/lit/ - Literature

>>13418722
good
they are skipping all the garbage

>>13418722
I really don't think that teenagers benefit much from reading the Greeks. A good introduction to philiosophy is people like Descartes, Berkeley, Hume and Kant. For one thing you need a grasp on recent and world history before you can make sense of the Greeks much.

>>13418728
How’s your first year going?

>>13418722
It's a filter.

>>13418729
Wasn't shit like Descartes built on tearing down the ideas of the Aristotle etc? Wouldn't it make more sense to read what they're arguing against?

>>13418722
>I’m not intelligent enough to judge ideas on their own merits

I’m sure you gain a (much) greater appreciation for all of the context that goes into it, but at the end of the day ideas are ideas. No one needs to be spoonfed. Philosophy, contrary to popular sentiment, is more than aesthetic. A lot of people try on these ideologies like jackets.
>you can’t appeeci the texture of the Nietzsche in the winter if you haven’t worn the Greeks in the summer

No one will accept because this board and website is shit but I will destroy Nietzsche’s larping / convey his ideas better than you, if anyone wants to pick an essay length writing of his (chapter of Antichrist etc)

>>13419068
Or Stirner. Preferably Nietzsche or Stirner, but I’m open

>>13418722
>studying ways to think
People who follow a philosophy instead of using the one you naturally form are genuine sheep and should be shot via firing squad.

>>13419068
>>13419072

THE FIRST PAGE

>This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my “Zarathustra”: how could I confound myself with those who are now sprout- ing ears?–First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously.
>The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me–I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops–and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indif- ferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him.... He must have an in- clination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestina- tion for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most dis- tant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto re- mained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner–to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm.... Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self....
>Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?–The rest are merely humanity.–One must make one’s self superior to humanity, in power, in lofti- ness of soul,–in contempt.

Are you kidding me? You expect me to read this? You expect me to take someone who writes like that seriously, let alone consider it Philosophy? This is Cringe 101 and it doesn’t take a Chad to know that. It goes like somebody reading a Halloween story to a bunch of kids. And yes I’ve read it, it gets worse. It’s the same vitriol 190 pgs. We can go paragraph by paragraph on this shit if you want, and your corny narrator is only gonna get cornier with every attempt that he tries at making sense of his studies. It one broad petulant stroke over the whole of history. This is what Hegel called reflective history, (as opposed to original history written by those who were there, and philosophical history where the historian tries to make out the abstract forces running through great sweeps of time) where in reflective history the historian, or philologist in this case, is trying to view history and philosophy through the lens of his own time and place, but even worse in Freddy’s case his own personal pathologies, mixing prescription and description and confession to such a degree as to confuse himself to the point of absolute madness. People respond to this not because of its content, but because of its tone. And by people, I mean children.

By the way, Derrida BTFO of Nietzsche in “Structure, Sign and Play” so if your actually in studying philosophy, there you go

>>13418722
More like, teacher first assigns them a mix of 20th century analytic ethics

>>13418904
Descartes doesn’t really bother tackling scholastic/ancient phil point by point. His bag is to start from nothing, from a position of radical skepticism, and seeing what one can really be sure about

>>13419116
>Derrida BTFO of Nietzsche in “Structure, Sign and Play”
You mean the later part on Writing and difference?
What? How did you interpret like that?
That is almost right as someone saying Deleuze BTFO nietzsche in "Nietzsche and Philosophy"

>>13419116
>he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him....
I’ll just address this part for now. We exist from our experience, and everything only inherently matters to us insofar as it affects us.
Knowledge without use (direct or indirect) is still “useful” for an ego boost or entertainment. Knowledge that can help us attain fulfillment is obviously better. We should ask of everything whether it brings us profit or fatality.
Fatality, the lack of existence, is antithetical to everything that we are.

He’s promoting a really cheap and smug way to live

>>13418728
lmao how is subjective nihilism (aka existentialism) any better?

>>13419116
>And by people, I mean children.
Basically true, but in more senses than the negative one that you intend. Say, why might adolescents be closer to the mountaintops than most adults?

>>13418722
>the virgin systematic reader
>the chad "whatever the fuck sounds cool this week" reader

>>13419237
not him but Derrida does describe the problem of "destructive discourses" like Nietzsche's or Heidegger's (taking a cue from Heidegger and problematizing him in turn), that one cannot overcome or destroy metaphysics without restoring it in the same stroke, the same utterance. But as you point out, he also pays plenty of homage to Nietzsche in this period, some with explicit reference to Deleuze (e.g., "Différance").

>not starting with the Rishis

What's even the point of reading all of that bullshit, most people that read it aren't any more profound than anyone else that reads books, probably less so.

>>13418729
Nietzsche talks about the Greeks all the time

>>13419477
if he loves the greeks so much, why doesn't he just Have sex?

>>13418729
nice list, except modernity failed long ago

>>13419367
>that one cannot overcome or destroy metaphysics without restoring it in the same stroke, the same utterance.
Nietzsche himself said this though. Sounds like Derrida didn't read enough.

>>13419489

>>13418729
I don't agree. Descartes and the whole post-Cartesian philosophical tradition presuppose an enormous amount of classical philosophy. Half of it is grandfathered in from the scholastic philosophy they think they are repudiating, and the other half is extremely consciously taken up from recently rediscovered pre-Socratic, Platonic, and post-Platonic metaphysics and epistemology, especially scepticism and materialism. To understand anything the early moderns are doing you need to situate them deeply in a classical context.

Classical philosophy obviously has depths that aren't going to be reached by the first-year student but there's nothing wrong with reading pre-Socratic philosophy as earnest metaphysics and "physics" (natural philosophy), and probably the first of its kind.

>>13420283
>Half of it is grandfathered in from the scholastic philosophy they think they are repudiating, and the other half is extremely consciously taken up from recently rediscovered pre-Socratic, Platonic, and post-Platonic metaphysics and epistemology, especially scepticism and materialism.
Spoken like someone who's never opened a peer-reviewed philosophy journal.

>>13418722
>He didn't read Nietzsche as a 14 year old edgelord then go back to the Greeks and working from there before reading Nietzsche again as a 1st year philosophy student.
>He doesn't realize he's going to have to read Nietzsche again and again and multiple levels of expertise to get the full value out of him
>He doesn't think Zarathustra still isn't going to have new insights you didn't appreciate even when you're on your deathbed.

The picture is a little inaccurate. They usually get some brief introduction to Plato and Aristotle by an unsympathetic professor who doesn't really know what the hell he's talking about and then they pretend philosophy stopped until Descartes came around.

>>13420286
What the fuck does that even mean? Nothing I'm saying in the quoted section is controversial or novel. Have you read anything about early modern philosophy, or science for that matter?

Why the hell would you even try to pull rank with "peer-reviewed philosophy journals," which are filled with shit like this:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672875

Or did you mean things like this?:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20123361
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20123376
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20123394

>>13420311
Not true, these days we also do exactly 2 weeks on Medieval philosophy. Medieval Islamic philosophy that is.

>>13420327
My bad, I didn't read your entire post and I thought that by post-Cartesian you meant contemporary.

>>13420360
Well now I feel like a dick.

>>13418722
The poor man's Evola desu

>>13418722
I agree, the anons who post the low effort text-on-object memes should be gassed. Starting with you.

>>13420415
People who say this haven't read either, they're completely different philosophers. The fact that Nietzsche is compared so frequently to both Stirner AND Evola is proof of how few people actually read him.

>>13420264
hitler was everything that's wrong with democracy

>>13420286
>i only read government issued philosophy
keked

>>13418722
All one needs is the Greeks stopping at Aristotle, some renaissance philosophers of science, the Enlightenment, then Kant, maybe Hegel, then straight to Ayn Rand.

>>13420630
That image is offensive to me

>>13420633
I'm sure it is

>>13418888
Quads of truth

>>13418729
I know the first philosophy class at my school that people take focuses on Descartes a lot.

>>13420283
Is there really that much pre-Socratic philosophy to read about? There is stuff from the Milesians, what else? From what I have read natural philosophy from that time period is hardly worth reading about for any other reason than pure curiosity.

>>13419078
is this your excuse for not reading philosophy?

Why are the Romans so neglected?

>>13420758
No. I just think going to college to get a degree in special thinking is fucking retarded. At least psychology can get you a job.

>>13420630
Propaganda never looked so benign

>>13420805
because nobody on /lit/ has read through the greeks so far

>>13420828
you dont have to go to college for it... you can just read and enjoy it as a hobby...

>>13422462
I too enjoy wasting my time.

>>13423065
Oh yeah i bet you totally never waste your time on any dumb shit activity yourself.
By the way what does it mean to waste time ?

>>13418722
>ancient philosophy
Outdated meme
>Scholastic
Useless spiritualists meme
>Early Modern
Somewhat interesting

>>13419154
>>13418904
Most people are told the Greeks dont apply anymore, and since it has a bit of science stuff mixed in like the Atomists most people think that is the case as its all old outdated information. I didnt realize that was wrong myself until reading Heidegger's introduction to metaphysics and realizing the Greeks were a lot more important than first assumed. Im reading Copleston's A History of Philosophy the Pre Socratics to Plotinus and I realize how important the Greeks were.