Which philosophers have the most accessible writing style? Now

>>8699697
Schopenhauer is pretty much the GOAT stylist and Hegel is a disaster.

But there are also cool disasters like Nick Land.

>>8699704
This has to be the most pseud post I've seen all year

The ones you mentioned, pretty much, and Nietzsche (although WWR isn't always simple). If you insist on calling it a philosophical work, Aurelius' Meditations is probably the most accessible.

Least: Hegel + 60s-80s randos.

>>8699710
He's right.

>>8699697
>the greeks are good in this regard
bruh have u even read aristotle.

>>8699713
"no"

I'd say pretty much all the rationalists and empiricists(exc.Spinoza) and a bunch more like William James,Ralph Waldo Emerson,Bertrand Russell,etc.

File: nick land.jpg (11KB, 171x266px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 171x266px

>>8699710
meatcuck

>>8699716
>bruh
Get fucking crucified

File: this.jpg (182KB, 500x486px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 500x486px

>>8699697
Hume

Quine is about as enjoyable a read as modern analytic philosophy has managed.

You're wrong about the Greeks being not-complicated. Plato has some simple language and tries to mostly not make his speeches too abstract; while ones like Xenophon (who many don't bother labeling him as a philosopher as it wasn't his most known profession and he didn't write any 'deep' work or cover much subjects outside of ethics but still was both principally a philosopher and considered himself as a philosopher) are piss easy to read. But fucking Aristotle's work goes full out with his abstract language and gives no shit about making it enjoyable to read.

Best stylists: the English.

Worst stylists: the rest of Europe.

English philosopher: I believe this for reasons x, y, , and z.

European philosopher: I believe (or dont believe) that kfoeafkepaofkeopkfpeaokfoeakfeopakpfoekaopfekapfe. And if you dont like it, screw off!!!!!!

/lit/: Wow, so passion.

>>8700032
European Philosopher: Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>8699904
This

File: 1477453519637s.jpg (3KB, 124x124px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 124x124px

Ease of access to utility, Stirner gives you the best bang for your buck.

File: quine.png (162KB, 320x396px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 320x396px

>>8699963
>A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put into three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: 'What is there?' It can be answered, moreover, in a word--'Everything'--and everyone will accept this answer as true.

>Life is what the least of us make the most of us feel the least of us make the most of.

>To mention Boston we use 'Boston' or a synonym, and to mention 'Boston' we use ' 'Boston' ' or a synonym. ' 'Boston' ' contains six letters and just one pair of quotation marks; 'Boston' contains six letters and no quotation marks; and Boston contains some 800,000 people.

>>8699697
I submit Bernard Stiegler as most unintelligible. I started reading Technics and Time and had no clue what he was fucking talking about. To give some context I was also reading Heidegger and Foucault around the same time who are no walks in the park but looked nearly logicist compared to stiegler. I didn't really give it a fair shot I guess but w.e, there are other theorists on technology who are comprehensible

>>8699697
Plato's style reminds me of Bach's composition style. There is a very 'natural' procession of ideas, each idea relating to the one introduced before it. You don't have to fear misunderstanding because what confuses you in one passage will be made clear in the next. Plato has been the most pleasurable to read to me because of this.

>>8700032
>>8700812
t. Plebs incapable of putting effort into their reading

File: 1430303031826.png (77KB, 542x535px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 542x535px

>>8700847
Stirner is quite straightforward indeed.