try branching out of your intro to philosophy class
he wasted ten years of his life trying to find hidden messages in the bible, biblical hermeneutics counts as philosophy my nigga, it's just when a world renowned scientists wastes his life on it we all recoil in shame and horror but when some gay ass literature professor builds his career around it, well that's just what literature professors do after all
Bonus point for Pascal, Montaigne, Benjamin, Adorno and Lukács.
Everything offered by the east has been assimilated and improved upon by western philosophers. In fact, it is indefensible as a western man, being unable to read eastern works in their original, to appeal to eastern philosophy.
Eastern philosophy is unscientific, subjective trash. How can you live knowing you will never be able to satisfy your arguments because they're based on a false premise? You either have truth or you have nothing.
Objective: 1+1 equals 2.
Subjective: Men and women are equal. Of course this is not true because we are different. If we are different, we cannot be equal. You must therefore base the equality of man and woman on something abstract, subjective; like every human having a soul - which is something you cannot prove and you will have to depend on the compliance of others in order to sustain the false validity of this statement.
You either have truth or you have nothing. Source: Me. Objective truth stays the same no matter what, it's eternal. Water will always be transparent. The belief that water is not transparent is not true and is therefore not sustainable, that statement will be discarded sooner or later, thus turning into nothing.
Had to resize it for some reason...
Anyway, red is for those I've read and agree with.
Yellow is for those I plan to read in the future, or have their books, but haven't gotten around to read them yet.
And green is for Socrates, who you can't really differentiate from Plato, who actually wrote down all the stuff he supposedly said.
What they have in common, and which I admire, is a form of response to previous dogmatic or idealistic instances and a development of the same. Aristotle responding to Plato's ideas and forms, and Jesus the hierarchic religion of the Jews and the Old Testament. To some extent, both Heraclitus and Hegel also share this position.
But they do it ultimately differently.
But the thread is about "liking", not "agreeing", so I understand what you're saying, I do like both Zeno and Epicurus meditations, and the way they get to their respective philosophies.
I really want to see the reason you listed Aristotle and Nietzsche as shit tier, especially Aristotle.
He's the first goddamn worthy reality check in philosophy.
>And green is for Socrates, who you can't really differentiate from Plato, who actually wrote down all the stuff he supposedly said.
Xenophon (another of Socrates' pupils) wrote Socratic dialogues as well. Also I'm pretty sure the Apology is considered to be a reliable account of what Socrates said at his trial.
Only read like 5% of all those authors tho.