Most Difficult Philosopher to Read

[elijahcraig]

Candidates in my opinion: Heidegger (pre-ontico-ontological being of Being type phrasing, at least in translation), Kant and Hegel (not as hard to read in my opinion), and Sartre (a close copy of Heidegger nearly).

Who do you think is the most difficult to read?



I'm attempting to get through Heidegger's "Being and Time" right now, I read "Basic Writings" before that. I also want to look at his four volumes on Nietzsche.

[monkeydust]

Probably Captain anarchy.

[pyrrhassorrow]

Sartre in my opinion. I found it very difficult to get through.

[mEds]

Jean Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness- OMG wow. that shit is hard to read.

[Raisa]

Some times I think people wright shit super hard and dont think of every one who might want to read it. If im the writer I want every one to be able to read my things, or else why the hell write it?!
Sometimes they make it harder then it already is!

[DaCuBaN]

Sometimes the subject is just so damn 'hard' that most people can't understand it. Half the time I don't think the author really understood it.

[elijahcraig]

With Sartre and Heidegger I think it was more a question of how to discuss the "question of Being," which is very hard to put into simple terms.



Concerning the commoner reading philosophical texts: Damn the plain reader! As one writer of experimental Blakean poetry once said.

[mEds]

Did you know Martin Heidegger was the official philosopher of the Nazi party?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

He wasnt the official philosopher, he was a member for about a year. Although he always remained silent, get your facts right.

Kant is by far the most difficult philosopher to read and I cant believe nobody has mentioned him yet.

[kroony]

Kant. It takes about half a minute to get through a single sentence.

[elijahcraig]

Did you know Martin Heidegger was the official philosopher of the Nazi party?

I don’t think he was the official philosopher, most of his thought does not line up with Nazism. He did support Hitler, being a Nationalist, as did Carl Jung, the two leading interpreters of Nietzsche at the time.


Kant is by far the most difficult philosopher to read and I cant believe nobody has mentioned him yet.

I did mention him.

[Essential Insignificance]

The most difficult philosophers that I have found to read, thus far are...Kant and Hegel.

[redstar2000]

What of the odious Leo Strauss?

Disciple of Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, teacher of Allen Bloom and Paul Wolfowitz, upholder of the "absolute rule of the wise" and "the noble lie".

Strauss argued as a matter of principle that philosophers should be as obscure and difficult to read as possible...lest the unwise misuse wisdom for their own benefit and escape from the absolute rule of the wise.

Many of today's "thoughtful" neo-conservatives are disciples of Strauss and are scattered throughout the Bush administration; admirers of Strauss are found on the faculty of most American universities now.

The name of this modern philosopher of despotism is probably completely unknown to 95% of the people in the United States...and yet they are ruled by people who think this deliberately obscurantist turd was "right".

I just read a good piece on Strauss in the current (June 2004) issue of Harper's Magazine -- "Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the philosophy of mass deception" by Earl Shorris, pp. 65-71.

Check it out.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Revolt!]

The american media have been lieing to its public for a century.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I find Nietzsche and Plato are easy to read Redstar, perhaps the easiest of all. For example Nietzsches aphorism and Plato's dialogues etc. say compared to Kant's Analogies of Experience.

[Trissy]

I agree with the Kant, Heideggar, Hegel, and Sartre nominations (although to be fair I find some of Sartre quite easy to read...it's Being and Nothingness that stumps me). Kierkegaard is also very dificult to get through at times, and the mere length of some of Mill's sentances means I tend to have forgotten what he was saying at the start of one by the time I eventually reach the end. Ocassionally the wide range of language employed by Hume stumps me too. I'm just not very good at reading I guess :(

Who do people find easiest to read? I think Schopenhauer's essays are refreshingly easy to read and quite modern. Nietzsche's aphoristic works contain some delighfully easy passages which is why I prefer them to some of his early and late works. Plato is a pleasure to read at times as well (although he too can become tiresome in places).

[kroony]

I agree that Nietzsche is easy to read. Camus is both easy to read and entertaining. But perhaps Russell is the best "philosopher for the beginner" -- it helps that he's a native English speaker, among other things.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Schopenhauer can be both easy and difficult I suppose at times. I think once you get into Nietzsche he becomes quite easy to read especially Thus Spoke Zarathusra, which I am re-reading at the moment.

Spinoza is also a difficult one I forgot to mention because of the whole geometrical method.

[honest intellectual]

Kierkegaard is pretty damn hard.

[elijahcraig]

Disciple of Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, teacher of Allen Bloom and Paul Wolfowitz, upholder of the "absolute rule of the wise" and "the noble lie".

Nietzsche really can't be categorized politically as he is almost always speaking of something non-political, spiritual, psychological, etc. He is, I agree with Geist, quite easy to read. Heidegger was a nationalist, so I don't know if he would agree with Wolfowitz who is an Imperialist in terms of ideology. Plato is too far back to give thought to in terms of politics, as the situation has changed so much.

I've never read Allen Bloom.

And does Wolfowitz actually believe in "rule of the wise," or does he believe in rule of the rich. There certainly is a difference.

[redstar2000]

I've never read Allen Bloom.

Indeed you haven't nor has anyone else...because I misspelled his name. I meant Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind.

Here's an introduction...

http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Bloom.html

Sorry. :P


And does Wolfowitz actually believe in "rule of the wise," or does he believe in rule of the rich. There certainly is a difference.

Not in his eyes.

I suspect that, if pressed, they would argue that the accumulation of great fortunes (while remaining out of prison) is "proof" of "great wisdom" and "fitness to rule".

But it would take quite a few drinks to reach this uncharacteristic level of candor.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[pandora]

Enrique Dussel, on ethics, even his translators complain about the density.
One woman who translated him into a more understandable basis, but still in Spanish said it took her a very long time to read and understand his work, even though she was the one presenting it to others.
He recently gave a speech in Mexico at the university on Globalization and Liberation Theology that went over 10 other themes as well all in pedagogical terms,
fascinating, but you just sit there and let the terms wash over you, understanding little.

Spinoza, really most of the Rationalists, understand Kant perfectly but an entire book to outline each aspect of perception in one example can drive one to drink.

The whole patricarchy in Western Philosophy really needs to remember the Greeks were worshiping the Goddess, and those cults around the Oracle and Athena kept pedagogy balanced with fun, frivolity, and mayhem, without the goddess I believe philosophers became overly dogmatic to formula and function, with none of the juice of life.

They all needed to loosen up and spend a weekend with Pan dancing in the flowers and laughing at themselves. Certainly Descartes.

[themessiah]

clearly the modern atomists

russell is tough, but try reading ayer right after

its literally the EXACT SAME thing but written with a thesaurus. and written from an atheists stand point.

wittgenstein is difficult too.

[Lefty]

Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" took me like a month of intensive reading to read. Good Jesus, that book is dense! Also, every time I've attempted to read Kant, I can only get through like a page before I have to put it down and ponder. Of course, that page takes me like 20 minutes to read, but still...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well with Kant you have the joy in the Critique of him restating the same arguments over and over again which is good.

[elijahcraig]

Not in his eyes.

I suspect that, if pressed, they would argue that the accumulation of great fortunes (while remaining out of prison) is "proof" of "great wisdom" and "fitness to rule".

But it would take quite a few drinks to reach this uncharacteristic level of candor.

Or we could put a bag over his head for 72 hrs and deprive him of food sleep and water, and then maybe he’d get honest. As he seemed to have trouble saying these things were inhumane on the senate hearing.

It was hilarious…”Mr. Wolfowitz, do you consider putting a bag over someone’s head for 72 hours and depriving them of sleep water and food inhumane?” [Wolfowitz mumbles some dodgy reply]—“MR WOLFOWITZ, do you consider PUTTING A BAG OVER SOMEONE”S HEAD FOR 72 HOURS INHUMANE?—answer the question!” (forcefully spoken)…[Wolfowitz’s head sinks to the right and he thinks for about 15 seconds] …”Ye…Yes, I…would consider…that in(mumbled)humane.”….Mumbles

I hate that guy.


[b] The whole patricarchy in Western Philosophy really needs to remember the Greeks were worshiping the Goddess, and those cults around the Oracle and Athena kept pedagogy balanced with fun, frivolity, and mayhem, without the goddess I believe philosophers became overly dogmatic to formula and function, with none of the juice of life.

Psychologists suggest that the extinguishing of the female goddess was caused by a being scared of the mother—materia. It also caused quite a lot of idealism, Christianity. Materialism is the opposite.

[GodIsDead]

I've never read any Kant as of now, but I've heard Critique of Pure Reason was very difficult.

[honest intellectual]

The easiest philosophers to read and to understand are those who aren't called 'philosophers' at all: Oscar Wilde, William Shakespeare, Bruce Lee, Lou Reed, Blind Willie Johnson, Patrick Kavanagh, Jack Kerouac, Andy Warhol, Muhammad Ali etc.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

They arent philosophers though, more observers, perhaps psycholigists in a Nietzschen sense although I am perhaps being a little too enclosed. Warhol is almost certainly a post modernist thinker.

[honest intellectual]

Yeah, I thought I'd just throw that in to be controversial and to see what redstar would say.

Some of them do express original thought that can only be described as philosophy, though, such as the mysticism of Kerouac and Kavanagh, the moralism of Wilde etc. etc
They're certainly more than observers; they come up with new ideas to explain life, the universe and everything.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 11:08 PM
I've never read any Kant as of now, but I've heard Critique of Pure Reason was very difficult.
Basically because it gets into the old argument of what is reality what is perception through painstakingly long chapters each focusing on only one aspect of perception, as I said, harrowing drive you to drink

I don't believe raping the mother in materialism is returning to the goddess at all, quite the opposite, as I said before, i believe this relates to Sir Francis Bacon's regard of nature as a thing to be raped.

[redstar2000]

Yeah, I thought I'd just throw that in to be controversial and to see what redstar would say.

I have no problem with your observation; anyone can be a "philosopher", even an unemployed stone-mason and marketplace pest.

Even me! :lol:

The questions always remains: what did they say and does it make sense?

Those folks who write "dense prose" are, I must say, likely to suffer eventual obscurity...because there are so few who can read them and answer the first of my questions.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Whose dense prose are you referring to?

[themessiah]

although aristotle wasn't difficult, he was so boring it became difficult like two thousand pages in. what the fuck was he even talking about?

[MrGunRights]

Kant is the hardest, hands down.

[Rasta Sapian]

Plato hand down people! hands down!

try the republic on for size, I struggled through every elongated scentence, what is the justice that that anyway?

peace yall

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:43 PM
although aristotle wasn't difficult, he was so boring it became difficult like two thousand pages in. what the fuck was he even talking about?
The man wrote SEVERAL BOOKS on shells and crustaceans. hello, i'm bored
You're all going to hate this, but beyond Being and Nothingness
9th Chapter of Nagajuna's teachings on emptiness, Ocean of Wisdom or Understanding the Mind by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso unreal detail on perceptor and perceived till you go out of your mind, similar to Kant's work on perception only more subtle!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Rasta [email protected] 3 2004, 08:55 AM
Plato hand down people! hands down!

try the republic on for size, I struggled through every elongated scentence, what is the justice that that anyway?

peace yall

rofl, are you kidding!

[themessiah]

to use aristorelian logic

anything that is boring is difficult

aristotle is boring

therefore aristotle is difficult

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:43 AM
Whose dense prose are you referring to?
Every philosopher mentioned in this thread, obviously, and probably most of those that have gone unmentioned as well.

One could be pardoned for having the impression that philosophers write to impress other philosophers rather than to actually inform non-philosophers.

I wonder how many ordinary people have picked up a "famous" philosophical work, started to read it, and given up after 10 or 20 pages. The text is so dense as to be impenetrable.

The Germans have an idiomatic expression about books like these: "They do not permit themselves to be read".

What may happen eventually is that the philosophers (most of them) will be known only for brief summaries of their ideas written in ordinary language and found on the internet.

Those sites will probably not get very many "hits".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Luckily, those who aren't morons don't judge the intellects of great men by the opinions of the common swine's comprehension of difficult subject matter.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:54 PM
Luckily, those who aren't morons don't judge the intellects of great men by the opinions of the common swine's comprehension of difficult subject matter.
Oink! :lol:

Seriously, Elijah, doesn't it strike you as odd (at least) that the great minds of science have written summaries of their ideas that the "common swine" can read and comprehend...or at least get a crude grasp of what the fuss is about.

Even in fields as genuinely difficult as particle physics, molecular biology, quantum mechanics, or cosmology, there are numerous books that try really hard to explain these matters in ordinary prose...often written by the leading theorists in the field.

It's true that anything written prior to the 20th century was perforce written for a small but highly educated minority; most people could either read only with great difficulty or were completely illiterate.

But you would think that 20th century philosophers would have been aware that things had changed...that there was a much larger potential audience for their ideas than ever before. Yet that seemed to have little or no effect on their writing styles.

Do all philosophers think of the rest of us as "common swine"?

And, if so, why should we support them...physically, I mean?

Why shouldn't we hand Herr Dokter Philosopher a broom and tell him to do something useful...sweep the floor!

Would that be "too swinish"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Seriously, Elijah, doesn't it strike you as odd (at least) that the great minds of science have written summaries of their ideas that the "common swine" can read and comprehend...or at least get a crude grasp of what the fuss is about.

The common swine are 95% scientifically illiterate according to the great summarizer Sagan.


Even in fields as genuinely difficult as particle physics, molecular biology, quantum mechanics, or cosmology, there are numerous books that try really hard to explain these matters in ordinary prose...often written by the leading theorists in the field.

Heidegger has one called “Basic Writings”, Foucault “Foucault Reader”—short summaries of their works, two of the most complex who have simplified their works.


Do all philosophers think of the rest of us as "common swine"?

I hope so; you certainly smell of pig.


And, if so, why should we support them...physically, I mean?

It is of no concern to me or them to lobby for “support” from the common pigs.


Why shouldn't we hand Herr Dokter Philosopher a broom and tell him to do something useful...sweep the floor!

He’d probably starve instead.


Also somewhat like a Pol Pot method for intellectuals who you are too lazy or stupid to understand.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You all know as well as I do that all but some philosophers have no respect for the common man, same as there is poets, politicians etc. who do the same thing. Are you telling me some scientists dont have contempt for people they consider idiots.

And Redstar people like Sartre are easy to read but say Chomsky or Heidegger who rely on complex linguistics in their fields of study, how can you simplify unsimple language?

Also science has an accepted terminology, each philosophers either has his own of is involved in a field which does etc. Its all pretty obvious if you read philosophers.

[redstar2000]

Are you telling me some scientists don't have contempt for people they consider idiots?

Indeed they do...and often the people they consider the biggest idiots are other scientists with different ideas. :lol:

But I think it would be unusual to find a scientist take the position of Elijah...who spews contempt from every orifice for anyone who hasn't mastered his philosopher-of-the-month.

It's a very odd position for someone who considers himself -- at least on occasion -- as some kind of "Marxist" or at least a "Leninist-Maoist".

Why should he care what happens to "swine"...at least as long as they don't disturb him?


...but say Chomsky or Heidegger who rely on complex linguistics in their fields of study, how can you simplify unsimple language?

If you're speaking of Chomsky's scientific work, I agree, his research is unreadable unless you are an advanced student of linguistics. That's true in most if not all sciences now; I have read some scientific papers and could only barely follow the gist of what they were saying. I know there are some popularizations of Chomsky's work though I have not read them myself.

Heidegger, on the other hand (and setting his politics aside), strikes me as a windbag. I tried to read him once...with complete failure.

Elijah would assert that the failure was mine...a combination of laziness and stupidity coupled perhaps with a faint porcine aroma.

Naturally, I would disagree. :D


Also science has an accepted terminology; each philosopher either has his own or is involved in a field which does, etc. It's all pretty obvious if you read philosophers.

I agree with you. Common and accepted terminology is a tremendous advantage for science. It's dramatically easier to communicate when people speak the same language.

Not so in philosophy, particularly the habit of constantly inventing specialized terminology that no one else shares.

Consider some of the Nietzsche threads and the difficulty of grasping exactly what he meant by the term translated into English as "superman". Is he a "blond beast" -- "Elijah the Barbarian" -- striding forth to conquer and rule? Or is he a specimen of "true nobility" who seeks only to lift up "the swine" out of the muck and teach them to be truly human and then even better than human?

And mind you, by philosophic standards, Nietzsche is "easy to read". That may be a principal reason for his continued popularity. (Ayn Rand is popular for the same reason.)

"It's all pretty obvious"? Then how is it that we have a thread called "most difficult philosopher to read"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

But I think it would be unusual to find a scientist take the position of Elijah...who spews contempt from every orifice for anyone who hasn't mastered his philosopher-of-the-month.

No, I have “contempt” for dumbasses like you who think intellectuals should “dumb-down” their works for people who are too stupid to read them in the original. As Jolas said, “Damn the common reader.”


It's a very odd position for someone who considers himself -- at least on occasion -- as some kind of "Marxist" or at least a "Leninist-Maoist".

I thought you’d say, being an anti-Leninist, it fits quite well.


Heidegger, on the other hand (and setting his politics aside), strikes me as a windbag. I tried to read him once...with complete failure.

So your failure to comprehend leads to Heidegger being a wind-bad…hmm, or as you put it:


Elijah would assert that the failure was mine...a combination of laziness and stupidity coupled perhaps with a faint porcine aroma.



On Nietzsche being “easy”—he is easy in the sense that he is an “Active” philosopher, and not a somewhat boring one. On the other hand, his concepts are tremendously hard to grasp, and have been mishandled millions of times by nitwits who take him literally.

[guerillablack]

'm not alone! Jesus, Kant is so difficult. I actually decided to read some of his work today maaaann. You just can't read this on your own, you need a professor to guide you.

[ComradeRed]

Hegel is my vote. Kant's a piece of cake, quit *****ing; I read him back in 9th grade.

[Trissy]

Hegel is my vote. Kant's a piece of cake, quit *****ing; I read him back in 9th grade.
Were you taking drugs at the time? Just looking at the pretty pictures? Anybody who claims reading Kant is easy requires their head examining :blink:


In all judgements in which the relation of a subject to the predicate in thought (I take into consideration affirmitive judgements only, the subsequent application to negative judgements being easily made), this relation is possible in two different ways. Either the predicate B belongs to the subject A, as something which is (covertly) contained in this concept A; or B lies outside the concept A, although it does indeed stand in connection with it. In one case I entitle the judgement analytic, in the other synthetic

:mellow:

Yeah....er...Immanuel you really need to chill out a bit...you know...relax...have some fun :huh:

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 12:07 PM

Kant is by far the most difficult philosopher to read and I cant believe nobody has mentioned him yet.
i've read Kant...i've tryed to read Hegal but it didnt happen (not gonna let him beat me though).

[guerillablack]

Who the fuck even heard of Kant in 9th grade? I didn't even know he St Thomas, Descarts, Hume or Anselm existed until i took a course in college. Let me know what highschool you went too.

[encephalon]

I never really thought Kant was terribly difficult, though he wasn't quite reader-friendly, either. Hegel's a bit harder to follow, I think. A lot of the difficult probably does stem, in any case, from translation issues, however.

Kierkegaard is one I've had a lot of trouble getting into.

And, maybe it's just me that has had trouble with it, but I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Foucault yet, as he was indeed a marxist. Some of his stuff is understandable, but pretty damned hard to follow from my POV.

I think it's strange that many people act like reading Marx's Capital is philosohical torture, when compared to other german writers he wrote rather plainly (though that might be due to the understanding between engels and marx, and his ability to rephrase--I've not read any of the pure german form). I find marx easier to understand than most philosophers.. maybe that's a good reason to be a communist. :P

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:50 AM


And, maybe it's just me that has had trouble with it, but I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Foucault yet, as he was indeed a marxist. Some of his stuff is understandable, but pretty damned hard to follow from my POV.
Foucault was not a Marxist, dont ever say that again... i hate Foucault....

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Just what I was about to say, although Foucault was brialliant and I'd like to know why you hate him?

[encephalon]

Well.. according to Foucault, Foucault was a Marxist :P He was also a communist, and a member of the French Communist Party for a few years...