forgotten philosophers

>>9848124
>bergson
I read his on laughter once and jesus christ that was retarded

Junger

- Lamarck
- Herbert Spencer
- Alex de Tocqueville
- Adam Smith's other works

>>9848124
Reading creative evolution atm and loving it. Useful for thinking about artificial intelligence and consciousness, and is helpful for understanding heidegger a bit more too

Deleuze is hardly forgotten

Bolanzo
Croce
Comte

Habermas
Luhmann
Diogenes

>>9848176
no

>>9848181
yeah i just put deleuze cuz he likes bergson

>>9848191
>>9848192
these r good

A.C. Ewing
José Ortega y Gasset
Carl Schmitt (although there is an increasein popularity lately)

>>9848171
>has more new edition published now than the last 30 years
>forgotten

File: rebel-diogenes_o_3386117.jpg (103KB, 960x705px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 960x705px

>>9848205

Max Scheler.

A non-Husserlian phenomenologist who savagedly btfo'd Heidegger and everyone pretended like it didn't happen (especially Heidegger).

Benjamin

>>9848250
>Max Scheler
>everyone pretended like it didn't happen (especially Heidegger).

>>After [Scheler's] death in 1928, Martin Heidegger affirmed, with Ortega y Gasset, that all philosophers of the century were indebted to Scheler and praised him as "the strongest philosophical force in modern Germany, nay, in contemporary Europe and in contemporary philosophy as such."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Scheler

???

File: 50620934.jpg (47KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x250px

>>9848260
cant think of any

Can't think of any forgotten, but my favourites right now would be Peter Rollins and Albert Camus.

Bachelard
Ficino
Averroes and most Persian philosophers
Herder
Henry more and the Cambridge platonists

>>9848191
>Bolanzo

>>9848544
I meant Bolzano. Just goes to show how forgotten he is (and how dumb I am).

>>9848381
what about averroes is worth reading

Vico

>>9848276
Yeah, Heidegger pretended like Scheler didn't destroy his philosophy.

Fichte. Way better than Hegel.

Peterson

>>9848609
how did he destroy it?

Lev Shestov

>>9848160
It was a good text if you didn't take it too seriously. Pretty much like most of Bergson's work, it can be useful if you only take some things from it, as Deleuze did. Deleuze himself admits that Bergson was considered dubious and new age (the latter mostly due to his following).

>>9848160
It's a simple book but it explains a lot about its subject matter. What was your problem with it?

>>9849560
Scheler provided a really strong critique of Heidegger and Heidegger was like "Yeah, well you forgot Being lmao" and moved on while ironically giving him very high praise.

Scheler didn't like Heidegger, Nietzsche even less so.

>>9848612
how so

>>9849612
yeah, but can you give some deets on the critique

>>9848160

doesn't he make a reference to black face?

clowns and black face as a certain modality of laughter.. or something ...

>>9848181

how so?

I think the language is similar but surely Heidegger and Bergson are never brought together?

>>9848192
Habermas and Diogenes aren't obscure

File: boehme.jpg (93KB, 537x640px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 537x640px

Jakob Böhme

Castoriadis

>>9848233
noone cares about him

>>9850231
Ur mum cares about him xdd