• _db
    3.6k
    For me, it's unquestionably W. D. Ross. Just finished reading The Right and the Good, and have Foundations of Ethics on its way to my university library. His theory of prima facie deontological ethics was a very nice breath of fresh air after drudging through consequentialist lit and being disappointed with Kantian and virtue ethics. His theory is pluralistic in terms of value and non-absolutist in terms of action - there is no one single principle or thing that grounds ethics, and there are no (or, at least, practically not any) actions that we are absolutely obligated to do/refrain from doing.

    I'm also reading Emmanuel Levinas. I have a guidebook for Totality and Infinity and Existence and Existents, as well as a compilation of many of his most influential works (in excerpts). Levinas is so fucking difficult to read, though, which is why I got the guidebook to help me understand. I might get a book called Radicalizing Levinas which integrates Levinasian ethics into a broader "practical" ethics, things like animals, feminism, the environment, etc. But basically I'm digging Levinas because of his asymmetrical ethics, the fundamental non-reciprocality of the ethical, as well as his general suspicion of Heidegger's ontology as being a totalitarian culmination of the millennia-long fetishization of the Same by Western metaphysics.

    So what philosopher are you enthusiastic about right now, and why should I read them.
  • Shawn
    13.2k
    Harry Frankfurt.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    That's so cool that you're getting into Levinas. His star seems to have faded a bit of late, even among continental circles. As far as suggestions go, I think you might appreciate the work of Alphonso Lingis, who translated both of the Levinas books you're currently reading. He's my favourite phenomenologist, and while inspired by Levinas, breaks with him in some really interesting ways (you can find his paper Six Problems in Levinas's Philosophy, here). Deathbound Subjectivity, Phenomenological Explanations, and The Imperative are all some of my favorite reads by Lingis.

    As for me, Deleuze remains the philosopher I can't turn away from, but not necessarily because of 'his philosophy' per se, but because he's the one philosopher who seems to asks all the right questions. Deleuze inspires me to read and explore subjects way beyond philosophy, from evolution to art, anthropology to math. It's the kinds of questions he asks, moreso than the 'answers' he gives, that really inspires me.
  • Agustino
    11.2k
    Read René Girard and quit philosophy >:)

    "Since the attempt to understand religion on the basis of philosophy has failed, we ought to try the reverse method and read philosophy in the light of religion"
  • bloodninja
    272
    What book do you most rate by Deleuze? I have tried to read Anti-oedipus but at the time, a few years back, I think it was too complicated for me to follow. Maybe if I tried again now I could understand it. It would be a big undertaking though.
  • Streetlight
    9.1k
    Deleuze is one of the very few authors for whom beginning with secondary readings is, I think, pretty appropriate (I wouldn't suggest it with alot of others). My go to list is generally this:

    Gilbert Simondon - "The Genesis of the Individual" (article - *Must* Read, can be found online)
    Levi Bryant - Difference and Givenness
    Miguel de Beistegui - Truth and Genesis (Beistegui is a Heidegger scholar and half his book is on Heidegger, so this might be up your alley)
    Manuel Delanda - Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy
    Daniel Smith - Essays on Deleuze

    A working knowledge of Bergson, Kant, and Leibniz would be useful too.

    THEN you can try reading Difference and Repeition, and even then it's a good idea to read Henry Somers-Hall's Guide along with it.

    Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus are, despite their popularity, the worst places to start IMO!
  • anonymous66
    626
    Wittgenstein
    Putnam
    Kripke
    Quine

    Shestov
    Gabriel Marcel
    Berdyaev

    I'm not sure how to sell anyone on reading them. The first four are important philosophers in the recent history of analytic philosophy. I wanted to explore existentialism as well, and am looking for good role models. Marcel fits the bill. When I started looking into Marcel and Christian Existentialism, I came across Shestov and Berdyaev.

    Right now, I'd like to concentrate on Putnam.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    I prefer philosophers who directly scrutinize the nature of life and pay lots of attention to what they actually observe and then write about it.

    Not many well-known Western philosophers actually do this. What little we have of Heraclitus' writings is worth reading (translating however are suspect). Then there is Bergson, who is the father of modern French philosophy and there is enough in his writings to last a lifetime. Stephen Robbins is the only philosopher I have found that can build on Bergson and actually add additional insights. Beyond these authors, I still hunt around looking for interesting insights from those authors who have studied Eastern thought such as Alan Watts. Really deep insights into the nature of nature are tough to find. Most translations of Buddhism and Daoism are seriously wanting, more calibrated as marketing devices as opposed to penetrating philosophy.

    Recently I enjoyed Zajonc's book on the nature of light. I very much enjoyed Itzhak Bentov's take on Buddhism and life's journey.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Thanks for the reading suggestion. I haven't read much Deleuze but he's on my list, maybe even the next one I read.
  • _db
    3.6k
    Metzinger is okay - I mean, his work on the "non-self", the "phenomenal self-model", was sensationalized in pessimistic literature like Ligotti's Conspiracy (which I'm sure you're familiar with given your user name), but philosophically his ideas are too reductionistic, too scientistic, and too oblivious to the work of 20th century phenomenology. Graham Harman has a great piece criticizing Metzinger's position as being overly verbose and in many cases incoherent. In many cases Metzinger hits the nail on the head, but in many other cases he misses the mark. I don't see him as a "perennial" thinker but more of a product of the current philosophical-metaphysical paradigm (reductionist materialism).
  • bloodninja
    272

    Thanks for the suggestions! I'll keep that in mind when I go back to Deleuze.
  • n0 0ne
    43
    Sartre. I don't think he's perfect. I don't always agree with him. But that's part of the fun, sorting the good from the bad, deciding where X "went wrong" with respect to one's own in-progress philosophy.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.