/lit/ - Literature

Sage faggot

Trying to ban guenonfag won't work, the dude spent CHRISTMAS spamming /lit/ nonstop

>>14725229
why? what did i do wrong? I'm open to suggestions
>>14725243
yeah I know, which is why his posts should be ignored/filtered, and the notice should be left at the top of each thread for incoming newfags. If we contain him to a general it's much easier to filter him with 4chan X

>>14725215
Very good idea. There were discussions on Kant in 3 different threads in the last few days. It would be a good idea to have them focused in one thread.
>>14725260
That's probably guenonfag. Don't mind him.

Metaphysics: Schopenhauer
I just finished Kant's Prolegomena and am moving on to Schopenhauer. Excited to finally read this based man.

>>14725215
There's already a Guenon(pbuh) general. That's all we need. All of philosophy has already been eternally retroactively refuted anyway. You're wasting your time.

Reminder to ignore guenonfag's spams as OP says. DO NOT REPLY.

/pseud/ is the only acceptable name for this general

/Philo/ implies love. If you are going to shorten the name, it should be /sophia/ or wisdom.

>>14725376
>The lover of ideas lives in a much enlarged universe. He has, according to Diotima, become a "lover of wisdom," a philosopher. He sees things in wider perspectives. He is not limited anymore to the narrow concerns and outlooks that characterize primal instinctual love, but is able to develop an attitude of relaxed detachment toward all worldly matters.
I don't know man. /Philo/ seems to me is the most fitting name.

>>14725339
How did Guenon refuted philosophy? Who is he?

>>14725349
and anyone replying to him is the cum drinking guenonfag himself. To have a more enjoyable experience please don't forget to filter him, if you need a guide on how to filter please feel free to ask

What is the best order in which to 'learn' philosophy? To obtain a solid base understanding?

>>14725395
Indeed. But, in the perspective of your quote, how could we ever discuss Marx, or any materialist for that matter, in a philosophia thread? That thread would have no allegiance to our beloved Plato, nor to Pythagoras, and would only continue with the further subversion of our most precious tradition.

>>14725406
Start with Crisis of the Modern World.

>>14725406
“Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth” is a must.

>>14725406
I would recommend a general history of philosophy book (like Bryan Magee's The Story of Philosophy), followed by Plato's "Five Dialogues", Descartes' Meditations, Hume's first Enquiry, and Kant's Prolegomena. This should give you a solid base in philosophy after which you could safely approach almost all other philosophers.
>>14725409
>how could we ever discuss Marx, or any materialist for that matter, in a philosophia thread?
If it were up to me, I would have said we shouldn't. As it is, I'm sure materialists at least agree that they come from Socrates' tradition.

>>14725215
Undercover butthurt fiction reader detected

>>14725376
You need to be 18 or older to post on here desu

>>14725406
you got some good answers already, but it also depends on what you want to get out of philosophy since it's a huge field and you could spend a lifetime studying one part of it. There's even a philosophy of maths.
What do you want out of it? deep existential questions with no real answer? or something practical like how government should be structured and how societies should work? economics? maybe something more personal like thoughts on individuals should live? or psychology and how human consciousness works? some parts of philosophy have very little overlap with each other
>>14725451
not at all, I haven't read anything but nonfiction in more than a year. I like that /lit/ has gotten heavily into philosophy, I just don't like how messy the catalog looks with threads that are essentially duplicates

>>14725376
>>14725409
nigga it's just short for philosophy stop overthinking

>>14725713
Negro, Philosophy as a whole is literally overthinking.


Please. philanons. Share what you're reading/thinking about. Let's generate some discussions.

ZHUANGZI/RELATIVISM/PSYCHOLOGY
anyone here read the inner chapters of the zhuangzi? What do you think of this essay? https://www.hackettpublishing.com/zhuangziphil
I think it made a lot of the confusing parts (especially the confusing "this" vs "that" argument) finally click for me. This essay works great both as a companion and an introduction to the inner chapters, highly recommend. Plus Ziporyn is very respected as a translator/scholar.

Zhuangzi's "nonaction" reminds me a lot of the flow state. I googled flow state and found this on the wiki article
>Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in 1975, the concept has been widely referred to across a variety of fields (and is particularly well recognized in occupational therapy), though the concept has been claimed to have existed for thousands of years under other names, notably in some Eastern thought systems, for example, Daoism and Buddhism.[1]
so it seems someone out there agrees with me

bump

>>14725406
the rhizome method
pick up any work that interests you and read/study it until you find something new.

there are no "easy" entries.

>>14727292
>there are no "easy" entries.
i disagree. You can't deny reading a diary like meditations is much easier than reading a long dry essay by Kant. There ARE easy entries, there just isn't a "best" entry

>>14727324
Meditations won't ease you into to The Critiques, nothing can ease you into Kant besides grappling with it.

>>14727420
If you haven't read Descartes and Hume, you wouldn't even know what the fuck Kant is trying to do in the first Critique.

>>14725376
wish that was my name desu

>>14725445
>I would recommend a general history of philosophy book (like Bryan Magee's The Story of Philosophy), followed by Plato's "Five Dialogues", Descartes' Meditations, Hume's first Enquiry, and Kant's Prolegomena. This should give you a solid base in philosophy after which you could safely approach almost all other philosophers.
Is this a good way to go ? I'm worried that once I get to Hume (and especially Kant), most of it will be going over my head

>>14727454
It is. The history book will give you all the context that you need and the texts arranged in a good natural order. Hume isn't hard to understand if you know what he is trying to do. The same holds for Kant but Kant is a bit harder. Still, he wrote the Prolegomena to make it more easier to understand. I've actually asked questions about Kant on Kant threads and Kantbros were very helpful, so no need to worry.

>>14727454
imo you're better off taking a free philosophy course from coursera or edx. Get a very surface level overview first, then dive in to whatever interests you. You'll probably get to reading all those eventually anyway

>>14725895
Just read In the shadow of the silent majorities and Fatal strategies by Baudrillard. His blend of philosophy/economics/sociology/media criticism is dense but really rewarding.

>>14725215
MISC. PHILOSOPHY: STIRNER

YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD, OP. GO AWAY.

>>14725409
Socrates was killed on part for supposedly being a materialist

>>14727504
>YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD, OP.
why? and why so asshurt?

>>14727454
imo just get interested in someone then start by reading commentaries then books by the philosopher. First guy I read was Nietzsche, and with this he was easy to get into.

>>14727517
based arthoe

>>14727517
Not him but idk if that works. I'd really like to know what this madman was talking about but the commentaries are just as confusing as his work if you lack the background
Either that or I'm a severe brainlet
Or both

>>14727517
Nietzsche is almost the worst one to start with. Almost as bad as Bertrand Russell.

>>14727532
That whole era of Frenchies are really confusing, and imo Derrida is the most confusing. After Nietzsche I got into Sartre, Wittgenstein then Baudrillard, all without commentaries. I'm about to tackle Deleuze and Guattari with commentaries.

>>14727537
Depends on the person. My background is classical music so freddy was a breath of fresh air

>>14727560
I don't doubt he is enjoyable to read, but at the same time he is launching emotionally charged attacks against other philosophers which leaves you with a skewed view. Zarathustra was actually the first philosophy book that I tried to read, but still I believe he shouldn't be the one to start with.

>>14727575
The first one I read is probably something by Voltaire.

>>14727579
Voltaire isn't too objective either, literally wrote a whole book making fun of Leibniz. I don't have anything against philosophic banters or battles, but they are disadvantageous for the newcomers to start with.

>>14727575
He does do just that, but if you start by reading commentaries on his work, they give you all the context necessary to get into him. There's even books that cover his thoughts from BoT to WtP, as well as offering biographical info and critiques of his idea. Imo if you want to get into a specific philosopher, this is a more accessible way than reading everyone they comment on.

>>14725406
You can either do a thematic focus build around topics like metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, axiology, or logic. An alternative is fousing on historical philosophers.

I second Bryan Magee's The Story of Philosophy but would add something like Julian Maria's History of Philosophy or Copleston for historical introductions.

For introductions to fields like metaphysics or epistemology try Ernest Sosa's Epistemology, Loux's Metaphysics or Julia Driver for Ethics.

Where does one start with Husserl? Seems like he is quite popular among people actually interested in philosophy but doesn't get posted here since he isn't as meme-worthy.

>>14728013
The Meditations is usually the most accessible work. The Ideas is good as a repersentation for classical phenomenology but is a bit more difficult to dive into.

>>14725445
>>14727961
I really like Magee's works. His books on Schopenhauer and Wagner were also really good.

>>14728013
>he isn't as meme-worthy
Looks like you haven't played Pharaoh (1999).

>>14727961
I third this. Will Durant's Story of Philosophy is good too if you want more text. I think Magee's has lots of pictures.

Ultimately I'd do it in historical order as others have said, as they all build off of each other and it's all one big conversation. Greeks (Plato + Aristotle, hell you can skip Aristotle really), medieval thought (if you must), modern (Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant), and then you can go the autism/nihilistic/technical route and follow the ANAYLTICAL camp or go arthouse/gonzo/emancipatory/emotive route and go CONTINENTAL.

some folks would say continental has soul, some would say it's plain garbage and difficult to follow due to verbose language and obfuscation (I for example have NO fucking clue what the continental french philosophers are talking about. some would say the analytic side is the only way to move forward (in bite sized publishable papers that is!). some would say the divide I speak of silly. what do I know, I certainly do NOT have a degree in philosophy, if that's worth anything.

>>14728126
>ANAYLTICAL camp or go arthouse/gonzo/emancipatory/emotive route and go CONTINENTAL.
I would say this categorizing, as it is, is rather crude. Husserl is considered to be a continental but he is a better at technical philosophy than most other analytics.

>>14728153
it absolutely is, a lot of it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. there's some truth in there somewhere, though.

>>14725406
Another two ways to study philosophy is by methodlogy or problem. For example looking into Marucie Wulf's Scholasticism Old and New, Contemporary Analytic Philosophy by Jaimes Baille , Continetal Philosophy: An Introduction by Andrew Cutrofello.

The problem based approach is tricky because some fields of philosophy assume background knowledge.Examples are stuff like Problems in Aesthetics by Morris Weitz.

>>14728126
what about eastern philosophy? China alone has a huge history

>>14728164
I was just talking about Western thought.

>>14728164
There are some good introductions. You have to be careful a lot of them are pop and really low quality. Get something like An Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy by Bryan Van Norden or Traditional Korean Philosophy by Youngson Back and P.J Ivanhoe. Anything by Ivanhoe is good.

>>14728158
True, there is some truth to it, especially with the French. Good post and good recs.

>>14728182
thanks! i actually downloaded Van Norden's book recently but was afraid to dive in cause i hadn't read any comments abut how good/accurate it is. I'll start with that one

FUCK OFF, AUTIST

>>14725215
>Your comment should have the subject at the top
Anyway, anyone knows some books on hegel's science of logic (besides houlgate and longuenesse)?

>>14728391

Try David Carlson's A Commentary to Hegel's Science of Logic.

>>14728404
you've read it? I glanced at a few pages and it seems good, complete too which is nice
thanks for the rec

>>14728435
Yes, but to be honest with you it is was too indepth for me. It is according to a professor I took that focuses on the philosophy of right. It is latest and most complete commentary according to him.

>>14728391
the subject thing is just a general guideline lad, if you don't wanna follow it it's not like I can ban you. I guess "should" is a strong word. It was more of a suggestion. It's just an attempt to keep things organized an easy to navigate if the general gets bigger, but if it's a stupid idea let's not mention it in the subsequent /philo/ threads

>>14727532
>>14727560
i think that the "superstar" position the late satre,derrida,focault etc got into in the french society poisoned there work to a degree

like ol' schopie would say they "hegelei" much
not to say that there is nothing of value there,but they seem to me like psychocholoplasters

I'm a bit sick of some of the lack of freedoms and increasing restrictions and laws in my country so decided to join our libertarian party
If I'm going to be involved I should be well informed, is there any philosophical books you guys would recommend that relate to the subject?
If possible could you also refer me to a thread/board that may have a more political/economic posting basis instead of philosophical I could lurk and ask around in?

>>14725406
I literally started at Descartes and went chronologically, since influence flows downstream

>>14728727
This is actually good. Find a philosopher you're interested in, and try and learn how they have influenced or were criticised by those that followed. Occasionally also studying those that preceded them. Regardless of whether it's Plato, Peirce, or Avicenna.

>>14728703
Read Foucault. Especially the 3 lectures on biopower.

>>14728703
yes, the phenomenology of spirit
stop being a libertarian

>>14728769
I'm not truly a libertarian, but practically every single political party in my country want's to implement more restrictions and give more control to the government
The only party that wants the opposite is the libertarians, and they have some actual support because of that

>>14727496
based Bjork poster

>>14725445
>>14728126

How many texts from Plato and Aristotle are necessary to reas to understand the works of later philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche?

>>14728834
None because Kant had a very specific understanding of all those works, shaped by state of the history of philosophy. Nietzsche, for example, thought Shakespeare was Bacon. That being said, Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy (not philosophy of history) is the best introduction to his work.

Who out here reading Plato? I started with the Republic because I had no clue about where to start so I went with the most popular. Loved it and then I bought the complete works. I've so far read Apology of Socrates, Crito and Euthyphro
I wish that before all of this I had read the Illiad and the Oddysey because they get referenced all the time in the dialogues, but I guess that'll come later.
What are your favorite Plato dialogues?

>>14728703
There's a bunch of charts on right libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in the wiki. I recommend you to read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt to get an introduction. Very easy to read and has a good broad view of usual anti-freedom policies carried out by governments

>>14728993
I wouldnt be missing out on any major understanding? Other people have suggested I get their complete works...

>>14729079
I would argue you only need a broad understanding of Plato to move forward. he believed in universals..he believe in XYZ political philosophy, etc. I mean sure you can read ALL of his stuff but life is short and there's a lot of western philosophy to catch up on!!

It also always helpful to GO BACK after you've read and gained a better understanding of things. google the 'hermeneutic circle' and apply it to all of philosophy if you consider it "one" body of text.

>>14729079
>>14728834
I know it seems like things are dense and carefully related, but with most philosophers you don't need more than a slight background to get into them.

>>14728089
post it please anon

>>14728703
Congratulations, you solved politics.
Read M Friedmann and von Mises

>>14727496
why does she always look exactly 45 years old

What is not-not-philosophy?

>>14730171
Deleuze, Logic of Sense

>>14730171
apophic negation

You may want to learn actual economics and econometrics. Avoid any heterodox economics unless you know them.

>>14725406
Real answer: Learn the history of philosophy AND learn a specific area of philosophy that is self-contained enough to dive into right away (while you're also learning the history of philosophy). Obvious choices: start with the Greeks, or start with the early moderns (but read a primer on the influence on them of Greek philosophy since they deliberately reintroduced it)

Comedy answer: Do what philosophy undergrads do and take a few topical classes in whatever arbitrary focus your arbitrary professor at your arbitrary university happens to have, then optionally go to grad school and write a PhD called "Virtue of Non-Belief: Secularism and Aristotelian Ethics" while being extremely rusty on Aristotle scholarship, never having gained an historical appreciation of Aristotle except for those two months where you speed-read a few classic books like Jaeger for your oral exams, and being completely ignorant in general of philosophy beyond your tiny subset of a tiny subset of Aristotle scholars (who also don't really read Aristotle)

Difficult but honest answer: It will take years for your mind to grow and develop enough to be decent at philosophy and you will only gradually be less and less of a retard. Look at it a mixture of learning a language and learning science. Can you learn "science" by visualising it as a set of propositions to be gleaned? Or is it a long, continuous ascent through many different but fundamentally related fields of knowledge, the unavoidable acquisition of techniques and technical jargons, etc.? Philosophy is no different. After several years of having babby's first delusions of grandeur and embarrassingly rushing to /lit/ to post "I've solved philosophy guys! I'm an anarcho-taoist process theologian!" every time you half-understand something you're reading, you will eventually start to actually understand things.

The real joy of philosophy is that when you're very good at it and very familiar with it, it combines the best aspects of a craft and an abstract intellectual activity. It's a craft because you've assimilated all those techniques, you know the history and the contours of various conceptual fields by instinct, but you're also engaging with it in a perfectly lucid, abstract way. It completely transforms your consciousness by training it to think in clean, distinct concepts, while also being infinitely sensitive to the subjectivity of all conceptual determinations. It's hard not to think that Platonic eros is a real thing. The goal when you're just starting is to awaken eros by letting it grow, and not be discouraged by the fact that it takes several years, and its activity may only be visible in hindsight.

Of course, most academic philosophers are narrow-minded craftsmen without much lucidity, more like autistic hobbyists or snobs than real philosophers. But if you can maintain both aspects without sacrificing one to the other, there is always the possibility of experiencing what Plato experienced.

>>14729048

Is it better to read an introduction to a philosopher before reading him? Or leave the notes for later.

>>14732157
I think a whole book is usually too much of a time waste, but it helps to read a SEP article before starting with primary material.

>>14732157
It it is usually a good idea. Try the Continuum Guide for the Perplexed or Oxford Very Short Introduction. For some philosophers you really should. Early Moderns, Medievals, Ancient and Antiquity require it. Some modern of a more literary bent can be jumped into directly. The exception is aphorisms.

>>14725215
Too general. Segment these threads further, OP.

>>14732246
I think eventually it could be split into 2 or 3 generals for different areas of philosophy that don't have any overlap. But I think an all-encompassing /philo/ works for now. This thread has been moderately successful so far with 91 posts and little to no shit-flinging. Quite a few beginners asking where to start, which is good. In the future I'll add a pastebin to the thread with the most recommended intro to philosophy books, based on what I've seen here