[Der_Einzige]

Yet again, recommending abstruse works. Being and Time is absurdly difficult for even Philosophy Ph.Ds to parse. Worse yet, Phenomenology is kinda like metaphysics in that many people in the field don't believe that it's even truly legitimate. Heidegger had to go and claim that his biggest fans (Sartre) actually compleatly misunderstood him entirely. If Sartre can't get it right, can a random newcomer understand it the way Heidegger intended?

As far as Nietzsche goes - by his own words (he is very clear about this in one of his books - I think it was ecco homo) - you're supposed to have read ALL of the works of Kant and then Schopenhauer before you can even understand Nietzsche. Not that many people agree with him about that, but it did color my perception of him (and the study of the two that he asks the readers to look into does a massive amount to explain why Nietzsche sounds like such an edgelord)...

[pmoriarty]

"If Sartre can't get it right, can a random newcomer understand it the way Heidegger intended?"

They're not going to understand Hegel either, and probably not Kant, or a bunch of other philosophers on that list.

But Heidegger and Nietzsche were undeniably hugely influential on philosophy, so they belong on that list as much or more than many of the other people listed, who were of minor significance, at best.

Ecce Homo was written shortly before Nietzsche went insane, with chapter titles like "Why I am So Wise", "Why I am So Clever", and "Why I Write Such Excellent Books". I wouldn't take what he wrote there at face value.. and much of what he writes in other places should be taken with a grain of salt also, as he often wrote with tongue firmly in cheek, and it's often difficult to nail down exactly what Nietzsche thought or intended.

This is one of the reasons he's been so influential on modern Continental philosophy, some of which took on wholeheartedly his spirit of play and irony, which most of philosophy before Nietzsche was missing.

That's not to say that Nietzsche can't be serious.. much of his work is serious, but it's written in an aphoristic rather than a systematic way, which makes understanding what he's saying a lot more difficult than, say, many Analytic thinkers, who prize being clear and straightforward.

So, yeah, Nietzsche's not great for beginners either, and he's famous for being misinterpreted anyway, even by professional philosophers. But he's still highly significant, and for my money far more profound than all the Analytics put together.

[cam_l]

Absolutely agree.

And sticking with western philosophy, if you are suggesting Hegel and Nietzsche. I would also bring you into the (late) twentieth century with Deleuze & Guattari. But I also wouldn't recommend them to a beginner.

I also think as a start, knowing these figures, perhaps even tasting their work, lets you read around them. You see the way their ideas spread out into the world. I sometimes think there are more different takes on Nietzsche's work than ideas in them!

You can also read back and trace a line of thought through various philosophers from say, Deleuze back through Bergson, Nietzsche, Kant, Spinoza, Liebniz, all the way back to the Stoics. To understand Dennett, you need see the impact Descartes has on modern thought, and you can trace that kind of thinking back through to the Socratics. You start to see that these philosophical threads actually shape people's entire view of the world around them, and in some way the world itself.

[pmoriarty]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Hegel and Nietzsche, but Heidegger and Nietzsche.

Hegel, however, was clearly influential, so he shouldn't be left out of a list of influential philosophers. I'm just personally not a fan of his at all, and were it not for his significance I would skip him.

[cam_l]

Yes, quite! I meant to say, Hegel and Kant or Heidegger and Nietzsche. Agree about Hegel too, theres a lot of philosophers works I would recommend to give a miss and just read a synopsis. Hegel is in that list, Kant is not.

[Veen]

I think you mean abstruse or obscure, not obtuse. Obtuse means stupid.