/lit/ - Literature

its a meme you dip
start with Norwegian wood

>>17233218
My Complete Works has half that.

>>17233218
They asked a lot of questions which people still go back to, and basically defined the bounds of western thought for a millennium and a half. Also, most modern philosophies have their counterpart in the ancient western philosophies so it's good to have a grasp of them. But your education should move in deepening passes. Start with introductory texts and then get more complex as you understand more.

>>17233289
Examples of introductory texts and examples of complex ones?

>>17233218
It's a meme, but like a lot of board specific memes newfags don't realize that

Just read overviews of the cynics, the stoics, epicureanism, etc. then read the source text if one man appeals to you. it's a good introduction to philosophy as a whole, which can be extremely retarded. I can't imagine reading something like Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel just to understand the history of these ideas. leave that to philosophy students (to pretend that they read)

>>17233375
Read the "5 dialogues", these are introductory, and you can read the Republic afterwards. That's only 350 pages to be familiar with the ideas of Socrates and Plato.

>>17233218
You don't need to read it all, but it's really useful.

>>17233218
You don't have to read everything, anon. But definitely get an overview on Ancient Greek thought. They devised a bunch of the 'common ground' philosophers used later too develop their own thoughts. And a lot of them just used some of them as starting point for other ideas.

>>17233218
This chart? It’s around 1800 I thought

>>17233218
Because most everything western after was built on the basis which they erected. either building on top of, trying to refute, or reinterpreting. Starting with them helps to prevent chronological snobbery and selection bias.

Also, you dont have to read the complete works, just be relitively familiar with platonic and aristotilian thought, and maybe a few pre-Socratic before diving into other stuff. Afterwards its fine enough to jump about a bit.

>>17233397
>Just read overviews of the cynics, the stoics, epicureanism
Why are you retarded? those are mostly lifestyle philosophies, if you are going to recommend any of the wide reaching from thier core nature philosophies it should be plat and aristotle.
If you are just interested in lifestyle, fine, but those are not going to teach you the basics of epistomology teleology and the rest of the core shit starting with the greeks is supposed to do.

>>17233506
>but those are not going to teach you the basics of epistomology teleology and the rest of the core shit
teleology is one single concept
epistemology is big gay
metaphysics isn't even real
I'm saving OP from becoming you

>>17233534
are you? seems like you just pointed him to a rather narrow selection of philosophical lineage. Plat and Aristotle had big effects on those life style movements too AS WELL as more theoretical fields. If OP specifically said lifestyle philosophy, sure, but in terms of general philosophy covering all its different veins, not at all.

>>17233560
“Teleology” is the concept of a mechanistic causality which is not reasons ‘pushing constraints together’ so to produce certain outcomes (constraints which are thus ‘already there’ via their effects). Instead, teleological cause ‘pulls it together’ to fit a shape that kind of ‘sucks from the future’, a future which however does not yet “exist” (which to reasonable minds is language which indicates that something cannot have any effects). Of course, if we work hard, we can define suitably so that some of this is rendered meaningful in the context of ad hoc language. However, to those who prefer powerful terminology consistent with good science, “time” is based on causality. Time is not an arrow though a four dimensional box where people with an engineering mindset ask “Oh I wonder why stuff doesn’t flow the other way?” Time’s direction summarizes causal order and has no further meta-time to flow at all! So, even with circularity in a wider causal network, causality defines the local past-to-future order and thus direction. Teleology is nonsense, because past-to-future is nothing but different words expressing causal order. A holistic global constrain through consistency of the overall story is no longer about dynamical causes, and it is thus not valid to claim “seeeee, teleology after all”. No, once you have circularly correlated descriptions, there is no longer a globally valid absolute “future”. For example, if I am the exact same as that what will be simulated in “the future”, the “future” is right now, because I am now

>>17233677
Ok, thats fine logic and all, but you didnt adress my point at all. That The big two are the starting point for much of the later philosophical movements in many branches of the disipline. Regardless if you find any of those branches moot.

>>17233696
okay, that's true. But I think we need to caution the young reader. Imagine if he developed an interest in ethics, metaphysics, or teleology. How life would be ruined. We need to get him into the lifestyle philosophies so that he can be nurtured into reading Cioran in his entirety

>>17233218
Just read faster? 3500 pages doable in two weeks if you can read 250 pages a day.

>>17233274
Start with the song Norwegian wood, and accept Lennon as lord and saviour.

Skip the weeb book

>>17233733
>What is the reason for starting with the greeks?
Read Alan Blooms Republic translation + his interpretive essay. The reason why the Greeks (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle mainly) is because of the type of life Socrates advocates for. In short: the pursuit of philosophy, which means being an honest truth seeker. Not only that but I think Platonic dialogues get a lot right about the state of things, so aside from being a good lens with which to proceed in life, it also gives you some ideas.

>250 pages of Philosophical text in a day
Only a true pump can achieve that while retaining the material.

>>17233733
This isn't Harry Potter anon what the fuck

>>17233218
Because Plato gives you the best grounding for logic and questioning, it is the best introductory understanding of what philosophy looks towards. It's just a start to get you thinking, something great to look forward to in your future studies. The power of the laws will start you in the right direction even if you don't understand anything.

This is how you teach youth, get them questioning things that will take many years to answer.
You're not going to read all of Plato, as most of the Five Dialogues and The Republic will be difficult enough. The greater dialogues are to be returned to after a more general education and, most importantly, life experience.

Read Plato's introductory works, what interests you of Aristotle and the artistic works, and then proceed with a general education. Your goal should be to return to the presocratics, more obscure works, the whole of the arts, and especially the myths. Most of this stuff will be completely foreign to you as a modern, and almost all of the commentaries will only lead you astray (especially if you follow lit's linear progression meme).

>>17233733
>ITS JUST DATA BRO

>>17233772
>>17233733
Yeah as a uni student it took me a couple months, even while reasonably dedicated.
OP its important to read all of that material because others have read it. Its much easier to understand Aristotle when you’ve read Plato. Your ability to understand something is a product of how much time you spend with it anyways. You could write up the main points and memorize them, but reading the books achieves the same things and more while being more enjoyable

It clearly states in th chart to start with Edith Hamilton's mythology, not Plato's 3500 page meme book

>>17233733
Yeah if you're just mindlessly reading the words. This isn't game of thrones.

>>17233829
>Edith Hamilton's mythology
Which is wrong. Don't start with mythology, especially such a shitty book.

>>17233709
ok, then we should just be transparent with the major macro movements. Here are the major branches and here is the sample of and jist of the subjects. Maybe you prefer biology or physics, but its a good idea to start with the scientific method regardless.

>>17233850
Okay, my little nigger

>>17233218
>Wanna learn math? Start with calculus
That's the equivalent. If you're going to learn the Western tradition, you should start where it begins because - if you don't - you'll, at best, recreate the Greeks through intuition of later works while losing essential context, or, at worst, waste a whole bunch of time failing to understand and then have to return to the Greeks anyway.

You should probably learn to add and subtract whole numbers before you try to learn how to differentiate or integrate functions.