>being a literal cuck

>All the continentals from Kant onwards were the true hacks that have subverted Western civilization and made it succumb to degeneracy

Oh but do I wish this was true.

Tell me about the degeneracy you dream of.

Ayn rand

Everyone on Veeky Forums knows that Russell is garbage. Didn't understand Aquinas, didn't understand Nietzsche, got BTFO by Wittgenstein who was his own pupil. Russell's problem was that he was pretty smart, but he thought he was smarter than he was. So when he confronted minds greater than his own (Fred, Witty, St. Thomas) he thought he could grasp them when he really couldn't.

He's fucking awful.
Read any other introduction really.

I think it isn't related to his intellect, it's related to his massive ego. His heard was so up his arse the only part of his philosophy which isn't full of shit is mathematics because numbers are immaterial.

Norm MacDonald on Hypocrites: youtube.com/watch?v=a3PpS8ZZouM

>got BTFO by Wittgenstein who was his own pupil
I mean I know people say Wittgenstein was the autistic one, but I'm pretty sure Wittgenstein thought they were friends more than teacher/pupil. While he came to philosophy through meeting Russell he had thought of a lot of what he was to write already, even being able to tell Russell that the Principia is a dead end because he'd already tried to do something similar.

still no idea what hegel's basic philosophical concepts are lmao idk someone help

...

Actual kek

Could you provide 5 solid arguments that prove that Russell didn't understand Nietzsche?

>5 solid arguments
lel

wait a minute while I pull them off buzzfeed's top 5 solid arguments that prove that Russell didn't understand Nietzsche

No, since I don't understand or care for him.
His understanding of Augustine and Aquinas on the other hand....

This thread just got BTFO

Would've been a nice shitpost if only Veeky Forums knew about Whitehead

Did you just tag everyone in the thread? I was saying Russell is NOT a hack.

Anyway, I'm not going to list 5 arguments you autist fuck, but the fact that he blames Nietzsche (an anti-German anti-nationalist) for German nationalism is pretty damned striking. Go read Beyond Good and Evil and then read the quaint dialogue between Nietzsche and the Buddha (i.e., Russell as the Buddha, kek) in paradise in Russell's History and you'll see how facile his reading of Nietzsche is.

>muh processes

Wittgenstein.jpg

I know the historical inaccuracy is intentional but it's still painful.

Does anyone take that seriously nowadays?

Shaviro wrote about the similarities about Deleuze's and Whitehead's ontologies

Yes, but not in analytic phil (an old prof of mine at Harvard thought Whitehead went off his rocker when he stopped doing math and started doing metaphysics). There's an odd turn towards realism in continental phil under the various names of object-oriented philosophy, speculative realism, critical realism, etc., and I believe Whitehead is beloved by philosophers in this niche.

On the analytic side, what most resembles process philosophy is "perdurantism" in the philosophy of time, which just emphasizes objects as occupants of four-dimensional spacetime. Not anything close to as totalizing as Whitehead's process metaphysics, though.

>He was wrong about basically everything,
Not as a mathematician.

Who cares.