/lit/ - Literature

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

>>11664705

>>11664709
Well check it out. Thanks.

>>11664727
Lol go away you troll.

>>11664741
If you want philosophy mixed with politics, go for the Republic, otherwise just go from the oldest to the newest.

>>11664766
>oldest to the newest
So start with Greek philosophy than branch to modern philosophy?

>>11665011
I'd say so yeah.
The caveat is that reading newest to oldest is good if you want to have a general understanding of philosophy. If you want to learn about one thing in particular you read things that talk about it.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Is there a particular part of philosophy you're interested in? Starting from oldest and progressing from there sounds like a good way to never get anywhere

Don't actually read the Presocratics themselves, they're a meme and we have only fragments of their work anyway. Read a summary of them.

Start with the Iliad and the Odyssey, they're not philosophy but you'll need to know about Homer going forward. Then read Plato's Apology of Socrates, then start moving through the other dialogues. Once you're done with Plato you can move on to Aristotle.

>>11665011
Start with the post-moderns.

>>11665026
Exactly. Yet /lit/ keeps giving the same stupid advice year after year.
OP : get 3 books from very different authors, read the first page of each one, there's gonna be one you like and choose as your starting point. And there is no 'bad' starting point. It just doesn't exist. Anything you like will play its part very well.

>>11664705

Do you know what you like?
You could start by reading something like this.
That's what I did, and it solidified in my mind that Plato and Schopenhauer are my guys.
Starting with the Greeks is a great recommendation, but I'd also try to identify thinkers you really connect with. Once you've done this, you can read with them in mind leading to great engagement with their ideas.

>>11665027
oi you cunt, if you are straight up telling other people to half-ass their way through the greeks, at least throw in hesiod's works before homer since they are like 15 pages each

>>11665026
>Walking in a straight line from A to B will never get you anywhere
what the fyck

>>11665119
This isn't one of your dumb video games kid

>>11665132
Don't know if you know this but history played out in chronological order

>>11665048
>And there is no 'bad' starting point. It just doesn't exist.
So, it's okay to start with Kant, Hegel, or Heidegger even though I may not understand them?

>>11665093
Why Shopenhauer over Kierkegaard?

>>11665147
Start with:

Hegel
Lacan
Deleuze

YOU'LL BE SET, GANBATTE ANON-CHAN!

>>11665150

I don't know. Kierkegaard didn't do it for me.

>>11665147
>even though I may not understand them?

You won't understand any of the philosophers.

>>11665038
I want to avoid lunatics like Michel Foucault.
>>11665026
The few areas of philosophy I read in the past when I was younger was Epictetus. So greco-Roman.
>>11665093
I'll check it out.

>>11665147
That's why I said
>get 3 books from very different authors, read the first page of each one
>>11665195
Dunno if it's translated, but if given the opportunity, read 1 or 2 pages by Pierre Hadot, he was a very good guy that fits your greco-roman + beginner profile.

>>11665119
>he doesn't understand French post-slapstick metaphysics
https://youtu.be/qPj8pjAXYdQ

>>11665195
How would you understand Plato without understanding Foucault first?

>>11665195
>Michel Foucault
He's actually understandable without background though. He's a great philosopher to read.

>>11665119
>>11665145
order of discovery is not order of things

>>11665424
this

>>11665424
In the history of philosohy, people respond to one another though. Aristotle responds to Plato, Aquinas responds to Aristotle, Descartes responds to Aquinas, Hume responds to Descartes, Kant responds to Hume, Shelling responds to Kant, Hegel responds to all of them, (Deleuze responds to Hegel, Spinoza, Neitszche, Freud, ect.). You really do miss something if you don't at least survey the whole field.

What branch of philosophy are you interested in?
Political Philosophy?
Ethics?
Linguistic Philosophy?
Existentialism?
Logic?
Metaphysics?
Philosophy of Mind?
In any case, start with a primer.

>>11665934
Yeah but...
>You really do miss something if
People who ask for recommendations are always ready to miss a thing, and that's fine. The whole issue is to select stuff in a relevant manner.
>In the history of philosohy, people respond to one another
Sure, but it's very rare that they actually understand the ones they're responding to. I even wonder if it ever happens. Hegel didn't understand a word of Kant. Even Kant was being dishonest towards Hume. The result is that it's perfectly fine to go backwards, and realize, for instance, that there's another Kant than Hegel's Kant, etc etc. I'm not saying it should be done. It's a way among others.

>>11666044
>and realize, for instance, that there's another Kant than Hegel's Kant, etc etc.
this is exactly why you should move chronologically in a linear direction. If the only experience you have with Kant is Hegel you are more likely to misread Kant when you get to him. If you have read Kant before Hegel, the "Hegelian Kant" will stand out the whole time.

>>11664705
The Greeks will certainly give you a better cultural and literary perspective, but from a purely philosophical angle you can just jump into selected works from Hume, Russsell, Descartes and go from there.

Just see what you're interested in, it's a wide field. Once you've read a few of these more modern guys, choose the one you find more interesting and do selected readings of thinkers that influenced them. You definitely should read some Greeks for most philosophical issues at some point, but there is no need at all to start off with an in depth survey of them.

I do suggest reading a few of the Socratic dialogues, though. They're relatively light reading, and not too long. Just not ALL the Greeks to begin with.

>>11665195
> I want to avoid lunatics like Michel Foucault.

you're not gonna get anywhere with that attitude buddy

>>11665026
>>11665048
>>11665424
>>11666044
>>11667481
These pseuds are killing this board.

>I don't wanna start with the greeks
>it's too hard
>why be thorough when I could just watch school of life videos and read Bertrand Russell?
you will NEVER be intellectuals if you choose this route.

>>11664705
>doesn't know where to start
>posts a chart that outlines all of the major philosophies and even breaks them down by progression
I think I know where you should start: by forgetting that you ever heard about philosophy and living your life without it.

>>11667515
Lmao, school of life videos are pretty bad, I agree.

It's not too hard to read the Greeks in full, but it is a waste of time if you're just looking for some concise philosophical knowledge.

True learning begins by not fetishizing the image of an intellectual. Fetishizing intellectualism is is why generations of philosophy students have been forced to read Plato's entertaining and well written, but not necessary, fan fiction.

>>11667654
There is a difference between fetishistic intellectualism and aspiring to the highest standard of intellectual rigor. Bettering yourself is not some meme. Just because you may excuse yourself from something you feel is difficult and unnecessary doesn't make it so.

>>11667685
Friend, I'm not even saying the Greeks are bad or a waste of time. You just don't need to start with them in the study of philosophy, if the goal is to understand philosophical ideas.

Of course, COMPLETE understanding would require studying the Greeks at one point, but I believe it is ideal to study more recent philosophers that are more informed and build upon their work to gain effective understanding of important philosophical ideas.

Studying philosophy dose not have to be the exact same thing as studying 'history of philosophy'.

I maintain that aspiring to the highest standard of intellectual rigor when studying philosophical ideas is perfectly compatible with NOT starting with the Greek

>>11667709
For the sake of quality on this board I must disagree but were we in an environment that allowed me to be more reasonable I would agree with you.

>>11667654
>Fetishizing intellectualism
literally what you are doing when you sidestep the process to read whatever trendy thing you thinks "speaks to you".
>>11664705
Do a survey of the history of philosophy up till Neetch. Don't read everything, but certainly have engaged with Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, possibly Witty and Heidegger too. Don't be afraid to refer to the online philosophic encyclopedias, but always approach primary sources when able. Don't focus on reading whole books either, other than platonic dialogs. Try and find the important ideas and find their primary source. No one reads books in philosophy undergrad classes, there are usually sections taken from 6-12 important works to be studied over the course. This is the best way to get your feet wet; it preserves the chronological approach while not bogging you down for a decade just to finish the Greeks

>>11667583
lol fuck off

>>11667770
> whatever trendy thing you think "speaks to you"

The field is very large. Assuming a limited amount of time and interest, it is reasonable to prioritize based on one what one is interested in somewhat.

A mix of short excerpts and online encyclopedias for all the thinkers you've mentioned is a good idea, though.

Then anon should read more in depth on the things they're interested in.

>>11666172
>>11667515
Your point of view is 100% legit but I still don't share it at all. You don't seem to realize that most teachers and even scholars (since they have a very specialized knowledge) are very far from the complete reading program that is being recommended to beginners here. It also neglects the whole part of pleasure and desire. If I drive from Canada to Mexico, I'll go through the US, but going from Plato to (let's say) Epicurus does not require me to read Aristotle, since Epicurus himself is easier to read and understand accurately then Aristotle.

Now I realize that there's another reason to the fact I don't agree. Each educational system may have their own way of teaching and studying a subject. In my country we always favor thinking and solving problems over learning history. Ideas should be taken as your own, not just remembered as "Plato's theories" for instance. Therefore, in an exam, you can always explain how Aristotle (for instance) solved this or that problem better than Epicurus did. This is actually philosophy, rather than history.
As a consequence, there are also two kinds of scholars : the ones who study theories through history, and those who favor a more theoretical point of view. I don't think one kind is better than the other. I just think that when you're giving advice to beginners, you should take into account the difficulty or reading, which makes a 'historical' point of view less relevant.
You know, I didn't know anything about Russian literature, and one year ago I decided to start reading it - I could have gone the /lit/ way with very specific steps and a general chronological way, but I massively mixed it with something else that had to do with length, plot, prose, etc. etc. This is just common sense. Reading Chekhov's short stories before Crime and Punishment is not a mistake. Those who will become scholars will re-read or study everything once again, anyway. Common fucking sense.

>>11668799
You're creating a mutual exclusivity that doesn't need to exist. One can understand what a philosophical author meant explicitly and his place in timespace while also coming away with your own meaning and interpretation.

>>11668799
I could care less about reading literature in chronological order to be totally honest; I love fiction but it's not a practice in the way that philosophy is. My "complete reading list" was this: >>11667770 which is not a very demanding reading program. I don't understand your point on difficulty, as the Greeks are generally the least difficult and best written. There's a reason you read Plato in like half of the intro courses in the humanities.

>>11665104
Hesiod is boring desu and reading him doesn't really add much

>>11665147
Not really, a lot of their work is in response to their predecessors (Kant to Hume, Hegel to Kant, Heidegger to a lot of people). Especially Hegel and Heidegger, who are offering alternative positions to stuff that was pretty solidified in the philosophy of metaphysics at their time. Reading through the canon chronologically saves you a ton of headaches and backtracking. Context frames a lot of philosophical work- it helps if you know where these people are coming from.

>>11665157
please dont post again

>>11667515
You can easily start reading philosophy with Nietzsche and work your way around in various ways. You can also start with the bible and move into scholasticism, which does include Plato/Aristotle, but not everything in between.

Reading (or attempting to read) in a linear fashion from old to new will get your nowhere and is the definition of a pseud who has formulated their study into some sort of mmo rpg.

I'm a firm believer that when you start reading you shouldn't necessarily start with the greeks aside from the major works. You start with culturally relevant materials. Anglos for example should be reading the KJV, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Austen, Dickens, etc...

At Universities here you always start with Descartes. It's hard to read the Greeks without reading them through a Stoic or Christian lens unless you can actually read Ancient Greek so I don't think it's necessary to read them but I would say that it's necessary to have a general knowledge of the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and a few others.

If you would like a good book to get a wide overview on Ancient Greek philosophy you can find "Readings on Ancient Greek Philosophy" on any online library and that covers essentially every notable Greek philosopher.

The reason most universities start with Descartes is that his meditations on first philosophy influenced much of the philosophers from the 18th century onwards.

>>11669402

I don't think you should read the Greek philosophers after reading the Bible or you'll be furthering the obfuscating already done on them by early Christian translators.

Read a summary of western philosophy.
Read a book or two per author of that chart
Fill in the rest of the blanks where you seem fit and try to be aware of references in general