Shouldn't philosophy be conveyed in the most understandable way possible? If so why should you read Kant or Hegel explain their ideas in a clumsy way when you could just read a book explaining their ideas with greater clarity? Why should one waste half of their lifetime trying to understand philosophy when plenty of people have already done so and would be more than happy to explain?

Never read a philosophy book but it's annoying how you gotta start with Thales or some shit everytime a philosopher's ideas intrigue you

Because it inevitably leads to nothingness, so they deliberately avoid it through elaborate word games. They fear the void. They fear the silence.

this is what Schopenhauer basically said, he hated hegel and his obscurity. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are probably the easiest to read

>>24531475 (OP)
>I don't get it
>I don't read
>muh it's everyone else's fault

Go back to your shitbox.

>>24531494
>Studying philosophy teaches you how to approach problems, view arguments from multiple perspectives and to think around situations. Studying philosophy refines your ability to communicate clearly with others and articulate your thoughts in a meaningful way.
Sounds like you need to read some philosophy

>>24531475 (OP)
No, the point of philosophy is to feel clever after you read it.

>>24531475 (OP)

>Never read a philosophy book but it's annoying how you gotta start with Thales or some shit everytime a philosopher's ideas intrigue you

I have literally never read a word of Aristotle or the scholastics except what is quoted in excerpts by Hegel, and I talk out my ass all the time. Don't take it to seriously. Its just a fun pastime. None of it is verifiable anyways

>>24531504
Sounds like you're a waste. Back to the shitbox.

>>24531504
gottem

>>24531475 (OP)
Hegel and Philosophers like him expect their followers should be at least the same literacy level as they are.

Anyone below them are expected to stay on the lower levels, doing bureaucrat drone work or tiktok whatever.

Every work of philosophy is built upon everything that came before it and there is absolutely no one clearer than the philosophers to explain their work. You should never forget that their works were written in a different time, for a different audience, most likely in a different language. The thing is: the books explaining their ideas are still interpretations. Maybe if you took the time to understand the works themselves, you would reach a different interpretation, so having only secondary literature as reference means you're not engaging with philosophy itself. Why be so frustrated that you can't understand it? Why not rejoice at the fact that there is still a lot to learn?

>>24531475 (OP)
>Shouldn't philosophy be conveyed in the most understandable way possible?
No, it's supposed to gate keep.

>>24531475 (OP)
>I don't like X thing about a book I didn't read
Shitting up the catalogue with this garbage should be a bannable offence.

>>24531627
Thanks for bumping and for NOT disproving my premise because you know that it is right. I shall bump this thread again and again by responding to you

>>24531639
I will reply to any thread really because I have nothing better to do but generally if your thread doesn't pertain to a specific book or writer then it is entirely worthless and doesn't need to exist. Your thread is tantamount to a whiny school student asking "uhhhh do I really have to read this primary source in order to discuss it? Why cant I use SparkNotes????"

>>24531643
What should be their punishment?

>>24531643
>if your thread doesn't pertain to a specific book or writer then it is entirely worthless and doesn't need to exist
Then get it of every general and every question thread that drives discussions, which is at least half the catalogue. Yet you decide to seethe in my thread specifically.

>Your thread is tantamount to a whiny school student asking "uhhhh do I really have to read this primary source in order to discuss it? Why cant I use SparkNotes????"
Do you need to read primary sources to learn about history? Or do you read the summary of all the primary sources to learn about it?

>>24531654
I actually agree those threads are worthless too. Basically what you do is you open a book and read a book and then you make a thread about the specific book which you read and discuss the book.

>>24531660
But then there would not be any other place where I could ask such a question. Reddit? Facebook? /b/? /r9k/?

Anyway I might as well expand on what I meant before someone else gets upset for no reason: I find it annoying that I have to spend years of my life reading about other philosophers before I can get to the ones that interest me; which is why reading a book vulgarizing a philosopher's idea is highly useful for anybody who doesn't have an obsession with something that is so important for the history of the world. After all, for history, secondary sources are primary sources made digestable for the masses (those who aren't historians).

>>24531670
What are you even asking? What do you need? If an idea of a certain writer appeals to you then find his influences and read them.

>>24531677
I thought I made myself clear in the OP. What I'm asking for are people's opinions. If I make a thread about a book I liked, what will I get? People's opinions

>>24531475 (OP)
>Shouldn't philosophy be conveyed in the most understandable way possible?
>huuurrrr duuuurrrrr i iz retard i can'ts understand how dei speak!
Fucking retard, your standards would lower all of us to mudhuts.
Kant isn't even complicated, one couldn't find simpler terms to deal with the subject. He literally simplified everything to a priori / a posteriori / analytic / synthetic.

>>24531475 (OP)
You tryna bait' me, son?

>>24531684
I am going to suck ur dick for being such a fat stupid jerk.

>>24531689
Pretty sure someone here quoted Kant saying he wished someone came along and made his ideas more understandable (which goes along with what I am saying in the OP), but that anon could be wrong. Anyways, thanks for ignoring Hegel

>>24531695
I don't consent

>>24531475 (OP)
The exposition of a topic should hold the same standard of complexity as said topic lest meaning is lost. You are a nigger, and a retarded one at that.

>>24531710
Maybe the exposition should be complex enough to honor the subject but it should also accessible enough to communicate the core concepts effectively.
Philosophers aren't perfect writers, some of them I imagine are great at explaining things clearly, others notoriously aren't. Therefore, people should strive to refine their ideas to make them as understandable as possible.
Philosophy is about the ideas (the reasonings, and the questionings) presented first and foremost

>>24531475 (OP)
No. filter plebs.

>>24531717
> it should also accessible enough to communicate the core concepts effectively.
making most concepts "accessible" impedes the effective communication of their complexity. You're acting as if philosophers use words in a superfluous way, they don't. Change one word by trying to make a concept accessible and you fall into the mess of losing meaning and nuance. Anyways, philosophy was never meant to be accessible. You are still a retarded nigger.

>>24531696
Is there a specific book which you re struggling with? I own the lectures of Hegel on Greece by Robert F Brown the translator and they are readable enough.

>>24531731
This. OP doesn't know about hermeneutics and their problems

>>24531731
You're probably wrong because you're acting like a faggot but since I don't read philosophy I don't actually know if you are or not. Anyways fuck you retarded niggerfaggot

>>24531735
I tried reading The Phenomenology of Spirit and gave up very quickly. I also tried Kierkegaard and Heidegger, and gave up quickly too. Only one I really read was Otto Weininger but I didn't mention him because it was a short read.

>>24531745
>Otto Weininger
Well that clears things up. You're an lower caste autist. Give up with philosophy, it's clear you won't get any value from it. Maybe try "philosophy" of science, that might be a little bit more up to your speed.

>>24531753
I didn't say had I troubles with him. How can you be this illiterate?

>>24531475 (OP)
>when you could just read a book explaining their ideas with greater clarity
you could read someone's interpretation of their ideas*

>>24531757
That's what I don't really understand. A philosopher usually tries to make his ideas as clear as possible, no? He doesn't want to leave things up to interpretations.

>>24531756
>How can you be this illiterate?
How can YOU be this illiterate? I never implied you had "troubles with him", I implied that you would be a reader of Weininger and his ilk, this thread is a testament to that, for only a lower caste autist (identified as a reader of Weininger) would think in this way.
Retarded nigger all the way.

>>24531764
Oh right so I should have just discarded him instantly instead of reading him. I thought you might have meant that but I didn't think you'd be this retarded.

>>24531761
there are many reasons, e.g., some get paid by the word, some do it on purpose to generate discussion, and some aren't intelligent or skilful enough to present their complex ideas clearly

>>24531780
Right. So there are philosophers whose ideas will never be made fully clear to everyone (especially if they're dead), so it's up to the interpretation of the individual

>>24531785
yep

>>24531793
Alright then thread over. This guy >>24531542 talked about it but I didn't say anything to him because I couldn't understand how you could get different interpretations if the philosopher put all his thoughts onto paper, so here's your (You) big guy. I thought these philosophers wouldn't be big players but I guess if the fundation they laid was interesting enough despite their poor explanations people would want to use it as inspiration.
Anyways bye bye

>>24531475 (OP)

They’re just bad writers. Simple as

Good writers are incredibly rare. Different skill than philosophizing a theory in your head

Anyone claiming that you’re retarded for not grokking a philosopher hasn’t read enough philosophy

>>24531475 (OP)
You clearly have not even mastered your Socrates, if you say laughable things like this.

>>24531558
Simplicity and clarity do the gatekeeping by themselves. The uninitiated can only grasp multiples.

>>24531475 (OP)
Epic image

>>24531475 (OP)
I agree Hegelians and their ilk should all be rounded up and reeducated
Most philosophy actually is very clear and to the point if you have sufficient reading comprehension

>>24531475 (OP)
gem

>>24531490
Bullshit Nietzsche is easy to read there's upwards 17 different core interpretations running amok and somehow all of them are equally wrong.
If I had a penny for every single time someone accused someone else of fundamentally misunderstanding everything he wrote, 3 of them would call me an Untermensch and 2 of them would call me an Übermensch.

It doesnt

>>24531542
Why won't pseuds like this ever address anything clearly and directly? Is it reddit-trauma? They seem to think a collection of pretentious statements is more valuable than a clear answer. You are pure ego and a literal retard

>>24531475 (OP)
So you dared to make ai Haruhi with Spangler?
Yeah it Jahannam for you mulHid

>>24531710
actually opposite. the more complex the topic, the more simple the text ought to be. that's a matter of efficiency.

>>24531475 (OP)
When reading a philosopher you are looking through a window to their mind. When reading another guy summarizing a philosopher you are looking at the shadows on the wall inside Plato's cave.

>>24531475 (OP)
You absolutely should read secondary literature to enhance your understanding of the primary sources.

>>24531481

BASED message, based picrel. Silence makes people uncomfortable, we're taking you back to basics with that one. And when you understand the basics, you understand everything.