Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: D <nospam@example.net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Joy of this, Joy of that
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:31:39 +0100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <367885be-9825-94b4-cd4e-c3a2684bc29c@example.net>
References: <vhigot$1uakf$1@dont-email.me> <virs73$1gno5$3@dont-email.me> <9cGcnY0c8c3LA8_6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@earthlink.com> <6465d1f8-6fab-e3bd-0345-86011937364d@example.net> <lrh6e1FdnlbU4@mid.individual.net> <a97cff3a-7a2a-2797-f17f-4fa39a18a523@example.net> <vj1jdg$33eu5$7@dont-email.me> <lrjl8cFq671U3@mid.individual.net> <ed403392-950e-e1a7-f320-6da768eae20b@example.net> <lrkih3Fd5bU1@mid.individual.net> <77a225ca-c45c-dd19-fc45-e2de5f7963be@example.net> <lrml1gFaa38U4@mid.individual.net> <12bd40ae-a14e-7772-cb7a-5bf427664dec@example.net> <lrpc0kFnkplU3@mid.individual.net> <1a9e8e48-13eb-8276-cd59-1a31218d1dfb@example.net> <lrrj9aF4og5U1@mid.individual.net> <ceccead2-2c2f-1db7-4d71-e12576e6010b@example.net> <lrs93jF7n0tU1@mid.individual.net> <698b7064-5f49-d7b5-39e7-c18a513154ef@example.net> <lrurh7Fknh0U1@mid.individual.net> <73f2019d-9a05-68eb-c3f6-e88a32fd334f@example.net> <ls0u6gFembU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2546524"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="w/4CleFT0XZ6XfSuRJzIySLIA6ECskkHxKUAYDZM66M";
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ls0u6gFembU1@mid.individual.net>
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:62267



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'.