28
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by roux@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net

*Forgive any formatting as I'm on mobile.

As I read in themes, I'm currently focusing on philosophy to try and understand it, see where I fit in the world and also reconstruct my own atheist/nihilistic worldview.

I just got done with Existentialist Cafe and got a really nice overview of all the main players in the Existentialist camp but want to finally take the leap into nihilism and absurdism proper. I've read The Stranger and Myth of Sisyphus and like Camus a lot so far but also wanna tackle Satre, Beauvoir, and Merleau-Ponty eventually but wonder if I need to read Husserl and specifically Heidegger and Nietzche since they are controversial because of their politics. Would I be able to get away with just reading synopses of their work? I do currently have Being and Time in my list of books to get.

Also, aside from Nietzche, who else should I read regarding nihilism? I'm currently working through The Trouble with Being Born by Cioran and wanna find some more by him but also have The Antidote by Burkeman and Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Ligotti in my backlog. I did read The Book by Alan Watts the other day and though it felt like reading my stoned friend's wild ramblings on society and how we exist in it, some coherent stuff did come through. But I don't know if it was what I was after. I did appreciate it for introducing me to some concepts like ego and self but maybe I should have saved it for another day?

Sidenote but I'm planning on moving back and force between philosophy and socialist theory so socialist philosphers are also welcome. Generally I'm open to all suggestions.

Thanks in advance!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Wertheimer@hexbear.net 14 points 6 months ago

Yes, even if you know for a fact that you'll reject both of them. They're too important for everything else that happens in continental philosophy. Almost everyone else is responding to them or interpreting them in different ways.

For Heidegger: you can get away with only reading the first division of Being and Time but I'd also prioritize "The Origin of the Work of Art" and "The Question Concerning Technology," among other pieces included in Heidegger's Basic Writings. Even if your main question as a reader is "What's fashy about this ostensibly non-political text?" it's important. I'm not going to claim it's necessary for everyone to read him, but since you're interested in philosophy, you're already researching existentialism, and you presumably have mountains of leftist books on your reading list that have been influenced, implicitly or explicitly, by Heidegger's thought - yes, you should read him.

Re: Husserl: I know a few people who've read him and I don't know if any of them recommend the experience. The folk I know who are into phenomenology are much more fond of Merleau-Ponty.

For Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals is his most straightforward and necessary text. The Birth of Tragedy is great; The Gay Science and Beyond Good and Evil are at least fun to flip through; Twilight of the Idols is an underrated starting point. There are good reasons to loathe Nietzsche and his influence but he's an absolute all-timer as a writer and aphorist, and if he says something deeply horrible he probably has something that says the exact opposite elsewhere in his corpus. There are lots of ways to read him. For example, he's obviously a misogynist but there are books out there that offer feminist interpretations of him. Is this ridiculous? Maybe. But there's a reason he inspires such contortionist versatility in his readers. He contains multitudes.

For Cioran: my favorite is a A Short History of Decay. His first book, written in Romanian, On the Heights of Despair, is frequently excellent. If you've read even a bit of Nietzsche you'll see where Cioran gets it from. I don't know where else to go for nihilist thinkers, but Eugene Thacker, who does some Cioran introductions, has a book on pessimism (Infinite Resignation) that might direct you to others.

[-] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago

GOOD post, agree wholeheartedly with the heiddegger reccomendation

[-] roux@hexbear.net 5 points 6 months ago

I'm gonna come back to your comment for sources when I'm back at my computer.

I wonder if I was actually asking, regardless of them both being flashy, if it's important as a foundation going into the rest of the existentialists, phenomonilogists, nihilists, etc. I think you answered that. I am less interested in Husserl to be honest so if skipping him is ok, then coolio.

I am eventually hoping to get to Merleau-Ponty but want to set aside a time specifically for him. I didn't even know of him (or Beauvoir) until Existentialist Cafe and they both stood out to me.

I actually have A Short History of Decay and will probably get to it in the next 3 or so books. What I'm wanting to get from Pessimism is if "optimistic nihilism" or Absurdism is something worthy of me aiming for since I'm a pessimist and very doom and gloom as it is. Again I want a sort of foundation. I'm having a hard time accepting my own mortality and basically being a "useless lump" since society has been so harsh against my own existence so pessimism is sort of my base state. I'm trying to figure out if it's more worth living in the absurd I think. I think that's probably why Cioran and Camus both caught my attention. They seem 2 sides of that coin maybe?

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
28 points (100.0% liked)

philosophy

19654 readers
8 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes


Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS