In what order do I read these guys? Chronologically straight through, or seperately?
Berkeley is pretty fun to read.
>>7844622
it depends why youre reading them, but generally chronological is nice
>>7844622
skip spinoza
Spinoza is the best of em. don't listen to that other anon. He's a fuccboi
>>7844936
Our empress is back and with perfect opinons as always. Berks is great
>>7844951
i could see someone disliking the rationalists as a whole, but singling out baruch like that?
nah
Oh, how should I read Leibniz? These are the two main books in the guide:
Philosophical Essays (Hackett Classics) ISBN: 0872200620
G.W. Leibniz’s Monadology an Edition for Students ISBN: 0822954494
>>7844622
I literally have both of these readers on my shelf. If in doubt, go chronologically - the empiricists came later, and were pushing back on the rationalists, so in reading philosophy, it's generally helpful to go in order, to see what those who came later are referring to or pushing back on. This is why SWTG is the meme that it is.
Although desu, at this point in history we're not yet in kant/hegel abstruse territory, and the language and notions are pretty familiar to us, so IMO it's pretty easy to read any of this type of thing cold, as long as you supplement any background you don't immediately understand with wiki.
BTW, one aspect of Kant's project was to synthesize the disagreements between these two camps.
>>7844955
ur a faggot
>>7846598
Kant did it successfully
>>7846606
-- Said no one ever.
>>7844622
Also OP, just a cultural aside: among the six pictured men, (IIRC) only one ever married: Berkeley. Of course, this is a much bigger deal a few centuries ago, than today. Consequently there is a meme to the effect that many (not all) philosophers don't marry, which cursory searching suggests was helped along by Nietzsche.
>>7846639
I don't trust the philosophy of anyone who can't get laid.
What does that make me?
>>7846653
A normie faggot who has never cared to or had to think deeply or rigorously about anything at all, tbqh.
Although if you insist on your philosophers being normies themselves, they can be found. Also unmarried is not the same thing as permavirginity, as our post-collapse society well knows. Descartes apparently had an LTR with a woman, with whom he lived in sin. Even Socrates apparently married, which turbovirgin Nietzsche lamented as a kind of troll. Nietzsche was tempted by a professional slut once, and he gave in. For this, he was immediately robbed of his mana, and stricken with the Syphilis, which killed him.
>>7844951
>skipping the philosopher most influential on the first generation of Romantics
>skipping the philosopher who influenced Melville and George Eliot
>skipping one of the first serious arguments for moral relativism and the cold indifference of the universe in centuries
>>7847228
Moral relativism is irrational, formulated entirely to demoralize and subvert.
>>7847236
Where did I say that it was favorable? There are problems with Spinoza's idea of rational self-interest and the interest of the many in the cases where the subject's most rational option is self-annihilation. Also,
>le Jew meme
You need to be 18 to post here.
>>7847242
Spinoza is talmudic trash designed to erode the goyim's soul.
Not worth reading.
Read Hobbes, then Locke, then read this chapter by chapter rebuttal of Locke by Leibniz
>>7844951
Bait
>>7845008
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub
>>7845008
Don't start with the Monadology. Begin with the Discourse on Metaphysics and Primary Truths, they'll make the Monadology more digestible and will give you a better sense of Leibniz's overall project/system.
