/lit/ - Literature

>>13041209
Yes.

>>13041209
You don't need to, honestly. Descartes is a good alternative starting point.

>>13041209
>tfw someone reccomended I start with the greeks, namely parmenides
>Spend an hour reading retarded mental masturbation about oneness
>Go back to harry potter
I don't think /lit/ really appreciates Rowling's prose. Her ability to articulate in the harry potter series is on par with wallace

>start with finnegans wake

Start with Sophocles.

>>13041253
You'll miss Descartes' context in its entirety if you're not familiar with Plato's and especially Aristotle's metaphysics.
One does not have to read every Greek philosopher, but those two are absolutely essential (especially when it comes to terminology, the main crux of new philosophy readers).
>>13041427
Presocratic philosophers are pretty much impossible to understand from the get go without secondary literature. To start from the Greeks you have to read some history and history of philosophy first. Any college manual (which are immensely easier to read when compared to primary sources) will give you enough background.
>>13041209
I know it's hard, but it will make everything easier in the long run. Don't let the /lit/ dilettantes tempt you with an easier path.

>>13041209

This refers mostly to language, but unfortunately includes the cultural baggage that accompanies it.

Obviously, there are Greek roots to probably a third of English words.

As well, there are a number of idiomatic phrases and terms that specifically refer to stories that originate in Greece.

Poetic allusions will most often resolve in a reference to either a Biblical story or a Greek and/or Roman myth.

Of course neither are true.

Of course neither are better.

Of course the language transcends these barriers, and "starting with the Greeks" is more of a matter of pragmatism than an attempt to sanction whatever ethical abominations the Greeks might have participated in, whatever your ethics are (and if you look, there's a bunch to choose from).

But without the alphabetical principle established by the Greek alphabet, English wouldn't have one, so like there's 26 reasons right there.

Read Plato once and you'll want to read most of him.
Assuming you have even a sliver of intelligence

>Start with Finnegans Wake

>>13041695
>You'll miss Descartes' context in its entirety if you're not familiar with Plato's and especially Aristotle's metaphysics.
Not really. Reading the Greeks before Descartes adds to a nuanced understanding of him, but it isn't essential at all.

>>13041823
Cringe

>>13041874
You won't fully understand nor his Objections nor the common views he was responding too. If you think that you can actually understand Descartes' views without knowing, for example, what Scholastics believed about substance and soul, then I have bad news for you.

>>13041951

Just calling something a thing doesn't make it that thing.

You're a fucking rainbow-colored unicorn screaming like an angry firebomb of spectral anomalies, for example.

Are you? No; you're a tired and shitty damper of a voice who appeals only to the fear of being called different.

It's like when your dad punches you in the face for the 457th time, and you just don't feel it anymore.

You're numb, and you don't fucking care anymore.

Keep punching. Get really into it. At least give enough of a shit about your abuse where you make it mean something, for fuck's sake, you coward.

I am, I must reiterate, available for children's parties.

>>13042011
>unironic reddit spacing

>>13042017

Tell me the punchline didn't make you laugh, though.

That's why reddit spacing works - it's very evenly measured.

Suck it.

>>13041209
Based.

>>13041209
It's not a fucking meme. Start with the greeks. Everyone did untill ((((((((public education))))))))) and the moment We stopped everyone got demonstrably fatter and dumber. Start with the greeks.

>>13042134

That's dumb. Your pessimism is noted, but why?

>>13042134
I Started with the Greeks and all I got was this lousy tshirt.
(Thanks Mom)

>>13042011
hahahahaha holy fuck is this what lack of self-awareness does to you?

>>13042272

Maybe.

Do you really want to define what self-awareness means, though?

It's a pretty old trap, but you're more than welcome.

Good luck, anon.

Define the self.

It's only the oldest riddle of human existence, but I'm sure with some moxy and elbow-grease, you can do it.

>>13042261
Your cringeworthy Reddit-joke doesn't make sense, because that's not a t-shirt.

>>13042299

You have to at least give credit for their reference to "surviving" Plato's cave (which implies that they didn't, but that's not really your concern).

The upshot seems to be a hip and ironic rework of the kinds of contradictions that arise from a framework of the kind of philosophy that would reduce all consciousness to an inside joke.

Maybe you think that you're part of it.

But eventually, you'll be the punchline.

It's a t-shirt, though, no matter how few will get it.

And it's funny.

Start with the Greeks is just a meme. You can start with whoever you like but stick to important names (eg Kant Heidegger Nietzsche Hegel Aquinas deluze etc). From there you go on to their critics and their pupils. Don't overestimate you knowledge until you reach debates today and the Greeks. It will be a nicer ride for you that way. PS: fuck Plotin boring mf

>>13041209
Plato's shit is pretty interesting men

>>13041956
That stuff can be summarized in a couple of sentences to get enough of an idea to understand his context.
In any case, the early modern period (which is often traced as starting with Descartes and ending with Kant) is pretty easy to understand self-contained, in part because, as you point out, they were revolting against the Scholastics. Descartes, along most of the other early moderns, were performing a radical break from them, which is exactly why they're not crucial to understanding him nor most of the other early moderns.

>>13041956
That stuff can be summarized in a couple of sentences to get enough of an idea to understand his context.
In any case, the early modern period (which is often traced as starting with Descartes and ending with Kant) is pretty easy to understand self-contained, in part because, as you point out, they were revolting against the Scholastics. Descartes, along with most of the other early moderns, was performing a radical break from them, which is exactly why they're not crucial to understanding him nor most of the other early moderns.

>>13041209
And also stop there.

>>13042299
Maybe, but it's how everyone here views the Greeks anyways. As in >>13042129

I think I'm just going to read some Plato and Aristotle then proceed to skip to whatever I'm interested in and supplement it with secondary literature to understand the allusions and rebuttles. I find it pretty ridiculous that people suggest reading the entire canon sequentially.

>>13041448
based

>start on page 1