Philosophy as Art

Are there philosophies or philosophers that speak to you on some deep level even if you don’t agree (at all, even) with its premises in a literal sense? Does that make you consider the philosophy differently? Or is that just a footnote, and of little ultimate consequence?

I was visiting a friend this weekend who has some interesting books. I was thoroughly relating to and enjoying Marcus Aurelius, and his Stoic philosophy. He seemed amazing - I was inspired by his humbleness, simplicity and realism. It’s one of those things where you might read a Wikipedia article on him or on Stoicism and you might make a quick judgement of some sort, but when you read him it’s a completely different experience. Somehow it’s the nuances that are really important, as opposed to the main points. I think we sometimes tend to think of philosophers as merely vehicles for philosophies, rather than people exposing their souls to us - communicating with us one-on-one, even over so many centuries and from different parts of the world. We live in an extremely conceptual world - quick to categorize all our experiences as this or that. At least we don’t always think of art that way - a Philip Pearlstein painting is shocking for exactly the opposite reasons to what we would expect, after seeing them in print or on the internet. Philosophy seems to me regrettably (though understandably) more susceptible to labeling and dispensing with.

I was really enjoying Kierkegaard too. The last time I read him at all I didn’t understand a word he said. Maybe it was just a bad day - but this time it was magical. He left me wondering to what extent his philosophisizing has universality outside a Christian context. I found myself subtly trying to convert “God” into some other word, and likewise with other Christian concepts such as “faith”. In the end I didn’t think I could make translations like that at all. So then what? Am I left to just browse his writings once in a while, enjoying his personality and style? But it can’t be just ‘style’ - it is substance I am responding to. If I take his philosophy more seriously, do I start to become Christianized? Is that a problem?

My questions are very general - I’m not looking for answers or debate on particulars. Is it clear what I mean? I’m just saying “Have you experienced this? If so, tell us something about it - Who do you love as a philosopher even if he or she isn’t all that useful to you conceptually or literally?”

I’m not sure i understand your question, but I used to read Hegel just for fun. “Philosophically”, I think he’s crap, but his system is really peerless in the care he uses to construct it. Kierkegaard, likewise, is a great writer. I think atheists can get a lot more out of K than Christians, but perhaps not necessarily so. He is a brilliant psychologist and probably should be read by any serious student of philosophy. I’m not sure that anyone has plumbed the depths of the purely psychological elements of christian beliefs better than he - put a study of K together with a study of Nietzsche, who focused more on the social psychology (group psychology as opposed to that of the individual, as in K) and you have a keener understanding of religion than can be gotten almost any other way.

Or something like that.

Okay - add some Joseph Campbell, too.

Rockin’ stuff.

But sure, philosophy is an art, and a science, in the sense those words were used two thousand or so years ago.

Yep, you understand. I’ve also loved Joseph Campbell and Nietzsche in the past (haven’t read them beyond tidbits recently). I’m interested in Hegel, who I’ve had no contact with.