8 Answers

  1. As a rule, those philosophers who deliberately complicate their text or choose a specific problem are difficult.

    In general, the canonical example is Hegel. On the one hand, it is complex at the level of text construction. Either he had a low culture of writing, or he did not want to give indulgences to the gentle mind of his readers. On the other hand, his ideas themselves are clearly not simple, although Hegel's dialectic proved popular. Probably due to the fact that some complexity and esoteric nature of the concept only attracts a number of people.

    Many postmodernists, such as Derrida and Deleuze, have developed an opinion about the complexity of their texts. But, in fact, it is their literature that attracts many people who still wade through the wilds of language games and find something for themselves.

    I note that those thinkers who are engaged in interdisciplinary research are universally difficult for many people to understand. Just because you need to have an idea of several paradigms of cognition at once. As with Baudrillard, who should not be perceived simultaneously through the prism of classical sociology, Marxism, structuralism and psychoanalysis.

    As it is, a lot really depends on the ability of the author to express his thoughts clearly. Let's say that Dennett and Chalmers talk about difficult-to-understand problems of consciousness, but they communicate them in a popular way.

  2. On the one hand, everything is subjective: to some, the polysyllabic Hegel will seem simple, and Plato, who chews everything up in dialogues, will seem complex. On the other hand, there are “traditionally” complex philosophers: Aristotle, the same Hegel, some postmodernists.

    My personal list of “difficult” philosophers: the scholastics Abelard and Scott, Heidegger, and in some places Wittgenstein. From the easy side: I can easily perceive Kant, Aristotle, Foucault, Arendt, in general, those who like 🙂

    I think that for the Western reader, classical Eastern philosophers may seem quite difficult, but rather for perception, you will have to adjust to a completely different sense of life.

  3. Philosophers are all difficult to understand. Although some may seem easy. The fact is that the difficulty lies not only in the content, but in the difference between the form in which the author expresses his thought and the reader's form of thinking. This point of difference will not make it clear what the content really is hidden in the work, although there will be complete subjective confidence that everything is understood. It is important in the end, after many, many studies of texts, to understand, or rather to develop the form of your thinking from rational to reasonable.

  4. I don't think there are “difficult” and “simple” philosophers. It's just that some of the thinkers are quite difficult to formulate their theses, or use a high literary style. Hegel can most likely be considered one of these (complex) philosophers. Of course, if you approach the question in detail,you will understand it. Don't start with Kant. Don't start with Heidegger. To begin with, I think it will be useful to read some works on the history of philosophy. Bertrand Russell has such a work, for example. After reading it, you will already be able to understand “who is who” and who you might be interested in. Of course, you need to read Plato (“The State”, but preferably all the “Dialogues”) . I do not recommend reading Aristotle in the first couple, although the same “Politics”and” Organon ” can be mastered. After that, you can go to Descartes (“Reasoning about the method”). Next, read various empiricists, rationalists, Hume. After that, you need to try to master the well-known “Critique of Pure Reason” by Immanuel Kant. After Kant, you will already know what to read, whether it's Schopenhauer, Hegel, Fichte, Nietzsche, Husserl, Frege, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Deleuze, etc … �

  5. If you read the works of authors whom you consider philosophers, then you are deeply mistaken. Philosopher – – – lover of wisdom, expressed simply and briefly, and all those who weave the web itself is not clear it is not philosophers. Other people's utterances – – – are never understood, because “The thought spoken is a lie. “” Strive for wisdom, not knowledge. knowledge is the past. Wisdom is the future.”

  6. Berdyaev is the most difficult, imho. I reread it recently to get an idea.
    Difficult even for me to understand. I had to think a lot.
    Although the subject of philosophy was studied at the University.

  7. Nowadays, there are a lot of works that describe the thoughts of philosophers in a clear and accessible language. In the original works, it is difficult to perceive Buddha, Confucius, Epictetus, Herodotus(that is, the ancient philosophers). It is interesting and understandable to read Omar Khayyam, the Dalai Lama, and Osho (these are already more modern thinkers).

  8. Spinoza.
    Absolute finish. Apotheosis of philosophy, imho.
    If Socrates is an embodied philosophy, then Spinoza is an improved Socrates.
    Marx, but not by difficulty, but by an enormous number. critics and followers who were inferior to him in learning to read. There are too many uncertainties that were quite self-evident for a CM, but for a person with a smaller amount of knowledge, they are not obvious at all. Plus very incorrect edits.
    Lacan. The way I write is terrible. You can make your way through these wilds, but it's hard.
    Losev. One of the greatest Platonists, but so enamored of Platonism that he turned it into something brain-shattering like a club.
    Hegel. Verbose and very fond of the sound of his voice.
    Heavy wording, plenty of water.
    Nietzsche. It is almost impossible to trace real views without rereading all the creativity in general.

Leave a Reply

Categories