>>7841385
Shit, write*

I would say that unless you have some serious post-grad level philosophy under your belt not to write philosophy at all. Almost everything you write will be laughably wrong. Please don't.
Saying that I like thinking so I do philosophy is like saying I like drawing pictures of houses so I'm an architect. It's a serious discipline that only serious academics are able to contribute to.

>>7841612
>Saying that I like thinking so I do philosophy is like saying I like drawing pictures of houses so I'm an architect.


(After failing to learn how to play the piano in one afternoon) "But I must be musical! I've got loads of CDs."
- Fran Katzenjammer, "Black Books"

>>7841385
On a side note, Nietzsche is the only philosopher i have read whom i enjoy for the pure writing itself
>tfw you will never be able to read him in the original language
I remember how striking a read was Also Spoke Zarathustra, the first time around. The parables, syntax, theological references; definitely the work of someone quite familiar with the bible. He really nailed that antiquated kind of flow.

>>7841612
This.

>>7841385
lmao... no way

you forget the reason he could be the man he was is he was a philologist

only if you have read everything under the sun

>>7841385
If you don't know why Nietzsche and Kant wrote the way they wrote then you shouldn't even try to write philosophy and you should learn more about philosophy and philosophers first. There is a reason they write like this that is linked to their philosophy, to their conception of truth, logic etc... . I don't say that to be arrogant, but if you don't know how to write your thoughts it already means there is a problem.

They wrote a style tailored to their thoughts. Kant was methodical and systemic, Nietzsche was poetic and eclectic. Kant was mostly a builder at heart while Nietzsche was almost pure destruction. Kant was presented in a way which almost precludes misinterpretation of anything but the finest of details from a close reading while Nietzsche still has equally well read scholars still engaging in debate over some of the most basic premises of what he was saying.

Kant takes a logical, rational approach while Nietzsche takes a psychological and at times irrational approach (though I wouldn't call him an anti-rationalist as some label him). Both of them are trying to influence the behavior of their readers, Kant has a very specific kind of behavior in mind that he'd like everyone to adhere to while Nietzsche mostly wants to tear down the old gods in the minds of great men that come once in a generation and let them figure out what to do with that.

Write in the style which best presents whatever thoughts you have. But I wouldn't recommend a pure philosophy book as an introductory writing exercise unless you have actually, literally read tens of thousands of pages of philosophy first. Put your thoughts down in a few manuscripts and present them through another lens, be it genre fiction, romance, mystery or what have you. Make hints at your beliefs thematically and occasionally through character dialogue. But making them thematically is much better IMO, nobody wants to be bludgeoned over the head.

>>7841612
That's just nonsense, if you aren't writing philosophy you aren't understanding any other philosophy you read. Of course everything you write will be garbage, it takes years to start developing a coherent system of thought, but it is impossible to read any philosopher without first having a philosophical system within which to place his writing. If reading philosophy doesn't cause you to constantly jot down ideas and relate them to other ideas you have then you aren't doing anything but memorizing an abstracted system.

>>7841612
>implying the next great thinker will work in the education industry

doubt it bro, academia is not a good place for thinking of new ideas, i wouldn't be surprised if the next age of philosophy comes from a researcher at google or apple doing machine learning, language processing, etc.