I'm doing a paper on post-kantian philosophy next term, and have to choose two philosophers to focus on. One will be good old papa N, but who should the other one be? Options are Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. What to expect from each and advice as to who fits well with Nietzsche is appreciated.
>>7914927
Nietzsche spends a lot of time criticizing Hegel so there's some bantz to cover there. Heidegger sucked Nietzsche's dick in his earlier days but distanced himself as he grew older. Which is a frequent pattern worth noting, Nietzsche described his method as philosophy with a sledgehammer and he wasn't wrong, very useful for breaking things, not so useful for building.
Sartre's relationship with Nietzsche is mostly through Heidegger so there isn't much to focus on directly. I don't know as much about Merleau but I suspect it's much the same case with him. I'd pick either Heidegger or Hegel for the sake of simplicity.
>>7914927
Schopenhauer is the correct answer.
>Options are Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty.
Jesus Christ - what horrifically bad options. Among those, Merleau-Ponty is perhaps the most coherent. But I don't know how indebted he is to Nietzsche.
>>7914927
I'd go with Heidegger. Was very influenced by Nietzsche, especially The Will to Power. Make sure you get a copy and try to get your hands on Heidegger's four-volume "Nietzsche."
Heidegger is a fantastic companion to Nietzsche, but be prepared to sparknotes the fuck outta that nonsense
School of Life on youtube has two good heidegger starter videos to pique your interest
>>7917269
>But I don't know how indebted he is to Nietzsche.
any philosopher in the 20th century and onward who does not have some debt to nietzsche has not been paying attention
>>7917279
Too bad Heidegger wrote utterly incomprehensible nonsense.
>>7917310
Heidegger is only incomprehensible to people ignorant of history, hence his continued relevance in Progressive thought contra his blatant reactionary tendencies.
You manage to be both unintelligent enough to not understand the Progressive interpretation of his thought, and morally bankrupt to the point of not realizing what his essential religious protest meant.
>Too bad Heidegger wrote utterly incomprehensible nonsense.
>>7917307
Utter nonsense. Nietzsche was barely even a philosopher. He shouted out some quips and aphorisms, but that's not philosophy.
Hegel is the only correct answer. Completely towers over everyone else after Kant.
>>7917321
When you unpack his embarrassingly convoluted and needlessly obscure writing style, all you find are truisms and obvious falsehoods. He writes sentences like this:
“But ‘nowhere’ does not mean nothing; rather, region in general lies therein, and disclosedness of the world in general for essentially spatial being-in. Therefore, what is threatening cannot come closer from a definite direction within nearness, it is already ‘there’ — and yet nowhere. It is so near that it is oppressive and takes one’s breath — and yet it is nowhere.”
If that sounds like bullshit, that's because it is. So sorry you got suckered by a psuedo-intellectual con artist.
>>7917328
>this is what a person who's never read nietzsche sounds like
>>7917337
I don't give a shit about Heidegger I was mocking you for not being able to understand him.
>>7917347
What are you, 15 years old? I enjoyed Nietzsche at that age too. Very vigorous style, and quite funny.
Plus, he's actually intelligible - which is quite rare for a continental philosopher.
But when you grow up, you will find that Nietzsche's "philosophy" is skin-deep and narrowly oriented. He never even addresses the big questions of metaphysics and epistemology in a serious way.
>>7917355
Nobody can understand him, moron. That's what 'incomprehensible' means.
>>7917337
that isn't bullshit, you're just dim-witted
it's actually quite brilliant
he managed to turn the idea of 'nowhere', which in common speech suggests emptiness, neutrality & sheer lack, into 'oppressively near' – the complete opposite – without losing the thread of comprehensibility along the way.
>>7917368
>which is quite rare for a continental philosopher.
Spotted the down kid - opinion disregarded
>>7917381
Hahaha - you have GOT to be trolling.
>>7917387
You'll understand after your acne clears up, son.
>>7917401
hahahaha, no.
>>7917332
You forgot that part where Fagel never wrote a single coherent book and got sodomized by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
Hegel was only popular with the low minded drudges who attended university in order to become civil servants
>>7917368
He never adresses metaphysics and epistemology because he believes they're just excuses for philosophers to excert their will to power through complex unempirical, and ultimately false theories. He believed that one needed to axiomatically assume certain things to be true in order to exist, and that these were enough to ensure the propagation of one's own power. He also largely believed that one cannot derive moral truths from facts and that all morality was merely a subjective interpretation of reality, therefore even if a certain metaphysical system from one of his opponents were true, it wouldn't really mean anything for his viewpoints on power. An irrationalist didn't need to concern himself with the rational/epistemological/metaphysical order of the world.
>>7917387
Can you name any other continental philosophers that wrote clearly besides Schoopy and Nietzsche?
i fuken love this thread
Edmund Husserl's early works (Philosophy of Arithmetic, Logical Investigations) were clearly written, and even contained some key insights. In fact, Frege and Carnap were influenced by his work in this period.
But after that, he began to gradually slide off the rails of lucidity.
>>7917439
Camus everywhere except the Stranger.
Sartre as well, but his thought is too simple to stand with the other greats.
So impressions I'm getting are:
>hegel and heidegger are most relevant of the options I mentioned
>heidegger is relevant but impenetrable
>hegel mostly gets shat on by nietzsche
Some people bring up Schopenhauer. I can check if he's an option too. If he is, should I pick him?
>>7914927
S P O O K
Don't do facile shit based on pop-level analysis. Pick a hard topic, within a real tradition, and bring together two thinkers on it.
My advice would be to work within phenomenology and/or hermeneutics. Those topics both run through and underlay so much of philosophical and humanities discourse in the 20th century that you can find hundreds of fruitful comparisons, contrasts, seminal thinkers, but it's also not so broad that you are scraping for facile undergrad shit like "what was Foucault's debt to Nietzsche." It gives you a reasonable reading purview.
Husserl, Ricoeur, any of the neo-Kantians or neo-Hegelians.
Try Dilthey & Ortega y Gasset for a hipster option. Hermeneutics + lesser-known, and when the latter first encountered the former he was dismayed because he felt Dilthey had already done everything he was trying to do.
>>7918547
I've checked, and schopenhauer is indeed an option. Should I be going with him?
>>7918725
bump
H E G E L
dr seuss
>>7918586
If you want a specific idea, building on this guy, what about the philosophy of history? Its quite an obscure topic, strangely, but Nietzsche gave great credence to genealogy, which was picked up by Foucault. Or you could compare Hegel's philosophy of history with Nietzsche, which would be difficult, but possible if you were good.
>disappointed by the lack of Kierkegaard in this thread
>>7919661
Go hard or tap out son
>>7917368
>he never addresses
Yes he does, he says they're all bullshit, and are necessarily bullshit due to the human condition. If you don't find that answer satisfying go look elsewhere.
>>7919661
if you're an undergrad you could probably smear your own shit on the paper and turn it in for a C, lmao.
>>7919675
He wasn't one of the options OP mentioned.
>>7917368
He addressed metaphysics and epistemology with all the seriousness and thoroughness they deserve in On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense and the early parts of Beyond Good and Evil. He put relatively little emphasis on them overall because they are, in his view, NOT the "big questions" of philosophy -- he (rightfully) found the questions of life-affirmation vs. life-denial, self-overcoming, ressentiment, nobility, egalitarianism vs. inegalitarianism etc. more deserving of his attention.
>>7918725
Yes, Schopenhauer is the best option.
Everyone who thinks Nietzsche dismantles Hegel has read neither Hegel nor Nietzsche. Nietzsche doesn't even touch Hegel because he doesn't comprehend him. I love old Fred but he badly misunderstands Hegel. It's not his fault, though, lots of people misunderstand Hegel.
>>7919842
>Only one man ever understood me, and he didn't understand me.
>>7919842
Go on then, tell us. You must understand Old Hegel. Tell what he's all about, you must!
>>7914927
Schiller and his Aesthetic education of man might be a good focus since the new perception of Art as a postulate of truth and objectivity of subject inspires plenty of the post-kantian era philosophy (Especially Hegel´s system). Also his idea of Man as an impulsive desiring being contrats with Kant´s Autocoerciveness as a of liberty present in Ethics.
>>7919805
Everyone is skating around the fact that Nietzsche was really more of a literary artist and social commentator than a philosopher. You might call him a "philosopher" in the sense in which George Carlin was a "philosopher". I'm not knocking him, by the way. There's plenty of material in the social/moral/political realms worthy of thoughtful commentary. It's just a different category of intellectual activity.
>>7919842
Hegel was a spewer of nonsense. Schopenhauer recognized him for the fraud that he was, and called him out.
>>7919851
Oh yes, THIS move, I fucking love THIS move. It's so fucking predictable. The second Nietzsche starts to get dismantled by another philosopher his fans weave and duck away by claiming he wasn't REALLY a philosopher and therefore can't be judged as one.
>>7919864
Hegel is still relevant, at least. Unlike your proto-/r9k/er there.
>>7919864
Either way, if you call any philosopher a 'spewer of nonsense' you have no idea what philosophy is and you should get out.
>>7919661
o its clear alrite
Alright, unless anyone has any last thoughts I'm thinking I'll go with Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
>>7919922
You just revealed how little you know.
>>7919929
Except I have multiple degrees in the subject, while you are an angsty teenage shut-in.
Do Fitche and Schelling if possible. Those are probably the two of the most interesting post-Kantians and are often overlooked which will make your paper stand out in comparison to the cliche choices like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.
>>7920007
Then at least briefly explain your point instead of stopping at the ad hominem phase.
>>7920010
Fuck that. He's an undergraduate. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are a classic pairing - the paper basically writes itself.
