i was thinking of yukio mishima, who pie called "controversial" but recommended his book (tbf that was quite a few years ago) but it's great to know there's more

Okay I didn't know that about the subscriber count, so that's a testament to my statement that I live under a rock.

Even if I looked him up, chances are I wouldn't have found his reading list on goodreads, so thanks for sharing that.

Again though, two different philosophers could have very different interpretations of any of those philosophers. Some say Plato had elements of feminism, others say he was a blatant misogynist. Some say he argued for fascism, others say the Republic was an allegory for the self. Just because a person lists standard philosophers doesn't mean they don't have questionable interpretations of those philosophers.

Same thing with Nietzsche. One could say he was a radical libertarian or even an anarchist. That didn't stop nazis from using his work to argue for eugenics and fascism.

If you were worried that he was discussing problematic ideas, why not look it up instead of just casting doubt?

Did I say that? I said I don't know anything about him. All I said was that just cause someone reads philosophy doesn't mean they're an enlightened benefactor of humanity.

Frankly, disagreement is not the basis for philosophy. The basis for philosophy is a love (philo) of knowing (sophy). Being critical of your own thoughts and the thoughts of others can be a valuable tool toward improving or refining one’s knowledge, but things like practice, observation, and curiosity are arguably even more important for learning new knowledge.

I find that it's impossible to pursue knowledge or understanding without disagreement. Whether you're disagreeing with your peers, or with a classic philosopher, or with yourself, disagreement is the basis of the skepticism which allows one to reinterpret ideas or even come up with new ones.

Descartes revolutionized the philosophy of his era by disagreeing with those of previous eras. Heidegger revolutionized twentieth-century philosophy by disagreeing with the foundation premises of modern philosophy, namely those pioneered by Descartes.

Sophos doesn't mean knowing, that would be episteme. Sophos is specifically wisdom, and being overly credulous by automatically agreeing with everything you hear is a foolish thing indeed. That's why I said what I did about philosophy being about disagreement. Not that it's impossible to agree with something and still do philosophy. But if you agree with something in its entirety without disagreeing on a single point then you're not really doing philosophy, you're just reading philosophy.