Which philosopher is the most fun to read?

>having favorites

>not liking some things more than other things
>lacking the reflectiveness to discriminate between things he likes until he produces a group of things he could call favorites
>being either a tasteless or thoughtless person
What an existence. What a day!

Plato has been a joy for me. I was introduced to him in a university course with a great professor and many supplementary texts. Outside of that context, you will probably enjoy it less.

His Republic will still blow your mind alone, but you really need to read it with accompanying texts at least.

It's one of those books that's overrated, but even more so underrated.

If a philosopher is 'fun to read' I doubt they're any good

>making something a part of your identity because you want to associate with it to make up for how inadequate you are otherwise
>not just enjoying all things for how they reflect their social, historical, and theoretical contexts
>'enjoying' music on a level lower than intellectual

why do i even come here

Being 'fun to read' and enjoying a philosopher's work are not necessarily the same thing

Otherwise this question is no different than 'what philosophers do you like?'

Plato

this book is pretty fun

what makes you think it is different? he hasn't defined what he thinks is fun

>claims not to incorporate his taste into his identity when he belittles others on the internet over their tastes
>incorporates his resistance into incorporating things into his identity to feel less inadequate into his identity to feel less inadequate
>is so uncomfortable with himself that he must truncate the subjective dimensions of his personality until he only has objective, intellectual motivations and compulsions
>does not realize that in elevating intellectual motivations and denigrating his own personal interest in things he cuts himself off from all things, including the intellectual
>is so unreflective he does not realize why he comes here, even when it is plainly obvious to the person who knows him only through a short reply chain on Veeky Forums

Disavow, not truncate.

>thinks i am the person he initially replied to
>copies my posts out of inadequacy
>doesn't realise the comfort of intellectual approaches because they seem so daunting to him
>making up illogical nonsense because he has no actual criticisms
>can't recognise the use of rhetorical devices

enjoy chilling out to your favourite bands my man

Current 93, Autechre, Throbbing Gristle, Death in June, and Cardiacs. You cannot insult my taste.

>Cardiacs
Actually replace that with the Legendary Pink Dots. I goofed.

things i enjoy more than any of those bands: the sound of my own snoring when i listen to those bands

this
perhaps its because of my math/compsci background but I love the algebraic method of proving stuff

You just insulted your own taste, not mine. How many of those bands have you actually listened to, anyway ?

whoa some undergrad has music all figured out?

Very much

Why did you quote me instead of OP ?

Second meme carrot is embarrassing, fourth demonstrates unfamiliarity with Kierkegaard. Objective thought is, at the level of values and motivations, cut off from actual reality. In deprecating all nonverbal and irrational components of the self, you inevitably deprecate also the components of self that value understanding or comprehensive knowledge, certainly at a regressive level. If you immerse yourself exclusively in rationality, you lose all interest in your own life and in rational thought. Accept that everything is shallow.

Neofolk is mostly boring dogshit.

if your plan was to bore me out of engaging with you then consider it a success

>Neofolk is mostly boring dogshit
I agree with you, but Death in June is the only neofolk band that isn't because it was the only one that existed before neofolk was a thing, with the exception of Sol Invictus. None of the other artists in that list are neofolk, though.

No, my plan was to list artists who actually make interesting music, and it was a success.

None of that makes any sense.

>artists who actually make interesting music

Like a cat finds a piece of string interesting, but it's not because pieces of string are interesting.

I guarantee that you have not listened to any of the artists I listed.

Yeah you're right, I don't want to leave the house just to buy some vinyls and a record player.

But you don't need to do that to listen to music. Do you not have a computer ?

You're a fast one.

David Hume crafted some of the most beautiful passages in the history of thought. Pleasure to read.

Well it's unlikely that you would find any of those artists at a record store except for Throbbing Gristle. Their vinyl releases are all quite rare and Autechre's most recent releases have all been digital exclusives.

Plotinus

Jesus, is that the only thing that makes them interesting?

/mucore

No, what makes them interesting is the music. That's how I know that anyone who says they're boring hasn't actually heard it.

I fucking wish. Literally every time I try to discuss them on /mu/ nobody responds. They're too busy with Death Grips and Kenrick Lamar. There was a period of Autechre generals on there when elseq was released, and that was the only time /mu/ was worth going to. But that only lasted a week or two before dissolving into regular /mu/.

Seconding this.
David Hume is the most perfect philosopher. He is an amazing writer, his arguments are simple and powerful and he's fairly easy to read.

>YES I THOUGHT OUR LIPS WOULD MEET

Why do you pseuds with the exact same mucore taste try so hard to look smart? What philosophers are the most fun? Hearty kek

cool guy here

Schopehnauer. His butthurt parts are hilarious.

I have never met a single person with the same taste in music as myself. I don't know where you got the idea that the artists I listen to are popular on /mu/.

t. I'm totally not a poseur

Long-time /mu/tant here. Those artists ARE popular on /mu/

If you know anyone who likes the same artists as I do, please direct me to that person, because I would very much like to discuss music with them.

I know for a fact that they are not.

> tfw the difficulty becomes the fun

Underrated

Most of Veeky Forums will never give him a chance because Nietzsche and Schoppy shit on him all the time. Not very surprising, considering the latter two were trying to undo the effects of Weinmar Classicism.

David "The Foster" Wallace

GTFO schill

which accompanying texts do you recommend?

Good album. TBLA was a great band.

>Plato
>Hume
>Epictetus
3 off the top of my head fampai. I also unironically enjoy reading Aristotle. Once you get used to his style, it's good to see him lay the intellectual smack down on presocratics.

Currently into post-rock bands like god is an astronaut and such. I like The Middle East too. Is this pleb for lit and mu? Last time i visited mu was 2014. i clicked a link and noise came out. never visited again.

Camus

Yeah, it is bretty good, but you'll mostly be looking at pretty pictures.

kek

Nietzche and Kierkegaard are probably the most entertaining. If Cioran even counts then we could throw him in as well.

We should all be able to agree that Hegel is the least fun writer of any type of literature ever

Agree with you on everything, though sometimes Hegel can be somewhat fun - in his Lessons on the History of Philosophy, mainly.

This might be an uncommon opinion, but at the "advanced" level of philosophy I find Foucault's writing very imaginative and fluid in comparison to his peers.

>Kierkegaard
He's grat when he's mocking people, but when he tries to advance actual philosophical points it's frequently so unclear that you have to reread a paragraph many times.

"A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way, a human being is still not a self"

For example. Nietzche is far more enjoyabell

That's literally him making fun of Hegel.

All I've read by Foucault was On Madness or whatever it's called, History of Madness or something. I enjoyed it as an outline of French social history, but the entire time I was wondering what the fuck his point actually was, or if there even was one.

What would you recommend by him?

This is absolutely true. Foucault is a man of true brilliance. People calling him an obscurantist don't get it.

I know. He continues in that vein, though, which obscures a critical part of The Sickness Unto Death

This
>mfw he uses language to showcase his ideas

Autechre and the Cardiacs definitely are.

You're a summerfag if you think mucore isn't popular. All newfags with identical taste think they're special lmao

You probably also think anco and grimes are obscure

Cioran, especially his aphorisms

I'm about to take an introduction to Derrida in college. What should I expect?

Bullshit, posturing, obscurantism, and above all, pseuds.

Language. Showcasing. Ideas.

In reality it's very likely you plain won't understand him but you'll still have a better idea than most undergrads who """"deconstruct"""" texts.

Yeah his writing can sometimes be like that - the painting allegory/metaphor at the beginning of The Order of Things comes to mind. That being said, I think Madness and Civilizarion is my favorite.

L Ron Hubbard

>I enjoyed it as an outline of French social history
I'd be careful treating it as that. One of the popular criticisms is that he makes lots of historical mistakes, although imo this has little to do with his project.

In history he uses Nietzsche's genealogical methods. And that can happily (and I guess probably should even) involve common misconceptions or folk histories.

There's a book linking his thought and that of Bachelard and Canguilhem that's quite useful for On Madness and similar texts. On Madness is also very much linked with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.

Or, as the French call him, "Neech"

They pronounce Foucault just fine.

Current 93 and Death in June are too.

nice sporkcore taste, retard

A fun philosopher to read.

/mu/core is popular, but I don't listen to /mu/core. I used to listen to some of it back when I went to /mu/ all the time, but then I started listening to Current 93 and related artists and left after many hundreds of failed attempts at finding anyone else on the board who listened to them.

Why ?

I am positive that Current 93 is not and never has been popular on /mu/. Not a single person who goes to that board is a Current 93 fan. /mu/ has very narrow taste and Current 93 isn't included in it. There's one Death in June album that occasionally gets mentioned but nobody there has listened to any of the other ones.

What is sporkcore ?

>*holds up spork* :3 ......LOL

thats u

But I don't own any sporks. And the correct term is runcible spoon.

Aristotle. They guy knew everything

>runcible spoon
hehe just be in random there Mr spork?

Nope, randomness is impossible. There are only processes that appear random.

On Bullshit by Frankfurt is a fun read.
It's only 16 pages, read it now if you haven't, instead of wasting your time on yet another DFW thread; stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf

also
>mfw the professor in my intro to phil of language included it in one of the assignments I could choose this semester
looking forward to that

And Mr Random moves on to Mr Pseud.

>deleuze not mentioned
He is the best.

>And the correct term is runcible spoon.
Damn nigga you must be super smart, thansk for demonstrating your superiority to us.