Which philosophers have the best prose, stylistically? Hardmode: No Nietzsche, Schopenhauer or Kierkegaard

eternally Schopenhauer

I know that it's almost cheating, but since the Zibaldone is for the most part about existentialism (or at least a precursor to the movement) I'd say Leopardi.

His poetry is magnificent, and so is his prose.

Aristotle even tho he didnt write it

And Kant

t. Nietzsche

>Kant

Kant is a terrible writer, almost to the point of being obscurantist.
t. guy who had to read his logic and his Critiques of Pure and Practical Reason in German

I disagree
Nietzsche does too in his first Untimely
He IS obscure but he still knows how to write. You cant compare him with Schopenhauer tho

Cioran, but he is only barely a philosopher

I'll give you that Nietzsche is more often than note obscure, but you should also admit that that is coherent with his philosophy, while it is not with Kant's (and Hegel's, just to expand a bit this argument and make it more clear) one.

It makes sense for Nietzsche's books to be nebulous, it doesn't when it comes to Kant.

>Marx has a really nice turn of phrase but he can go from borderline prose poetry to foreboding economic autism with the turn of a page.
I wouldn't call anyone who used that Hegelian a good writer.

Also:
Plato
Russell
Hobbes

I wouldn't use the word "nebulous". The aesthetic dimension of Nietzsche's writing style is well founded in his approach of philosophy

>Russell

This. The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is extremely clearly written, yet also somewhat conversational.

Both true.
Not a great writer but there is something poetic about how twisted and cramped his sentences are.

I unironically love robert brandom and even though I dont think I could ever explain to another person what he's saying he seems extraordinarily clear in my head. Also Quine and Putnam deserve a nod for their extreme clarity. And Hobbes has some of the best English ever written

I meant that Nietzsche does disagree too, not that N is obscure too -which he is
I agree with on N's style

I genuinely enjoy reading later Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations gives me the impression of sitting in on an intimate lecture of his.

>Descartes
>Plato
>Rousseau

Bataille
Nancy
Hölderlin
Hegel

according to Gass his lectures were just him thinking out loud and acting as if no one else was in the room (besides the fact that he was speaking out loud) so your assessment is probably accurate.

Baudrillard
Debord
Derrida
Negarestani

What's with this good=clear meme?

source on gass speaking about wittgenstein?

Aristotle

raintaxi.com/online/2013spring/William Gass Interview.pdf

page 11 is what I'm citing but the whole interview is worth a read, but it's really long.

Seneca, but he's definitely a case of style over substance

de Maistre (easily), Voltaire, H. Bergson

Kierkegaard is good, but his prose is dense and leaves a lot to be desired. Nietzsche was the master of beautifully and elegantly put across philosophemes that on close inspection are completely devoid of any actual wisdom. He was the finest of the sophists, and deserve recognition more as a literary and historical theorist than as a philosopher.

>
Much like Foucault, who in almost every respect was more of a provocative and creative historian of ideas than a bread-and-butter philosopher.

On the subject of the Marxian writers, if you enjoy Marx's prose, you should read some Lukacs. He really takes it to the next level, especially in dazzling speculative pieces like Study on the Unity of thought in Lenin. If there is any solid bridge between the early Marxist writers and the academic milieu of the Frankfurt School, critical theorists, and Lacanians, it is Lukacs, and like all liminal writers he has the undeniable charm and lucidity of thought in flow.

As for bad writers, I'll say a word here on Kant. His style of writing is painfully over-wrought and masturbatory. It is literally some of the most autistically terrible prose I have ever had the displeasure of reading - it is an aesthetic trainwreck, the substance behind them aside.

He does get across the point of "kill White people" pretty clearly.

>de Maistre
/thread

I saw this post before the one it was replying to and immediately assumed you were referring to Frantz Fanon lmao Marcuse wasn't that aggressive in racial theory.

Zhuangzi.

Unironically, Koz

mundusmillennialis.com

Lukacs is absolutely based

Pascal and Rousseau. /thread

I like Kant but his writing is just straight up bad. I speak german and while his word choices are generally a bit autistic and overwritten, the real problem is that he almost always uses the most confusing grammatical construction you could possibly use in a sentence. German allows for grammatical abominations that wouldn't even be allowed in english but you can technically get away with them and then you end up with Kants favorite sentences that run on for half a page and break the rules of nice, clear grammar at least five times.

Agreed. I read a 300 page collection of his letters and at the end of it I felt like he only explored 2-3 themes and spent the rest of the time going on autistic rants about the general public, albeit with some fantastic prose

Derrida (yes I'm serious)

This is something I like about him
There's a special magic in reading long, obscure, over-complicated sentences that actually have a meaning. I'm talking about the effect it has on me as a reader, not about efficiency or clarity.