Nietzsche, Voltaire, Camus and Sartre tend to be called philosophers most of the time but sometimes are called authors.
What about the opposite. Who are the authors that rarely get called philosophers but actually are in some sense?
What would you say their unrecognised contribution to philosophy is? (If you can't say then they probably aren't relevant)
Other urls found in this thread:
hyperboreans.com
twitter.com
Because they literally wrote novels?
Easy answer.
Fucking Dosto
L E O P A R D I
not necessarily novels
could be poetry, or even scientific works like Darwin or Einstein
Yes but what is he adding to philosophy? He's linked to existentialism but what did he actually contribute?
Inb4 Rand
Dante.
>What would you say their unrecognised contribution to philosophy is? (If you can't say then they probably aren't relevant)
It's easy to throw names about. But are they actually relevant or are they just regurgitating philosophical ideas without adding anything?
I mean outright inspired the existentialists. Camus wrote a play version of Demons.
My real answer would probably have to do with the fact that existentialism doesn't try to deny one aspect of life over in other in some respects, which was a huge theme in Crime and Punishment. Or how we are bound to make ourselves suffer in Notes from Underground.
Dante is recognised as a philosopher all over the world, other than a poet. He was the rounded Renaissance man, like Michelangelo and Leonardo.
Bertolt Brecht
Shakespeare.
What is Nausea if not a novel?
Ayn Rand most certainly.
I would agree with this because he writes a lot of nihilistic things
Wagner.
>unrecognized.
Not really UNRECOGNIZED impact but he had a huge impact on Neetze
>are they just regurgitating philosophical ideas without adding anything?
Consider this: whithout Leopardi, we wouldn't know about anyone called Schopenhauer nowadays. His pessimism was almost completely adapted from Leopardi's philosophical writings.
debord, artaud, brecht
this thread confirms yet again that people here are just edgy idiots
nobody can back up their claims and they just list names they have heard
lit used to be good
>making a claim without backing it up while complaining about people making a claim without backing it up
>edgy
I don't think you know what that means. Nothing ITT is edgy.
I literally cannot be assed to write a paragraph as to why Shakespeare is considered a philosopher.
If you don't know, you haven't read him, and in that case that's what you should be doing.
>nobody
Fuck you bitch, I explained my suggestion about Leopardi.
read Netze and red Wagner and notice similarities.
i'm not good at writing essays, or I would be in university instead of autodidact failure.
Same thing said, but in regards to Dante.
Brecht and Weill both helped spread Socialist thought and theorized on it but both are more well known for their compositions and fictional works than on their Marxist theories.
Most fiction implies some sort of philosophy. From Homer to Lovecraft.
That's not what OP asked.
yeah I know, but it's the answer he needed.
kys
/thread
Yukio Mishima
His writing really captures the psychology of masculinity- It's aesthetics, it's neuroses and obsessions.
In Veeky Forums terms, he is simultaneously r9k, Veeky Forums, and /pol/
Leopardi's pessimistic writings were worse than Schopenhauer's. He could only be accused of adapting parts of Leopardi, because Schopenhauer was going to write WWR anyway. It's not like the relationship between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, where Nietzsche is merely a precise variation of Schopenhauer, while Schopenhauer still stands taller above Nietzsche in terms of profundity of thought, Nietzsche tending to be more simple minded.
You're still included with them because you clearly have read neither Leopardi or Schopenhauer.
Orwell.
he would be most recognizable, if he wrote with minimum rhetoric, poetry or plot.
thomas bernhard would qualify with his style, but he has barely any substance outside of complaining about austria or remembering his shitty life.
Montaigne is the perfect example.
pascal already treated him like a philosophical opponent, frequently mentioned in pensees.
Worse in what sense?
Leopardi's grip on the italian language was as good as it gets (he's up there with Petrarch, Dante and Tasso) and his arguments were more often than not way deeper than what Schopenhauer ended up writing.
Apart from his pessimis, Leopardi is also the first major existentialist.
That said, it's hard to limit Leopardi to a single school of thought: his main philosophical work (if you don't count poetry and articles) is his Zibaldone, which was written over a span of 2 decades and contained all of his philosophical reflections and realizations.
The more you read it and the more you understand that most XX century philosophy and literature is just a footnote under what he wrote in his 20s, with upmost clarity and brilliance.
/thread
You're wrong, man.
>Schopenhauer wrote that Leopardi presented the “mockery and wretchedness of this existence.. but with such a variety of forms and expressions, with such a richness of images, that he never induces displeasure, but instead stimulates and engages us.” The World as Will and Representation, Vol II, 46
Read this before replying:
hyperboreans.com
came to post this
i've never heard montaigne referred to as anything but a philosopher
>using yourself as a measure
Check Clement Rosset m8.
>lit used to be good
i wouldnt say i was using myself as a measure, more like using every person ive ever heard talk about mongtaine as a measure
Mongtaine
Stephen King