T Nation

Philosophy Books

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Good concepts, worst writer in the history of philosophy. [/quote]

Sorry, this award goes to Heidegger. In fairness, I haven’t read his stuff in German, and its been about 20 years, but I suspect its basically gibberish in his native tongue as well. [/quote]

You may be right, I haven’t had the need to expose my self to his works. I know Kant is a terrible writer. Hume on the other hand was brilliant.[/quote]

Kant is one of those guys most people need an interpreter for. His writing is almost Shakesperian, differing interpretations of his works are still coming out to this day. You want Kant, Epifanio Elizondo is a great guy to read… http://www.academia.edu/3323897/Research_Overview
http://www.academia.edu/3538402/Reason_in_its_Practical_Application

Hume, scary stuff for most Theists :smiley:
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is THE book to read from Hume.

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/747/hume.pdf;jsessionid=D7D4943888ABACAE7A522508776461B3?sequence=1

[/quote]

No, Hume is not a scary thing for theists. His analysis on causation was brilliant, but it did not do anything to cosmology. Some of his ideas were way off, like his ‘third element of causation’ but that doesn’t mean his insights weren’t genius.
If anything Hume did more to destabilize the the ability for scientists to establish causation. He basically discovered that you cannot prove causal relationships by observation. You can only establish correlation. If ‘A’ then ‘B’ cannot be fully established unless you know all the instances of ‘A’. Since you cannot know all the instances of ‘A’, you can only infer that ‘A’ causes ‘B’. You can establish the likely hood of ‘B’ as a result of ‘A’, but you cannot prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
This is a problem for empiricism, not for deductive reasoning. A priori deals in absolutes. And because that can only be established in metaphysics, it’s not a problem. It’s not a reliance on observation, its reliant on pure reason. Hume was a hardcore empiricist and his empirical insights were genius. Way smarter than Kant. Actually, if not for Hume, there would not have been a Kant.

But Leibniz was smarter than both put together. His ideas in monadology were so ahead of their time, people thought he was a nut. Except now we are figuring out, he was right. Like there is no such thing as empty space. If a space exists, something is in it. So that space is a factor of stuff. [/quote]

Depends on what subject you are touching on. Cosmological argument? Argument from Design? Miracles? Problem of Evil? These are all things Hume went out of his way to touch on, and in damaging ways to common religious beliefs at the time. It’s famously all over his works. What’s amazing is how he was able to avoid getting into trouble.
[/quote]
Correct. In fact the cosmological argument was his main focus, but his main counter claim was that there was a third element to the cause- effect relationship. Something he was never able to prove. However, it was through the process of trying to counter these things are where his brilliance lies. His insight to causal relationships, the fact that you could reliably make predictions with a small subset of data, and things that did not fit the mold, had him postulating another element of causation, intervening between cause and effect, that must explain all of it.
It didn’t. And again, he was a hard core empiricist. What he did not analyze was causal relationships that exist by definition, he dealt mainly with physical matter. His biggest problem was that effects followed their cause. So to him there was plenty of opportunity for another intervening factor.
Hume was a fearless philosopher, honest to a fault, and never had an issue painting himself into corners. But he made some very interesting observations with long lasting reach. It effects science the most, though.
He tried to disprove the thing you mentioned, he did not succeed at that, but he succeeded at other things in the process.

Monadology was considered strange by everybody. That everybody of space is occupied by something tiny, indivisible and permeates everything is a concept we are just warming up to now. Because, by all measures, he’s right. There is always something, never nothing.

All metaphysics is the result of plato’s forms. As much as I don’t really like Plato, that gave birth to metaphysics. It was one of two things Plato was actually right on.

I am not attracted to a philosopher based on their religiousocity. Hume is one of my favorites of all time and he was an atheist. I am attracted to the ideas. Berkeley is also a particular favorite of mine, not because he was a theist, but because of his works on ontology.

I give Kant his respect, but never was a huge fan. His works on morality are important, but I always felt he liked to over complicate the issues. However, his ability to break things down, particular moral events are important.

[quote]
Leibniz, rescuer of religion in a sense he offered a view of religion that worked with physics which means a lot today… But his ideas during the time had most theists and lightweight scholars pointing the finger and calling him a moron. [/quote]

Religion was never in danger. Aquinas did most of the heavy lifting and basically girded religious philosophy against the notion that science or anything else for that matter, could disprove God. He also was the one that realized the rule of nature, does not violate religion, in fact they are complimentary. Leibnez, expounded on those ideas, but Aquinas came up with them first.
It’s Leibnez’s scientific observations that interested me the most. I am less concerned about what he thought monads were than I am about the notions such an idea brought forth. [/quote]

Speaking of which, Aquinas’ proofs are great. They are what everyone was talking about at the time in terms of why to be Christian, PROOF of God, why bother with Faith when there was Proof!!? http://www.yale.edu/adhoc/etexts/aqproof.htm And the long lost question about Aquinas… Being he felt dogma should be unseated by logic, he would have been a huge fan of Hume if he actually were around to stick to his guns.

When I talk about religion being in danger, it’s more in reference today. The idea of grasping for proofs of God, reasons to be good being rooted in Gods existence. If Aquinas’ proofs can be shot down by a sophomore college kid who took a philosophy of religion class, it’s time to move on to the big guns; Liebniz since his world view leaves room for souls and makes sense with contemporary physics. So I had you pinned wrong/ as somebody who goes to great ends seeking or defending proof of God for whatever reason. I think often times people are comfortable in their moral fabric because it’s attached to eternal life, and that’s the reason to be good/ reward. Or people are so afraid of being dead forever, or the prospect that everything just ends for everyone that it’s just easier for them to believe what they have been brought up with.

Kinda Pascals wager folly. Of course that doesn’t guarantee that there was faith. If you do the legwork and go to Church all the time and act morally according to the rules, that’s still not good enough… So the closet Atheist is damned without faith? Or would God, who insists on faith let a non believer who wishes they could will themselves to believe into his flock? Is this a good God?

Sorry I got into more of a demonstration but, being more into Ethics and some Phil of Language I tend to enjoy those particular subjects a bit more. Well, I’m more into ethics and etymology.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Good concepts, worst writer in the history of philosophy. [/quote]

Sorry, this award goes to Heidegger. In fairness, I haven’t read his stuff in German, and its been about 20 years, but I suspect its basically gibberish in his native tongue as well. [/quote]

You may be right, I haven’t had the need to expose my self to his works. I know Kant is a terrible writer. Hume on the other hand was brilliant.[/quote]

Kant is one of those guys most people need an interpreter for. His writing is almost Shakesperian, differing interpretations of his works are still coming out to this day. You want Kant, Epifanio Elizondo is a great guy to read… http://www.academia.edu/3323897/Research_Overview
http://www.academia.edu/3538402/Reason_in_its_Practical_Application

Hume, scary stuff for most Theists :smiley:
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is THE book to read from Hume.

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/747/hume.pdf;jsessionid=D7D4943888ABACAE7A522508776461B3?sequence=1

[/quote]

No, Hume is not a scary thing for theists. His analysis on causation was brilliant, but it did not do anything to cosmology. Some of his ideas were way off, like his ‘third element of causation’ but that doesn’t mean his insights weren’t genius.
If anything Hume did more to destabilize the the ability for scientists to establish causation. He basically discovered that you cannot prove causal relationships by observation. You can only establish correlation. If ‘A’ then ‘B’ cannot be fully established unless you know all the instances of ‘A’. Since you cannot know all the instances of ‘A’, you can only infer that ‘A’ causes ‘B’. You can establish the likely hood of ‘B’ as a result of ‘A’, but you cannot prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
This is a problem for empiricism, not for deductive reasoning. A priori deals in absolutes. And because that can only be established in metaphysics, it’s not a problem. It’s not a reliance on observation, its reliant on pure reason. Hume was a hardcore empiricist and his empirical insights were genius. Way smarter than Kant. Actually, if not for Hume, there would not have been a Kant.

But Leibniz was smarter than both put together. His ideas in monadology were so ahead of their time, people thought he was a nut. Except now we are figuring out, he was right. Like there is no such thing as empty space. If a space exists, something is in it. So that space is a factor of stuff. [/quote]

Depends on what subject you are touching on. Cosmological argument? Argument from Design? Miracles? Problem of Evil? These are all things Hume went out of his way to touch on, and in damaging ways to common religious beliefs at the time. It’s famously all over his works. What’s amazing is how he was able to avoid getting into trouble.
[/quote]
Correct. In fact the cosmological argument was his main focus, but his main counter claim was that there was a third element to the cause- effect relationship. Something he was never able to prove. However, it was through the process of trying to counter these things are where his brilliance lies. His insight to causal relationships, the fact that you could reliably make predictions with a small subset of data, and things that did not fit the mold, had him postulating another element of causation, intervening between cause and effect, that must explain all of it.
It didn’t. And again, he was a hard core empiricist. What he did not analyze was causal relationships that exist by definition, he dealt mainly with physical matter. His biggest problem was that effects followed their cause. So to him there was plenty of opportunity for another intervening factor.
Hume was a fearless philosopher, honest to a fault, and never had an issue painting himself into corners. But he made some very interesting observations with long lasting reach. It effects science the most, though.
He tried to disprove the thing you mentioned, he did not succeed at that, but he succeeded at other things in the process.

Monadology was considered strange by everybody. That everybody of space is occupied by something tiny, indivisible and permeates everything is a concept we are just warming up to now. Because, by all measures, he’s right. There is always something, never nothing.

All metaphysics is the result of plato’s forms. As much as I don’t really like Plato, that gave birth to metaphysics. It was one of two things Plato was actually right on.

I am not attracted to a philosopher based on their religiousocity. Hume is one of my favorites of all time and he was an atheist. I am attracted to the ideas. Berkeley is also a particular favorite of mine, not because he was a theist, but because of his works on ontology.

I give Kant his respect, but never was a huge fan. His works on morality are important, but I always felt he liked to over complicate the issues. However, his ability to break things down, particular moral events are important.

I think so too. It would be a good debate to see them square off. I think Aquinas would win simply because empiricism is the weaker side from which to argue.

Aquinas’s arguments cannot be shot down, nobody has done that yet. People think they can or have done so, but a closer look reveals that their counter claims are not correct. A few of the main ones, like ‘Why isn’t it an infinite regress?’ Claiming that not being able to postualte infinity in our finite minds doesn’t mean that it does not exist, or ‘What caused the Uncaused-cause?’ May sound like good claims on the surface, but they are incorrect. An infinite regress is impossible for 2 reasons, it’s circular, in that inevitably one of your infinite premises will be ‘thing’ being a factor of itself’. The other problem is that, if you have an argument with infinite premises, you cannot reach a conclusion and hence no argument can be made. As far as the cause of the Uncaused-cause is nonsensical. By definition, said ‘thing’ is uncaused so you cannot ask what caused it. The other mistake is that assumption that the argument even addresses the question. It does not, it simply state that it must exist, it does not delve into it’s nature.
The argument from contingency is as strong today as it ever was and nobody has ever proved it wrong, ever.
Leibniz offered the ‘principle of sufficient reason’ as a strengthening factor to it, but he essentially argued the same thing. All the arguments for Gods existence save for the ontological argument essentially break down into a cosmological argument.

Religion is not endanger because of a lack of logic, reason or knowledge. Religion’s danger is the ‘problem of evil’. Most people abandon religion because of evil or perceive that certain things within a religion are evil. People also don’t want to ‘be told what to do’ or be called out that they may behave in an evil way. So rather than accepting themselves as evil, they make religion evil.
Atheists seldom, if ever, have good ‘reason’ or logic for to back up their atheism, they often times attack the perceived ‘evils of religion’ or the evil actions of those who claim to be religious or do evil in the name of religion.
If people really truly, just used logic and reason alone to be the basis for their belief in God’s existence, then there would be very few atheists in the world. It’s not our nature, we are a very emotional creature. We set our emotions first and then try to figure out a good reason to believe they are correct.

Even in the light of strong arguments for God’s existence, there is still a good bit of faith involved. It does not take away that element. We can know God exists, we can know somethings about God through reason, but not everything. It takes faith to trust that God is, who He says He is.

[quote]
Kinda Pascals wager folly. Of course that doesn’t guarantee that there was faith. If you do the legwork and go to Church all the time and act morally according to the rules, that’s still not good enough… So the closet Atheist is damned without faith? Or would God, who insists on faith let a non believer who wishes they could will themselves to believe into his flock? Is this a good God?

Sorry I got into more of a demonstration but, being more into Ethics and some Phil of Language I tend to enjoy those particular subjects a bit more. Well, I’m more into ethics and etymology. [/quote]

No I think that’s a good ethical dilemma you bring up. Even the most faithful people doubt from time to time. It’s an interesting question, would God accept the atheist who sought God all his life, but never found Him? I would be compelled to say yes, because he was seeking. I don’t know ultimately. I am not God, nor can pretend I know what God thinks but I believe God, being who he says he is, would accept such a person. Now this is purely a hypothetical as we both know that people tend to seek more reasons to doubt than to believe. People tend to not want to change and if they believe that a believing in God would require them too then they will tend to seek reasons to not believe rather than to believe.

First time posting here on T-Nation, but I do have a Bachelors in Philosophy. I would suggest the following

Machiavelli’s The Prince
Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Get an edition with notes, one would benefit from a background in Nietzsche. This books reads like a story)
Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations
Some Barnes and Noble edition of selected readings from Emerson and Thoreau
Buddhist Texts
Dworkin’s Justice for Hedgehogs

Also, just being exposed to ideas is a great exercise. So get your butt to http://plato.stanford.edu

[quote]G3NGHIS wrote:
First time posting here on T-Nation, but I do have a Bachelors in Philosophy. I would suggest the following

Machiavelli’s The Prince
Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Get an edition with notes, one would benefit from a background in Nietzsche. This books reads like a story)
Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations
Some Barnes and Noble edition of selected readings from Emerson and Thoreau
Buddhist Texts
Dworkin’s Justice for Hedgehogs

Also, just being exposed to ideas is a great exercise. So get your butt to http://plato.stanford.edu[/quote]

Check out some of www.edge.org Got used to referencing Stanfords as well? Got me through University.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Good concepts, worst writer in the history of philosophy. [/quote]

Sorry, this award goes to Heidegger. In fairness, I haven’t read his stuff in German, and its been about 20 years, but I suspect its basically gibberish in his native tongue as well. [/quote]

You may be right, I haven’t had the need to expose my self to his works. I know Kant is a terrible writer. Hume on the other hand was brilliant.[/quote]

Kant is one of those guys most people need an interpreter for. His writing is almost Shakesperian, differing interpretations of his works are still coming out to this day. You want Kant, Epifanio Elizondo is a great guy to read… http://www.academia.edu/3323897/Research_Overview
http://www.academia.edu/3538402/Reason_in_its_Practical_Application

Hume, scary stuff for most Theists :smiley:
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is THE book to read from Hume.

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/747/hume.pdf;jsessionid=D7D4943888ABACAE7A522508776461B3?sequence=1

[/quote]

No, Hume is not a scary thing for theists. His analysis on causation was brilliant, but it did not do anything to cosmology. Some of his ideas were way off, like his ‘third element of causation’ but that doesn’t mean his insights weren’t genius.
If anything Hume did more to destabilize the the ability for scientists to establish causation. He basically discovered that you cannot prove causal relationships by observation. You can only establish correlation. If ‘A’ then ‘B’ cannot be fully established unless you know all the instances of ‘A’. Since you cannot know all the instances of ‘A’, you can only infer that ‘A’ causes ‘B’. You can establish the likely hood of ‘B’ as a result of ‘A’, but you cannot prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
This is a problem for empiricism, not for deductive reasoning. A priori deals in absolutes. And because that can only be established in metaphysics, it’s not a problem. It’s not a reliance on observation, its reliant on pure reason. Hume was a hardcore empiricist and his empirical insights were genius. Way smarter than Kant. Actually, if not for Hume, there would not have been a Kant.

But Leibniz was smarter than both put together. His ideas in monadology were so ahead of their time, people thought he was a nut. Except now we are figuring out, he was right. Like there is no such thing as empty space. If a space exists, something is in it. So that space is a factor of stuff. [/quote]

Depends on what subject you are touching on. Cosmological argument? Argument from Design? Miracles? Problem of Evil? These are all things Hume went out of his way to touch on, and in damaging ways to common religious beliefs at the time. It’s famously all over his works. What’s amazing is how he was able to avoid getting into trouble.
[/quote]
Correct. In fact the cosmological argument was his main focus, but his main counter claim was that there was a third element to the cause- effect relationship. Something he was never able to prove. However, it was through the process of trying to counter these things are where his brilliance lies. His insight to causal relationships, the fact that you could reliably make predictions with a small subset of data, and things that did not fit the mold, had him postulating another element of causation, intervening between cause and effect, that must explain all of it.
It didn’t. And again, he was a hard core empiricist. What he did not analyze was causal relationships that exist by definition, he dealt mainly with physical matter. His biggest problem was that effects followed their cause. So to him there was plenty of opportunity for another intervening factor.
Hume was a fearless philosopher, honest to a fault, and never had an issue painting himself into corners. But he made some very interesting observations with long lasting reach. It effects science the most, though.
He tried to disprove the thing you mentioned, he did not succeed at that, but he succeeded at other things in the process.

Monadology was considered strange by everybody. That everybody of space is occupied by something tiny, indivisible and permeates everything is a concept we are just warming up to now. Because, by all measures, he’s right. There is always something, never nothing.

All metaphysics is the result of plato’s forms. As much as I don’t really like Plato, that gave birth to metaphysics. It was one of two things Plato was actually right on.

I am not attracted to a philosopher based on their religiousocity. Hume is one of my favorites of all time and he was an atheist. I am attracted to the ideas. Berkeley is also a particular favorite of mine, not because he was a theist, but because of his works on ontology.

I give Kant his respect, but never was a huge fan. His works on morality are important, but I always felt he liked to over complicate the issues. However, his ability to break things down, particular moral events are important.

I think so too. It would be a good debate to see them square off. I think Aquinas would win simply because empiricism is the weaker side from which to argue.

Aquinas’s arguments cannot be shot down, nobody has done that yet. People think they can or have done so, but a closer look reveals that their counter claims are not correct. A few of the main ones, like ‘Why isn’t it an infinite regress?’ Claiming that not being able to postualte infinity in our finite minds doesn’t mean that it does not exist, or ‘What caused the Uncaused-cause?’ May sound like good claims on the surface, but they are incorrect. An infinite regress is impossible for 2 reasons, it’s circular, in that inevitably one of your infinite premises will be ‘thing’ being a factor of itself’. The other problem is that, if you have an argument with infinite premises, you cannot reach a conclusion and hence no argument can be made. As far as the cause of the Uncaused-cause is nonsensical. By definition, said ‘thing’ is uncaused so you cannot ask what caused it. The other mistake is that assumption that the argument even addresses the question. It does not, it simply state that it must exist, it does not delve into it’s nature.
The argument from contingency is as strong today as it ever was and nobody has ever proved it wrong, ever.
Leibniz offered the ‘principle of sufficient reason’ as a strengthening factor to it, but he essentially argued the same thing. All the arguments for Gods existence save for the ontological argument essentially break down into a cosmological argument.

Religion is not endanger because of a lack of logic, reason or knowledge. Religion’s danger is the ‘problem of evil’. Most people abandon religion because of evil or perceive that certain things within a religion are evil. People also don’t want to ‘be told what to do’ or be called out that they may behave in an evil way. So rather than accepting themselves as evil, they make religion evil.
Atheists seldom, if ever, have good ‘reason’ or logic for to back up their atheism, they often times attack the perceived ‘evils of religion’ or the evil actions of those who claim to be religious or do evil in the name of religion.
If people really truly, just used logic and reason alone to be the basis for their belief in God’s existence, then there would be very few atheists in the world. It’s not our nature, we are a very emotional creature. We set our emotions first and then try to figure out a good reason to believe they are correct.

Even in the light of strong arguments for God’s existence, there is still a good bit of faith involved. It does not take away that element. We can know God exists, we can know somethings about God through reason, but not everything. It takes faith to trust that God is, who He says He is.

[quote]
Kinda Pascals wager folly. Of course that doesn’t guarantee that there was faith. If you do the legwork and go to Church all the time and act morally according to the rules, that’s still not good enough… So the closet Atheist is damned without faith? Or would God, who insists on faith let a non believer who wishes they could will themselves to believe into his flock? Is this a good God?

Sorry I got into more of a demonstration but, being more into Ethics and some Phil of Language I tend to enjoy those particular subjects a bit more. Well, I’m more into ethics and etymology. [/quote]

No I think that’s a good ethical dilemma you bring up. Even the most faithful people doubt from time to time. It’s an interesting question, would God accept the atheist who sought God all his life, but never found Him? I would be compelled to say yes, because he was seeking. I don’t know ultimately. I am not God, nor can pretend I know what God thinks but I believe God, being who he says he is, would accept such a person. Now this is purely a hypothetical as we both know that people tend to seek more reasons to doubt than to believe. People tend to not want to change and if they believe that a believing in God would require them too then they will tend to seek reasons to not believe rather than to believe.[/quote]

Remember Aquinas’ proofs are all deductions, and if a single premise is thrown off course the entire arguments are rendered null. Which happened to every one if I remember correctly…

Every religion I have ever come across relies in one way or another on fear as a motivator.

An all good God wouldn’t use such a thing to get people to believe, bullying is more petty than lying. Being Agnostic, I really WANT there to be an all good God, and I even have a pretty complex idea(s) of what an all good God would do, how it would act and judge… There wouldn’t be people spending eternity in hell for what they did in a few years, as that is pure malice. An all good God would be just but not so malicious to send souls of his children to be raped for eternity by Satan in a place of horror beyond our imaginations.

These realization about evil discount strategies of church recruiters I have seen. Many want to save my soul from hell which is noble. But I don’t want to be worshiping a God who would send me to hell for eternity in the first place, as it’s by default a malicious God.

An all good God wouldn’t fear me into doing good or becoming part of his flock.

An all good God would think me noble for doing the best I can, being honest, endeavoring to do good and be good, and speaking my mind, regardless of whether I believe in him or not. As if God existed, he would have given me with this mind… This mind of mine doesn’t allow me to have faith in the way you do, I would be lying to myself if I said I believe and have faith in God and that isn’t something God would want/ for me to lie about my faith in him, and to basically live that lie would make it worse.

An all Good God wouldn’t arm people with minds that makes faith impossible without lying, and then damned those very people/ minds he created to hell for eternity. That’s where I left off with the possibility of God and haven’t made any progress since.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:
I would recommend some Ken Wilber on the modern philosophy front.

You have often stated your distaste for Ayn Rand, but I would still make her required reading.

I’ll post more after greater thought. [/quote]

Distaste is no excuse for a lack of understanding. I’d consider her contemporary, so I’ll put that list after my modern list.

My modern philosophy section is quite bare (probably for most people).

Modern basic list:

  • Machiavelli, The Prince
  • Renes Descartes, Discourse on Method
  • David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
  • Immanuel Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals

Additional list

  • Rene Descartes, Meditations
  • Gottfried Leibnitz, Monadology
  • Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, excerpts
  • Blaise Pascal’s Pensees (if you are so inclined, mostly because it is on the contemporary list). [/quote]

The problem is jumping into these books without some sort of formalized understanding of the lingo and concepts behind them. In many respects you will read the page and have no clue what you just read.
And Kant? Oh, he is flat fucking torture to read. I mean pull your eyeballs out and hit them with hammers torture. It’s not that his concepts were bad, he just had no means of saying it. Good concepts, worst writer in the history of philosophy. Seriously, you’re better off with a book about Kants concepts rather than subject yourself to his writings. You may actually learn more about Kant’s arguments from other people than Kant himself. I have never known anybody to “enjoy” his work. [/quote]

Sounds like reading the Westside Book of Methods lol!

Nietzsche has to be included. Not only are his ideas groundbreaking and important but his books are very well written and interesting.