/lit/ - Literature

>>14552102
yeah it's good

Start with the Prolegomena.

cringe

>>14552102
This is a good way to become a depressed edgelord that doesn't understand Schopenhauer.

Was honestly considering do this. Someone please change my mind.

>>14552139
Philosophy isn't some buffet you can pick and choose from. What kind of retard skips Plato anyways? Genuinely the most enjoyable philosopher to read.

>>14552160
This. Plato is very fun to read

>>14552160
Yes it is and Plato isn't that great.

>>14552102
philosophers who mentions their depression in their works are typicaly not very good...

>>14552160
Some philosophers lead into others but it's not 100% necessary to read the entire canon first.

>>14552102
>>14552139
Without having read Hume and Kant beforehand, you wouldn't be able to appreciate Schopenhauer's accomplishment. For better or worse, some philosophers such as Schop have claim to the Truth, and this truth is derived logically from first principles. If you don't know the first principles then you wouldn't know how it's supposed to be true. Basically you would reduce a work of science (in a broader sense) just to some opinions.

>>14552218
Got it, my mind is changed.

The more I read philosophy the more I just see it as meaningless anyways. Like Deleuze said, modern philosophy isn't about the truth, it's about just finding interesting ways to look at the world. All philosophy tries to categorize a world which is by its very essence beyond categorization. No thinker will ever be able to come up with a "correct" philosophical system simply by limitations of the human epistemological faculty and the worldly conditions within which he is placed. As Nietzche has shown, every thinker is marked by his environment.

The end of a philosophy that has shown all categorizations to be relative and meaningless is to reject all philosophy and find faith in an objective absolute exactly for that reason. Kierkegaard I suppose is a good thinker for this type of reasoning. I can't help but become more religious the more I read modern philosophy with all its deconstruction, contradictory as it may sound. One needs some axiom to have any sort of belief within chaos.

>>14552102
have fun being depressed for a few years and then regretting it once you read some beneficial, positivistic philosophy. Read aristotle, you wanna be edge lord.

>>14552102
the cowards' philosophy, well at least you'll figure it out early.

>>14552200
No shit but skipping Plato is the biggest brainlet thing you could do, you don't even dip into anything past Kant too deeply in undergrad.

>>14552227
True, contemporary philosophy is just a political axis laid over the school of materialism. It caters to your disposition and personality rather than any truths about humanity and the benefits of ethics and moral responsibility.

>>14552160
Apparently all of /lit/ does. Do you honestly think anyone here has actually read any of these works? Am I suppose to really wait years before I can read existentialism just so I can read thousands of pages and many secondary literature on Hegel? Fuck that shit.

>>14552240
Why are you so sure about this when many people already did it like that

>>14552102
You're one cool dude.

>>14552304
>Do you honestly think anyone here has actually read any of these works? Am I suppose to really wait years before I can read existentialism just so I can read thousands of pages and many secondary literature on Hegel? Fuck that shit.
based

>>14552304
If everybody else was lobotomizing themselves would you do it too? Philosophy is a subject that takes years to study, there's a 4-year degree for it. So yes, if you want to actually know what you're talking about and not limit your worldview from the beginning then you'll need to spend some time reading the greats that have stood the test of time.

>>14552369
samefagging hard over here. every philosophy student studies plato before the existentialists.

>>14552379
Nah, I'm a new poster. You definitely don't have to read Plato to grasp Sartre or Camus.

>>14552102
>I'm starting with Schopenhauer. Fuck Kant, fuck the greeks, and especially fuck Hegel.

>>14552389
No, but you'll be limiting yourself. The existianalists covered only a sliver of what the greeks did.

>>14552102
Kant is probably the most important philosopher since Kant has existed, and the soil from which Schopenhauer grows. Of all the things to omit.
Then again, your opinion isn't worth a shit if you're "starting". Makes your confidence kind of bewildering though, do you find this empowering or something?

>>14552102
So you're a self-titled novice to philosophy, yet you're disparaging entire schools of thought by renowned philosophers, civilizations.

Dunning Kruger is in full show here.

>>14552227
It's funny how easily you can tell when someone is pretending to have read philosophy. None of what you just said is a sophisticated opinion and you definitely haven't actually read much of the people you're citing

>>14552102
that dudes magneton was always the hardest shit to beat

>>14552404
Well, that'll be true no matter what you read. You'll never have a fully comprehensive understanding of a single philosophers ideas, let alone an entire nation's general ideas. It's reductive because that's the only way one can view history without exploding. Listen, I agree that one should read Plato. He's seemingly important. But, in writing, so is Dante. And Homer. And Shakespeare.

And Marcus Aurelius, Aristotle, Socrates, Kant, Nietzsche... literally there's no limit of pivotal writers and philosophers one today should not only be aware of, but be friendly and knowledgeable of their work. Some might seem more important than others, but authors go in and out of vogue all the time. Measuring influence is a damn near impossible task, especially on a scale that large. If you ever get to thinking that you HAVE to read something before you read something else, you could follow that towards infinity. You'll always be limited in the way you don't want to. One should read the Odyssey before Ulysses. That's true... but where is that line? It's a line in the sand on a windy day. No point in getting fussed up about it.

>>14552389
That's kind of a classic problem in philosophy. There's plenty of stuff you can read and not feel bewildered, and stuff you can read and have a feeling of understanding, and there can still be an ocean between that and actually understanding what was meant to be communicated. A lot of people glance at certain philosophies and go "what's hard to get", some people actually study them in depth and with context and go "...oh"

>>14552447
>Marcus Aurelius

>>14552102
>I'm starting with Schopenhauer. Fuck Kant, fuck the greeks, and especially fuck Hegel.

I'd have called you a retard, but then I realized that you'd only read English translations of Plato and Aristotle anyway, so I figured it's effectively the same thing as skipping them. Carry on, anon.

>>14552450
you dont mess with the stoics? Meh

>>14552447
>Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius would laugh in your face for putting him on this list.
You're clearly taking a guess at what an informed opinion might sound like. I don't understand people like you. Why not be authentic

>Measuring influence is a damn near impossible task, especially on a scale that large.
It's actually pretty easy when you're engaged in philosophy. It's like entering a social circle, you quickly learn who the big dogs are

>>14552447
Every piece of writing is a sequel. Don't you think you'll understand more if you see where all these authors and thinkers are coming from? It's about getting the most out of your reading, you'll remember and absorb more if you're organized about it. I'm not saying you can't read a modern novel, but these philosophers are in direct dialogue, they're responding to those they've read.

The idea of wanting to start with a later philosopher because you like the sound of his ideas is so off to me. It's like you're catering to your habits rather than wanting to grow, understand what you don't know and learn the truth rather than what you're predisposed towards by your personality.

>>14552460
>you dont mess with the stoics? Meh
Doesn't really matter whether or not he messes with the stoics, or whether he likes Marcus Aurelius, you kind of gave yourself away by putting him on that list

>>14552461
>Marcus Aurelius would laugh in your face for putting him on this list.
yeah and nietzsche would probably cum on my face, but if you think you're "engaged in philosophy" but don't understand how one could read the goddamn existentialists comfortably without first reading the greeks than you're wasting your time here, friendo.

>>14552460
you lack any self-awareness if you're both a stoic and think he's the only philisophical query.

>>14552471
Not him, but it makes me wonder when we'll approach the critical point - where the tradition is just so bulky and overgrown that nobody will reasonably be able to read, contemplate, and move on from all of its components to form his own informed, carefully built system in a lifetime.

>>14552474
I think you're responding to a different anon here

>>14552483
it's like everyone wants to take the path of least resistance rather than challenge their beliefs and look for truth. A good thinker should be looking to prove oneself wrong. A life unexamined is not worth living.

Schopenhauer is almost entirely opinion, any first principles by him are taken by Kant and those before him. You're just compacting your own flaws by only reading him.

>>14552499
>A good thinker should be looking to prove oneself wrong
dohkay so prove this wrong

>>14552499
by flaws I meant bias

>>14552505
I've yet to find a good argument against this point. If I'm wrong about this then I hope one day I'll be proven wrong, I'm not static. But this has been a notion in philosophy since socrates and I've yet to see a counter to critical thinking.

If you have a solid counter-argument I'd like to hear it.

>>14552474
Not like you would know

>>14552499
>Schopenhauer is almost entirely opinion
Not true. He makes an epistemological system by building off Kant, and uses that to make actual metaphysical arguments. Even analytics like Ryle were influenced by him and Wittgenstein never read Kant. Everything he knew of Transcendental Idealism was from Schopenhauer. Consider informing yourself first before embarrassing yourself again.

>>14552531
smart response

>>14552519
It's paradoxical, because if you seek to prove it wrong, you're subscribing to it. If you don't seek to prove it wrong, you're proving it wrong, and thus, proving it right.

It's a riverrun's fools thought. It oversimplifies philosophy and should be considered, like all things, as appropriate in a case that calls for it.

>>14552536
smart response

>>14552535
His entire position that life is suffering is in itself an opinion and a blanket statement.

>>14552541
I was pointing out the absurdity of his stupid response.

>prove that thinking critically is wrong
>I'll only respond to a logic-driven argument

>>14552551
Life is suffering is one of his conclusions he takes after 400+ pages of arguments. Why do you feel the need to comment on things you don't know anything about?

>>14552536
tell me now how much you've read of Nietzsche or the other existentialists

>>14552565
you were wat

>>14552571
does the quantity of pages justify such the subjective statement?

That statement simplifies life to an appropriation. Sure, happiness is found in the struggle and pursuit of it, but it's not the entirety of the human experience. We're slaves to our bodies and desires, but they're not machinations of sorrow.

>>14552573
I wasn't shitting on his philosophy, just the weak and overly-simple response.

>>14552590
>subjective statement
I ask again: Why do you feel the need to comment on things you don't know anything about?

>>14552610
explain how I'm wrong then.

>>14552598
>I wasn't shitting on his philosophy, just the weak and overly-simple response.
I know. I'm making a separate point - that you were pretending to have read these people, and that this >>14552447 was completely out your ass

>>14552622
lol, that post is a response to mine.
I'm>>14552404
and>>14552536

>>14552610
>>14552571
>>14552535
>>14552461
>>14552240
What makes you all so angry about this?

>>14552617
Schopenhauer is not another meme le sad intellectual like Cioran or Mainlander. His "entire position" is not "life is suffering". He actually has an epistemological and metaphysical system that make your statement "Schopenhauer is almost entirely opinion" evidently wrong. The statement "life is suffering" is not a premise, but a conclusion derived from premises. If you think that's subjective, fine, go argue with Kant.

>>14552635
Retards with evidently false statements that wouldn't have been expressed if they had taken the time to read a book.

>>14552654
What makes you so angry about this?

>>14552648
You just said this>>14552571
in different words. Give me an actual argument and prove your understanding since that seems so important to you.

>>14552648
>almost entirely
obviously I'm not arguing about the epistemological points continued from Kant's.

>bunch of guys say you have to read Plato in order to read any Philosophy
>bunch of guys misinterpret and mismeasure Schopenhauer this badly
yeah I don't think any of you should read Plato

>>14552675
isn't that a solid argument for the opposite of your point?

>>14552675
based, I derailed this whole thread with one shit post bait. So much for strong minds...

>>14552635
As the >>14552461 guy, I just don't like people bullshitting. These guys are coming out with these grand, sweeping characterizations about the study of philosophy, without actually knowing what they're talking about. Shit's annoying, ima call it out

>>14552661
Argument of what exactly? and why would I want to prove something to you?
>>14552668
The point is it's all inter-related. His metaphysics is from his epistemology and his ethics from his metaphysics. It's not like he suddenly decides to assert personal opinions in his philosophy.

>>14552684
Do you ever feel like you're wasting your time, literally yelling at someone who's 100% baiting you into yelling at them? What would those philosophers think of the way you're living? How do you justify it?

>>14552692
If we don't call them out, then the newfags might get the wrong impressions. You don't want young minds poisoned. That's why we should always call out guenon threads and promote reading Hume and Kant.

>>14552692
>100% baiting you into yelling at them
No they're not, it's not an epic troll, they don't want to be called out.
>Do you ever feel like you're wasting your time
Doesn't really take much time, it's like 30 seconds to write a response. I'm sitting here reading other shit and listening to Prince, I ain't doing a damn thing wrong

>>14552711
>No they're not, it's not an epic troll, they don't want to be called out.
You really, fully, genuinely believe you didn't get baited?

>>14552717
Yes

>>14552719
You're a clown

>>14552719
mindless philosopher

>>14552719

>>14552732
starting to think you're one of the guys being calling out

>>14552752
jesus anon, just take it decently and lay down

>>14552744
>>14552741
>>14552732
Holy samefag batman

>>14552752
Yeah it's basically:
>I'm not truly retarded, I swear it was just bait

>>14552758
Third one isn't. Check time

>>14552769
LMFAO you thought admitting the first two are would improve your look?

>>14552784

I'm >>14552732 and not >>14552769

>>14552795
the hell you aren't, just stop

>>14552784
Are you stupid? That was my one and only post. I don't care about your quarrel

>>14552827

>>14552829
>>14552841
First of all, this is easy to simulate by posting on your computer and your phone, which are addressed differently. Which is why one of your files is from a phone, and the other is a named and cropped file from a computer. I'm astonished by your commitment. It wasn't believable from the first place, like I was supposed to believe four people responded in four minutes as if they all found our conversation significant, as if two people would independently come up with the "clown" thing - one saying "clown" and the other having a clown pepe ready - within two minutes of each other. It's too specific.
Why not just be authentic

>>14552227
You wanna know what Deleuze says? He says you're arrogant, and stupid.

"Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful."

>>14552866

Are you >>14552499 ?

>>14552784
I was the second one

>>14552912
lol what's funny is I was the one shitting on schopenhaur and now you're arguing with trolls thinking they're me

>>14552912
No
>>14552915
STOP

>>14552923
I am the anon who was defending Schop and I'm not >>14552866. Are you the anon who admitted to baiting?

This whole thread's a fucking shit show. This needs to be nuked. Some dude fucked this to the next century good lord

>>14552929
kek, what purpose does this serve any more? I called you a mindless philosopher for tauting these thinkers while wasting time with troll on the internet. I just thought it was funny it pile it on right after someone called you a clown.

You probably won't even believe this and continue to argue and prove your mindless philosopher title.

>>14552937
No, I was earnestly shitting on schopenhauer. My original point though was that you shouldn't limit yourself to contemporary thinkers.

>>14552949
>My original point though was that you shouldn't limit yourself to contemporary thinkers
The irony is that Schopenhauer would have agreed with you on this.

>>14552955
I can disagree with a person's overall philosophy, yet agree with some thoughts they have.

>>14552962
You certainly can, but I would nevertheless ask you to stop slandering philosophers laying in their graves for centuries.

>>14552974
I'll never slander the author of Mein Kampf again.

>>14552983
That is fine. Nobody should be slandered.

>>14552945
>You probably won't even believe this
You're absolutely right

>continue to argue and prove your mindless philosopher title
no, I still can't stop laughing at the way you handled samefagging

>>14552866
Holy fuck! sperg some more you fucking spastic

>>14552989
kek, I have no more words for you. Have fun detective

>>14552988
what? there are some people that for the good of humanity should definitely be slandered. Tyrants and oligarchs should always be criticized.

>>14552227
Brother, I am sorry to tell you that if you find philosophy as meaningless then you need to reconsider your approach. I agree that there exists much meaningless philosophy... but have you really learned NOTHING from philosophy? There is no PERFECT PHILOSOPHY because such a thing cannot exist as you said. Philosophy doesn't need to be perfect to reveal truth.

>>14552994
>>14552995
If only you were as commited to philosophy as you are to samefagging...

>>14552994
>>14552995
haha I did, believe me. This was a good experience, I've never had this happen to me before

>>14553015
If only you read as much as you quibbled

>>14552137
For the most part he's just an empirical idealist, it's hard not to get that with how straightforward ("objective") of a writer he is.

>>14553000
Anon you're not only philosophically ignorant, but lingually, too. Slander:
>make false and damaging statements about (someone)
Criticism is different from spreading misinformation.

>>14553023
>mistaking empiricism AND idealism as objective

If I observe a white shoe does it help prove that all ravens are black? The flaw of empiricism in a nutshell. And I think you already know the subjectivity of idealism.

>>14553028
tyrants and oligarchs shouldn't be treated seriously, you take away their power when you clown them, It's hard to laugh and be afraid at the same time.

>>14553044
And how is that related to you not knowing what slander means? Please stop this nonsense and read some books.

>>14553055
I didn't mispeak, the court jester that slanders the amoral king isn't wrong. Criticism isn't the only effective tool in undermining dictators.

>>14553055
You're the one that misused slander. I never made an ad hominem attack, or a false philosophical claim towards schopenhauer. Claiming a philosopher is subjective isn't that bold a claim.

How do I know if I'm grasping Plato correctly? I'm reading him now and sometimes I just feel like he's making stupid arguments or that the passage is useless, like in the case of Cratylus.

>>14553078
as a general rule, if you find a philosopher stupid it's because you're missing something

>>14553111
or it'll be addressed by aristotle, but yes it usually means you're misreading it.

>>14553111
Plato makes a ton of illogical leaps and the characters Socrates talks to rarely catch the flaws in his arguments. He makes specious analogies that don't quite hold up to an examination which is never performed in the text.

>>14552192
No it isn't and Plato is great

>>14552370
I have a 4 year Philosophy degree and can confirm that you're full of shit lol.

>>14553172
Not him, but your school must suck.

>>14553172
Why, because you read some booklets with snippets from descartes and his contemporaries before starting with the greats?

>>14553189
>>14553195
Went to one of the top universities in the world and I've actually read the shit you morons fling shit at each other. I've discussed with individuals that have dedicated their lives that dissecting the stuff that you're so sure has prerequisites and specific order. Guess what? They don't share this "Start with this...You won't understand this without knowing this" view that seems to have infected this board.

>>14553290
What do they suggest then?

>>14552102
Whatever, retard

>>14553290
You can understand the entire history of WW2, what happened, what started it, its effects, etc, study WW2 books your whole life, be an expert on the minutia. But without knowing the history of the preceding decades, you cannot grok the complete cultural picture of WW2.

>>14553290
You probably already know this but don't take this board seriously.

>>14552370
But I don't want a 4 year degree. I just want to be able to read and remotely understand philosophers I'm mostly interested in. I know no matter what I do, I wont be at the same level as some Philosophy student. I know most of you don't do most of that shit and get into discussions just fine. I'm not going to low life philosophy. I have other shit to read, have hobbies, and have a fucking life.

>>14553290
Hmmm, that's interesting
I'm thinking you're full of shit, your poo tier community college is not one of the best schools in the world lmao

>>14553841
>I just want to read the philosophers who have the coolest School of Life videos
Go ahead no one's stopping you, you will give up after a few pages and then shitpost about how philosophy is just obscurantism and muh common sense or some shit
fuck off peabrain

This entire thread is testament to why teenage boys should be banned from reading philosophy.

>>14553892
So this is your typical 16 year old, /lit/ philosopher. You guys sure don't talk like philosophers reading this thread.

/lit/ has gone to shit

>>14553884
This wont take four years to finish no fucking way. Not even reading all of this one time and fucking off would take four years. This is ridiculous

>>14553884
Yes, I too was accepted to St. Johns.

>>14553948
*from 4chan

>>14552389
Maybe not, but if your existential studies include Kierkegaard God help you if you're not familiar with ol Socrates.

>>14552940
This whole board has gone to shit. What the fuck happened in the last year? We used to get more intelligent discussion before this whole philosophy circlejerk.

>>14553966
that's not the whole syllabus and you still have essays to write, brainlet

>>14553966
St Johns reads them in Latin iirc.

>>14553976
This is what happens when competitive STEM types try to into philosophy. The whole endevour becomes instrumentalized, and discussion devolves into petty squabbles over the correct means of optimizing this endevour. It's this mindset that gives rise to the
>reading fiction
type threads and this board's dearth of literature and poetry related threads.

>>14552304
Existentialism is self-contained

>>14553884
Isn't it too much to read carefully and reflect upon? Or am I a readlet?

>be me
>read the entirety of the Greeks, skim the Romans, the essentials of the middle ages, learnt German, read Schopenhauer, all of the pre-Kant reading(including Descartes) and Kant all before I was 18
>fiction too
>currently 22 and learning Latin
Yeah I know, I'm a genius, but that's just us Entps. Oh and did I mention I have a bustling social life with ravishing good looks and a height of 6 ft 2?

>>14554058
It's a lot easier to read faster when you have to keep up with peers and you're discussing what you've been reading every day.
You are a readlet, I highly doubt you read even more than an hour a day, but it's not your fault. It's hard to motivate yourself to read for four hours when you won't be expected to share your thoughts next class or write up an essay at the end of the month.

>>14554064
post face

This has to be one of the most retarded threads on /phil/. More retarded than the OP. I'm pretty sure most of you don't even know what you're talking about even the so called "phds."

If moving the pseudo-intellectuals will kill the board, soviet. I don't even see literature discussion anyways.

>>14554077
Sorry anon, I aspire to greater things in life.

ok ok. I'll read Plato and Aristotle. I'll read Kant too, but I'm not reading Hegel.

>>14554113
It's fine. You don't have to read the most important philosopher in history. Being an illiterate retard is fun.

>>14554069
There are really dense texts. I doubt efficiency of such skimming. But right, I know nothing about reading and discussing afterwards.

>>14552440
When did I ever say my opinion was sophisticated? It always seems rather odd how people assume every post on here has to be something of grandeur. And yes, I have read Deleuze and Kierk. The works I am referring to anyone could read.

>>14552886
That, if anything, reinforces what I have said.

>>14553010
> have you really learned NOTHING from philosophy
I didn't say I learned nothing. I said that the truth which one learns is always a drop of water in the ocean of the absolute. No one can describe certain elements of reality that are simply beyond the human faculties.

>>14552102
Not a bad approach. Kant is good, but Schopenhauer explains the Kantian viewpoint much more clearly than the man himself ever could. After Schopenhauer, skip to Frege.

>>14553439
Philosophy is not history. You can start learning physics with a contemporary textbook, and you can start learning philosophy by reading a paper in the latest issue of Journal of Philosophy.

>>14554125
You sound like a guy who knows a thing or two about philosophy. Did you get a graduate degree in Philosophy like all the other intelligent anons in this board?

Alright /lit/, I have read this thread and I would like to know in what order should I read in order to understand most modern and contemporary philosophy? I already read The Republic, whats next?

>>14553290
you're lying

>>14554535
>No one can describe certain elements of reality that are simply beyond the human faculties.
So because of your preconceived notions of what humans can or cannot do we should just "stop thinking about it bro xd"??

>>14555886
There is nothing preconcieved about a basic principle of existence. There is always more to be said about everything. The predicate never exhausts the object is describes. This seems to have struck a nerve in you. Sad!

>>14555902
>about a basic principle of existence
Which one? That we cannot know it all? Is that a reason to stop pursuing knowledge?

I guess I should stop studying medicine since I can't cure every patient.

>>14552342
thank you

>>14555913
Metaphysics is far different than medicine. You are equating two things that could not be more different.

>>14552218
>Without having read Hume and Kant beforehand, you wouldn't be able to appreciate Schopenhauer's accomplishment.
Would also add that reading Hegel to distinguish the two also helps

>>14555922
Alright, keep thinking that trying to be wiser is something negative.

>>14552389
>Sartre or Camus.
We're talking philosophy here retard

>>14555936
Ok, I will continue. Thanks for your input.

>>14552227
Read Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy"

>>14552370
lmao little pu$$y redee the bookee HAHAHAHA fuck I read what I want bitch

>>14552102
I haven't read the Greeks. But in my eyes, if someone is starting with the Greeks, or says "I've read The Republic, what now?", it tells me this is the type of person who wants to study philosophy as a subject, to say they study philosophy. I have to wonder what is the motivation here? Philosophizing is an activity, something that someone does, and this is actually Schopenhauer's idea. Starting with the Greeks because your professor or some nerds on the internet told you to means all you really want to do is become a historian of ideas.

To philosophize you should start with the philosopher whose ideas interest you the most, because you will engage with their ideas more effectively, and build a weltanschauung that suits you personally. Now you can certainly start with a 20th century philosopher and work your way backwards gaining an interest in their influences over the centuries, this is what I did.

However if you want to read a particular philosopher, you do need to have an idea of who or what they're responding to. I guess you don't have to read Kant himself to understand Schopenhauer, but if you don't have at least a cursory knowledge of his philosophy you will be lost reading Schopenhauer, especially as you have to read his extremely Kantian dissertation before his main work.

Also let's not forget that "starting with the Greeks" is based on the outdated Reinaissance/Enlightenment idea that ancient Greece was a perfect society that we should model ourselves on. Start with the Chinese if you want. You'd probably gain as much from reading the Analects as you would from The Republic.

>>14556089
>when an absolute pseud makes a long retarded post and adds an image hoping to get some attention

>>14556089
You are right but the Greeks are also cool

>>14552160
wittgenstein lol

>>14557102
eh? wittgenstein read plato. he claimed he didn't read aristotle

>>14557265
He read major philosopher's book for near-fun. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Spengler, Steiner is the same route. His only formal contribution to Plato is citing once because Plato loves definition.

>>14557298
reading for fun meaning he didn't read it? is this what they academic "philosophers" actually think?

>>14557312
Well that can be refutation of
>Philosophy isn't some buffet you can pick and choose from

>>14552304
>years

>>14557316
but not an answer to
>What kind of retard skips Plato anyways?

>>14556089
>you will engage with their ideas more effectively
You won't because Plato is literally Phil 101 (as in it actually teaches you how to critically examine your life) and it will show you how to not be a dumb ape that makes posts like these.
>in my eyes, if someone is starting with the Greeks, or says "I've read The Republic, what now?", it tells me this is the type of person who wants to study philosophy as a subject, to say they study philosophy
Your eyes are made of shit. If someone was genuinely interested in philosophy there is absolutely no reason they would not want to start with Plato. Those that skip ahead are just looking for an ideology to wear like a fancy trinket.
>OMG SCHOPENHAUER IS SOOOOOO ME XDDD

>>14557340
that was just exaggeration of
>Genuinely the most enjoyable philosopher to read.

Schopenhauer's world view is crude because he glosses over the fact that suffering forms the boundaries that allow life to be shaped into and perceive all that is beautiful. There would be no aesthetic contemplation to be had if all suffering was ignored. A world of perfect negation would be completely empty and insufferable.

>>14557370
>Your eyes are made of shit. If someone was genuinely interested in philosophy there is absolutely no reason they would not want to start with Plato.
anyone actually interested in philosophy starts with presocratics

>>14557444
In reality, nobody in the field of Philosophy reads much published before WWII, unless they specialize in history of philosophy.

>>14557863
That would certainly explain why philosophy is shit now.

Are their actual people who have not read any of the greeks? What a fucking joke, I'm pretty sure it was Heidegger who said that it'd be ideal to study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years before moving onto Nietzsche, probably a bit exaggerated but the fact that some people here are lacking the basic faculties of thinking like the philosophers their reading which these faculties were gained by the study of the Greeks they give the basic tools to thinking in a philosophical mindset.

>>14557895
Revisiting debunked and obsolete philosophical works of the past generally does not serve much purpose, any more than it does in Physics or Medicine.

brainlet thread

>>14552102
philosophy isn't about one philosopher, but the conversation woven between all of them across millennia

>>14558312
Truly based.

>>14552102
I was thinking of starting with christian philosophers.

>>14557911
Fuck Nietzsche, edgy atheist faggots put me off him.

>>14552102
Fuck all you philosophy fags, you're the reprobates ruining this board for all of us.

>>14558898
>indulging in poems while the world ends

>>14552218
This is what is wrong with the linear progression meme. Philosophy deals with truth. If a thinker is so derivative that his ideas are simply elaborate digressions following other thinkers then you are no longer dealing with truth. It is not even a question at that point, you are replacing thought with the analysis of abstractions. The theory of theory, the critique of critique, psychology and metaphilosophy - all pathetic forms of hubris.

>>14558402
That's because you're retarded.

>>14558904
Based

>>14556089
>stop taking orders from others on how to philosophize!
>so in order to philosophize, you must...

>>14557863
>nobody in the field of Philosophy
we are talking aboout peoople interested in philosophy, not sophists interested in social capital

>>14557911
>it'd be ideal to study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years before moving onto Nietzsche
dumbest shit I ever read. kill yourself