what are some entry-level philosophers, /lit/?

>>9276830
Not Nietzsche.

The Greeks, Descartes, Sartre.

Plato
he's also exit-level

>>9276834
This desu.

Although I'd throw some Augustine and Plotinus in there too. They're essentially footnotes to Plato anyway.

>>9276830
Descartes can be difficult if you enter the Meditations or his Correspondence.
Epicurus is entry-level, including Lucretius.
Plotinus ? If "entry-level" means easy to read, then it's a no. Isn't it ?
Hobbes, Locke aren't too difficult. Same goes for the French guys from the 18th century, except Rousseau : Helvetius, Diderot.
Beginning of the 16th : More, Machiavelli, La Boétie, all entry-tier.
Also Stuart Mill, Arendt, Alain.

>>9276875
Plotinus isnt difficult so long as you keep in mind his defentions for words.

Descartes, Hume, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Plato, Leibniz, Voltaire, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Camus, Russell, Thoreau, Marx, Adam Smith, Aristotle.

>>9276830
Are Stoics entry level?

>>9276901
Seneca, yes totally. I don't know the other ones well enough to tell.

>>9276909
How have you not read Aurelius? Literally one of the most popular philosophical books of all time, and stoic.

>>9276830

none of them. you will misunderstand the first few philosophies you attempt to engage

>>9276912
Honestly I dunno. The "easy" reputation of some Stoics don't attract me, I only read a lot of Seneca because I had to. Also read some academic stuff on Stoicism in general and god there's a bunch of annoying complicated guys among them. That didn't help opening Aurelius.

Btw OP, this guy >>9276894 is trolling.

>>9276929
I wasn't trolling. Those are all easy philosophers to get into and at most require Wikipedia page for background context.

>>9276932
I almost agree, but shouldn't "entry-tier" refer to how easy it is to actually read them and understand them by reading them ? Take all the Wiki pages you want, it's not easy to read Marx. Even regarding Descartes, I doubt that you could understand the proof of God in the 3rd Meditation relying on wiki explanations (I have yet to check the wiki though... but it's actually very complicated)

>>9276949
some is hard, some is easy, those are what I'd call easier thinkers to get into ime.

where hard would be like Hegel as comparison.

>>9276961
Then we end up to the whole western philosophy containing 3 or 4 "hard" ones only. I think the difference is far greater between Voltaire or Camus and Hume, than between the 1st book of Hume's Treatise and Hegel's lectures. Btw that kind of question or classification is more relevant if applied to works instead of authors anyways. Good luck OP.

I'd say Epicurus and Confucius are quite good to get into philosophy.

>>9276832
Not op but, what Nietzsche interests me the most?

>>9276969
I was mainly thinking of their more popular works when I wrote their names, maybe next time this thread comes up I write the titles instead of authors so people wont take it as a something that means the entire body of work of the author.

>>9277084
Just pick up one of his popular works, or even Thus Spoke. The English translations are all good and fun to read, fun as in not dry as fuck as everything and I mean literally everything that is Aristotle. Man there is one dry thinker.

The absolutists and the Enlightment ones