Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 10:21:18 +0100, D wrote:
>

In some caes perhaps parody, but I think in others, he might have
borrowed for dramatic effect? One thing is clear, I find him to be one
of the best writers of many philosophers. Compare it with some modern
analytic philosophy and it's not even the same universe. Modern
philosophy texts can be bone dry.

>
While he ultimately disagreed with him, Nietzsche learned a lot from
Schopenhauer. They both are readable. Kant's answer to Hume isn't and
Hegel, well...

I find Schopenhauer opaque and too negative, and way too wordy. Kant and Hume I never read in the original but only filtered through Coplestones history of philosophy and did not feel like I needed the originals.

It's been a long time since I've read Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, etc. I
chewed on Principia in high school and tried to read some of the others
later in life.

Russell is not too bad. He has some nice essays. But his technical work is not my cup of tea.

Part of the problem is I realized my brain doesn't work that way. I've
made a living employing logic all my life but it just 'happens'.