Philosophy - Top 10 most obscure Philosophers ever

[searchforknowledge1]

I find Heidegger a real mind f...

[SteauaBucuresti]

If you guys are simple-minded with a self-consciousness that won´t and can´t barricade any invincibile walls that sorrounds us all. Then obviously you´ll find great thinkers very obscure. Cause your existience in life is obscure.

[willhum]

The photos dont quite match the text... strange.

[Jaygull]

I didn't know Roger Scruton made spiteful youtube videos.

[amplitudina]

Hey guys! Sartre is not Lacan lol ! Et ce n'est pas parce que tu ne comprends pas ce qu'un auteur écrit qu'il est obscure. "Un livre est un miroir. Si un singe vient à s'y mirer, ce n'est évidemment pas l'image d'un apôtre qui va apparaître." Lichtenberg

[Ahksmar]

my tits are obscure

[Pant607]

One Top 10 about philosophers.... What's you're problem? xD

[StPeteDada]

Where's Deleuze and Guattari. Capitalism and Schizophrenia is without a doubt the most obscure thing I ever came across in my life

[Svyatogor13]

Do subjectivity and personal opinions make a valid point ? I see nothing but a weeping born out of the lack of the lack of understanding and comprenhesion . . .

[ColossusShade]

ahah

I knew it would be hegal. hahaha

[invincibletruth1776]

I think you are wrong in using the word OBSCURE because it doesn't fit these philosophers as whole. Instead use the word ABSTRUSE.

[TallFastLoud]

swag spelling errors swag

[PhilosophyScience]

@mrfatd,

You forgot to include yourself in the list. For uploading a vid about philosophers and not having at least 10 years of serious study in this area. If you have, well, oh boy...

[RodrigoBarrazaNunez]

And mrfatd won the prize as the most brave user: recognize that he doesn't have the intelectual tools to understand the most important thinkers of our time. I believe you didn't read Lacan, Deluze, Butler, Laclau, Guattari, etc. Please don't. You'll probably die.

[isaacraimundo]

You are clearly so stuck in positivism you could not understand anything above the geometrization of data on paper. I'm sorry for you! You're definitely out of philosophy!

[ReechReynolds]

I had a good laugh at all of the ad hominem comments. Using descriptions such as "narcissist", "brain-dead mega moron", and "super-retarded jerks" don't exactly help one make a good and respectable argument.

[hunan131]

With your carelessness, you have packed Sartre, Lacan, and Derrida into Sartre's entry. Good job...

[dotExtract]

Ludwig Whentogonasty

[bTKqUt9k]

lacan is just ridiculous on from early writings. he needs to be number one.

[Wittgensteinism]

Just because something is too "obscure" for you to comprehend, that doesn't mean it IS obscure

[inlawless]

Well I think the person who has posted this video ( or apology for a video) is a brain-dead mega moron of the first order. And please do not quote John Searle , Daniel Dennett or any other cognitivist philosopher to validate your point because I think they are nothing more than super- retarded jerks of the first order!!

[Redshoes531]

@inlawless I couldn't agree more. he, the creator of this tripe, is obviously a narcissist.

[Mrfixitnot]

"If you can't say it clearly you don't understand it yourself." -John Searle

If it was possible to teach philosophy and institutionalize like any other discipline that will be a valuable point. It is possible for some kinds of philosophy, but I am not sure that that is the best direction for philosophy as a whole.

[josipml5]

oh my god reading the comments about the "true" and the "goofball" philosophers made me realise that somehow a gang of trucksters ended up on this page.... oh the disbelief

[juanitomaniaco]

what the hell is doing Lacan on sartre's place?

[josipml5]

@juanitomaniaco hahaha jacques lacan on sartre --- maybe sartre being too Real, too obscene, all too unberable, so Symbolyc representation of sartrein a form of a picture replaced by Imaginary one - picture of lacan as the "thought of" at the time when the author was creating the video. Your thoughts?

[SteffanLlwyd]

I find Aristotle to be quite clear.... but Heidegger very hard going ...and I can't read him without thinking of his enthusiastic support for Nazism (he was a fully paid up party member). I fume when I read social constructionists who claim their philosophy - based in part on Heidegger - is 'emancipatory'. Ain't necessarily so. The guy ran his university on Nazi principles. Ghastly man.

[Pentagon1311]

Sartre looks like Virgil Solozzo on that picture.

[Blodhosta]

Once when Foucault was interviewd he was asked why his books are so difficult when he is always so clear and understandable face-to-face; he responded that in order to be taken seriously by the french intelligentsia 30% of what you write has to be completely unintelligible.

It's a sad state of affaires but luckily I think there has been a shift away from this mentality in the last few decades, even on "the continent".

"If you can't say it clearly you don't understand it yourself." -John Searle

[KrushKrackKruck]

@Blodhosta Ya, either this, or you anglo-saxonian buttholes are just angry that you don't understand german philosophy and poison our universities with your 'simple' and 'clear' way of thinking in the process.

[Blodhosta]

@KrushKrackKruck If German universities are indeed becoming more analytic I don't think it's a sign that the analytics don't understand German philosophy.

From 1900 onwards I tend to think more highly of French (except post-mod./-struct.) than German philosophy, so except maybe for Heidegger and Husserl I personally don't care very much for "modern" German philosophy. But while I'm more rooted in the analytic tradition I admit that it has lost much of its inovative passion.

[ididete]

you are an idiot. Hegel is hard to understand, but once you spend a few days struggling with his style, you get into the matter so much that the whole new world opens before you -- plus, the reading that follows is much more rewarding. Hegel's difficulty is completely justified and his thought couldn't be written in any other way. Plus, Kierkegaard is super - easy to read. What do you read in your free time -Britney Spears lyrics I guess - when your understanding capacities are so out of shape?

[TheSophist2007]

@ididete I think your right. Any philosophy is hard to understand if you don understand the background thinking of the philosopher in question.

They all have nuanced assumptions, such that you can loose track of the philosophers thinking.

In another way, all philosophers are equally bad in this sense, but such is the nature of philosophy...

[CoombesKidd]

Kant is very overated in my opinion. Hegel seems to make no sense no matter how you look at it. Aristotle is good, its his writing thats hard

[DaveElectric]

I agree with Hegel and Derridia being obscure. The rest aren't THAT bad.

[Mithaokhta]

Well, I will say that Derrida had a knack for using fancy words to describe plain subjects, but you can make sense of him with a dictionary. That doesn't seem obscure to me. Just saying.

[iMentieth]

There is a great story - probably true - that Heidegger presented the third part of 'Being and Time' to Karl Jaspers, intending it to be published with the first two parts. Jaspers read it and responded, "this is not yet intelligible." And 'Being and Time' remained only 2 parts of the first volume: incomplete.

[TheGergaliciousness]

isn't ur pic of sartre actually lacan?

[polymath7]

How could you forget Klaus Von Deipperschitt?

[lilithirsch]

If you consider some of the most intelligable philosophers as "obscure" or "non-sense", perhaps philosophy is not for you ;-)

[analyticaa]

@lilithirsch Wrong. Most of the philosophers on this list are notorious for their obscurity. I remember attempting to read 'Of Grammatology', but there is hardly a clear sentence to be found. Charlatans. If you want to know how to write clearly, read Russell, Hempel, Carnap, Quine (he in fact is an eloquent writer), Kripke, Putnam, R. Jeffreys, Harman, Unger, Goldman, Thomson, BonJour, Sosa, Williamson, Lipton, DeRose, Delia Graff Fara, Hawthorne, Stanley, or Lackey. Just a sample.

[eravulgachris]

@analyticaa In that case, don't blame the philosophers themselves but rather the translators. Almost everyone in your list wrote in your own language - a philosopher should have been able to deduce a pattern from that. Even Hegel, Kant and Husserl, read in German, are far more limpid than we are lead to believe. Not that Kant is in any way obscure.

[Roastbeeflion]

@analyticaa mmh you can make a list indeed...

[eravulgachris]

@lilithirsch Why can no one here, including the mind-weary video maker, spell properly?  It's no wonder philosophy seems elusive.

[inverhillsphilo]

@eravulgachris THANK YOU!!!

[crazycaleb]

How do people find Hegel more obscure than Heidegger? I've read Being and Time, and I've read Phenomenology of Spirit, and the latter was far easier (and I read it earlier in my education). Also, Hegel's writings vary a good deal as far as difficulty goes. He deserves to be on this list without a doubt, I'd say somewhere in the top five, but I wouldn't put him above Derrida and Heidegger.

Also, it's important to keep in mind that most of Aristotle's works are lecture notes, hence the dryness.

[Debordsbullet]

I found several of the thinkers on your list to be quite rigorous and clear. I think part of the complication is that each of these 10 draw from a larger discourse and assumes you have a background in philosophy. If anything, this video is testament to your lack of ability to read closely. Some concepts are just damn complicated.

[sarped0n]

I think I've missed the point in this video completely. Is it supposed to be a joke? Or are you just trolling?

Studying philosophy requires you re-evaluate your whole way of thinking; why would you imagine for one second that it wouldn't be confusing?

[Shreddersebbes]

I don't quite see the criterion for obscurity here, it seems that it's sort of assimilated into just style and complexity of ideas, but if you look at stuff like Spinoza or Wittgenstein, they wrote mathematical treatises, ie they should be the most clear of philosophy, but the obscurity arises then from the complexity of ideas. I don't quite see how Plato then does not make the list cause the Parmenides by the standards here is probably the most obscure text ever, despite it's logical clarity

[gettherythm]

hahahahahahahahahaha, THAT WAS FUN :D… what about Nietzsche?

[pheargynt]

my top 3 would be derrida, adorno, heidegger

so yeah im missing adorno on your list :D

[erzzr]

Dude, have you ever read Anti-Oedipus? That stuff is way more obscure than most of the stuff on this list

[Debordsbullet]

@erzzr

Anti-Oedipus along with other DandG texts requires a firm grasp of psychoanalysis, history, and the genealogy of philosophy in the very least. It seems as if we're confusing obscure for complicated here. Deleuze is quite clear if you come to understand his concepts and context.

[erzzr]

@Debordsbullet Deleuze is quite clear, much clearer than the writings of people like Derrida and Lacan, but his work with guattari is, I daresay, pretty obscure, things do not flow all too linearly in Anti-Oedipus due to some aesthetic (schizophrenic) choices for the writing. Some of the essays in a Thousand Plateaus were pretty clear, yes, but there are a few that are extremely difficult/obscure.

[Debordsbullet]

@erzzr Well, I'm not going to pretend I didn't struggle through AO and ATP, it was a joyful endeavor though. I come from a pretty solid Nietzsche and Bergson background so perhaps I felt a little more at home in Deleuze. The rhizomatic/schizo structure of AO is a nightmare but I also think it was an attempt to subvert the notion of a book and the act of reading from 'front to back'. In place of the typical front to back chapter format, I think DandG wanted AO and ATP to be a machinic assemblage.

[erzzr]

@Debordsbullet I think it's pretty agreed-upon that ATP/AO are meant to be read as machinic assemblages, D&G pretty much say that everything should be read that way(though I do think that AO is meant to be read front-to-back, while ATP explicitly isn't). My point is, in comparison to some of the other people mentioned on this list, like Sartre, whose philosophy is extremely clear as long as you have a decent understanding of Husserl and Heidegger, AO/ATP probably deserved a spot on this list

[Debordsbullet]

@erzzr Well I certainly see where you're coming from

[Samanmotlagh]

lacan should be number 1, hegel number 2.

[mrfatd]

thats damn true! the nonsense that old fool lacan scribbled is so obscure it makes hegel look like bertrand russell!!

[RodrigoBarrazaNunez]

@mrfatd obscure? just take the time to read it. It's not a novel you know. You can't figure it out in 1 day.

[notonewhit]

@Samanmotlagh The important thing to know about Lacan is that he is an anti-philosopher. Coherent systems of thought are of the Imaginary (Master's Discourse) . Of course that does not mean he's any less obscure.

"Philosophy...has always served the master, has always placed itself in the service of rationalizing and propping up the master's discourse, as has the worst kind of science." (Fink, The Lacanian Subject, 132)

[hyperhumana]

@Samanmotlagh Lacan is not a philosopher.

he uses Bolchak's algoritm.

;)

[rosihantu1]

There are serious philosophers like Kant, Hegel and Aristotle. But there are also goofballs philosophers like Ferrida, Foucoult and Lacan.

[mrfatd]

100% true!!

[benjaminjobrien]

@rosihantu1 Agree.

[ReechReynolds]

@rosihantu1

I mean this with respect, but what makes those philosophers goofballs? Great video, and another philosopher I'd add to that list would be Plotinus. His readings on "The One" can bring about a severe migraine.Another thing, an aspect that makes these thinkers' readings hard to understand is that many times they don't translate well into English. Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit" also translates to "Phenomenology of Mind" but the German word Geist is sort of a combo of both words.

[ReechReynolds]

@ReechReynolds

And I'm sure you already knew that, but other readers might not :)

[S2Cents]

@rosihantu1 Foucault was serious.

[alliant]

@rosihantu1

you've been raised in a world where analytic philosophy is regarded as the Holy Scripture. it's amusing to see how obviously your tastes are manufactured. if you think that derrida, foucalt and lacan have nothing to offer, you have successfully failed at reading them. and I've read kant, hegel and aristotle - thoroughly. Im not saying it's either A or B. I'm saying EVERYONE has something important to say. well, usually.

[rosihantu1]

@alliant Look, all I am saying is that your dialetic contextualisation of the singularity of my argument has paradoxically transgressed the didactic notion of my rational explanation.

[alliant]

@rosihantu1

ah of course

[RodrigoBarrazaNunez]

@rosihantu1 Ferrida... you mean Derrida?, Foucoult... you mean Foucault?, philosophers? Lacan was extremely critical of philosophy, he was a freudian pshychoanalist with medic formation. Foucault it's one of the most influential thinkers to understand current political and institutioanal crisis over the world. Goofballs? Gimme a break dude.

[TheJayfa]

@RodrigoBarrazaNunez While I agree with what you are saying, I find it difficult because your spelling and grammar make your comment hypocritical.

[RodrigoBarrazaNunez]

@TheJayfa english you got the point

[DD8687]

cool video

[mrfatd]

u are cool

[protossenslaver]

Wittgenstein's Tractatus is, by his own admission, "nonsensical". Now he said that because in his view, anything that was not a statement of logic (a thought) was "non-sensical"; and as such, yes- it is obscure, but it is unfair to put him on this list (especially so high), because if you even look at any of the later philosophy you will see that he uses very forward language. He is a natural language philosopher after all. (Blue and Brown books, Investigations)

Otherwise, not too shabby.

[fishissimus]

Genius! I watched your video on the BEST writers of philosophy too. I loved the not so subtle conflation of good writing with good ideas. If only all things I ought to know could be presented to me in a series of blue slides like this. Keep up this important work!

[dlsales]

Hahaha, funny vid, mate! I couldn't be in more agreement with you: when it comes to verbal expression of ideas, Hegel surely can make himself unclear! The most hilarious fragments of Parerga und Paraliponema, by the way, consist of Schopenhauer's opinion about his german rival writing style.

[riles666]

When you use "obscure", do you mean the way in which they write (as in, obscure because it is hard to read) and not obscure as in almost completely unknown?

[tristramshandy3]

If you are looking for profound thoughts that are relatively easy to digest, may I recommend the sheer genius of Montaigne?

Try his essays.

[jeanMA999]

Sorry my friend but your list sucks.

First of all, I don't know who's on that photo but is not Sartre. Second the title of your video is the most obscure philosophers, so I was hoping to find something new, but Spinoza, Kant and even Aristotle, I even heard Shaquille O'neal quoting Aristotle on TV once, that's how well known he is.

Obscure are Otto Weininger (who's great), Erich Fromm, Paulo Freire etc...

[SweetRandal]

Philosophy is hard! Singing is fun! Yea American Idol!

[p2crisis]

By far, one of the most shallow, lazy and misinformed videos i've ever watched on youtube! Bye bye|

[bobsanders222]

"Those philosophers who write in an intelligible language are just trying to hide their lack of knowledge".

Can't remember who said that, but it's almost always true. Of course, people like Heidegger or Wittgenstein had a real reason to write in an obscure form (because it was the only way to express correctly their thoughts), but most of them are just trying to look smart. The REAL smart philosopher is the one that writes in common language and STILL seems profound.

[himkdm]

You think Stephen King is the most genius philosopher ever? j/k

[ogirv101]

Lol, ironically most the people you've mentioned were the greatest philosophers of all time, mainly Aristotle and Kant.

[raffen79]

Death to continental and postmodern philosophy!!! Long live analytic philosophy!

[jdinn]

Even if you were to be completely wrong or disagreed with on every point this short and humorous video is still worth infinitely more than half of the other things on youtube.

[nikosgasparis]

Aristotelis, Irakleitos and Platonas(these are the original greek names) are the reason you even have the chance to put an ignorant video like that on youtube. With out them we still would be in medevil age thinking like you. try to read and do some research before prouving your ignorance to us!!!!

[mrfatd]

mate, this video about STYLE OF WRITING, not content, aristotle was a genius no doubt. and you would greatly benefit from taking an english class

[soworowa]

@mrfatd If you knew anything about these philosophers, you (maybe) would understand that the 'style' and 'content' are not to be seperated. They are in relation, without which you couldn't even begin to try and understand them.

[timbolicous]

I think Churchill and Martin Luther King kicked their asses in terms of influence lol. Oh, and James Brown.

The same ideas that are wrapped in clever words (or even the ORIGINAL Greek - eeew!) can equally be thought by the plainest speaking, most intuitive people. Such as James. Watch him dance.

[vilepete]

Churchill has got a highly obscure and dubious past, like most of the politicians have! If you could "wrap" yourself in some clever words - coined for some purpose, and not idle or whimsical reasons - you would not write so much rubbish... By the way, there are tones of black artists much more interesting and committed than JB; examples? Gil Scott-Heron

[mana0077]

are u a woman?

sure ....

[Posthumanism]

Derrida. "the gift of death" was life changing. When you say "obscure" I think you mean "difficult to interpret" or hard to read.

[mrfatd]

yeah you are right. i havent read this book by derrida, do you recommend it?

[Posthumanism]

Very much so. It's one of the best books that I've read ever, I said life changing and I think that's what deconstruction can be. I would add more but it would seem obscure =) Many people find Derrida an incomprehensible read but I loved reading his work. Other philosophers writings on Derrida and deconstruction not so much though llewelyn is worth a look.

[TheMariborchan]

Lol.. that's Lacan in the middle, not Sartre.

And wouldn't some people say that rap music is meaningless ego-pumping rhetoric? That wouldn't be very respectful now, would it? Just because it's difficult it's not meaningless...

[mrfatd]

oops my bad first i put sartre but then realized that lacan is more obscure. sure, if its hard doesnt mean its meaningless, but when language becomes hollow non-sense verbiage like in hegel and derrida it does... and what does me liking rap have to do with philosophy?

[TheMariborchan]

I was just pointing out you're just spreading your dissatisfaction and not doing anything productive, and someone could do the same to the things you like. So my point was, you're disrespectful.

The people you have mentioned have changed the way crucial problems of our society are being addressed. If those actions were positive or negative is up for debate of course. But one cant claim anyone as influential as that is meaningless. You're just demonstrating that you dont understand, nothing else

[timbolicous]

It is productive to point out that authors are too lazy or lacking in compassion to write in a way people can understand easily.

What point is even a scalpel if it is sheathed in wads of wet, sticky paper?

[TheMariborchan]

I agree that it would be best if writers would write in an accessible way. But pointing that out is not the same as saying it's non-sense.

But still, it depends on what you're reading. Lacan himself said that his writings were not meant to be read. That means that it was addressed to a very specific audience - fellow psychoanalysts.

And a proper understanding of every difficult philosopher/y needs some prior background knowledge/theory. That's how it works and there are good reasons for it.