[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 38 KB, 370x208, IMG_1534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5211997 No.5211997 [Reply] [Original]

Would really like to begin reading philosophical works, but don't know where to start. Anyone have a recommendation for what my approach should be? (reading in historical order vs what most appeals to me)

I checked the /lit/ wiki shit for a flow chart but there wasn't anything like that so I was hoping the board could be of help

>> No.5211999

Start with the Greeks.

>> No.5212004

Start with the Greeks
Read the Sticky
Philosophy is about learning new ideas, not finding shit that caters to what you already think
Sage

>> No.5212008

If you want to learn this shit on your own you'll need to read some history of philosophy books first to get some background otherwise you'll be lost regardless of where you start

I heart Kenny's 4-book series is an ok entry point try that

>> No.5212029

>>5211999
>>5212004
Anything in particular I should check out?

>>5212008
Alright, I'll check that out. A lot of this has come from a desire to expand my mind more which I feel like I'm not getting done by reading the kind of shit I've been reading so far this summer (Kerouac, Thompson, Hemingway, Asimov, and just whatever I'm in the mood for - all of which I do like). Also I've realized that I spend a lot of time thinking about human nature and behavior and that this could give me more to reflect upon.

>> No.5212134

>>5212029
plato's republic

>> No.5212168

Pick up an intro to philosophy book that gives you a good overview of the range of the field, and then pursue what appeals to you.

Anyone telling you to read the ancient greeks first is a snob who values bragging rights over relevance of thought. Sure, they've been influential, but so much thought has been written since then its only really worth returning to the classical philosophers to cherry pick out the parts relevant to us now.

>> No.5212189

>>5211997
Just read some crap about general semantics. Youll know everything you need to sound "cool" and "hip" and "deep" in front of stupid people.

>> No.5212209

Start with the greeks.

>> No.5212250

>>5211997
zizek's jokes and his quirky&randomness in "the perverts guide to ideology" got me into political philosophy when i saw it ~1 year ago, and the sublime object of ideology is a fine starting point if you know absolutely nothing and wish to start reading more dense philosophy. you could then logically go on to hegel, stirner, plato, etc. (i dont know that much either but w/e)

>> No.5212295

Just read Copleston for whatever period you want, then read the main books. Modern philosophy is, IMO, the best period.

>> No.5212306
File: 78 KB, 640x921, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5212306

Fuck the Greeks. Start with the Germans.

>> No.5212844

>>5211997
there should a sticky for these dullards who are somehow capable of wandering here

>> No.5212873

The real answer OP

Philosophy bro.com
Squashedphilosopers.com

Read the highly condensed things that interest you and if you like them enough read the whole books

>> No.5212900

>>5211997

start with the greeks

then some christian stuff, augustine, etc

then do some Spinoza, Liebniz

then Berkeley Hume

then Kant

then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

then Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Strawson, Grice, Putnam, Quine

then Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger I guess, if you want to read a bunch of stupid bullshit

>> No.5212938

>>5212900
you forgot zizek.

>> No.5212944

>>5212900
>then Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger I guess, if you want to read a bunch of stupid bullshit

Ah yes, the cry of an illiterate autist that can't read philosophy unless it's spelled out in sterile syllogisms and monosyllables.

Stay stupid, prole.

>> No.5212997

>>5212134
republic is shit... even before getting into the republic he has to read meno is he want to understand his concept of vertu

>> No.5213004

>>5212134
republic is shit... even before getting into the republic he has to read meno is he want to understand his concept of vertu>>5212168
my men

>> No.5213008
File: 59 KB, 646x719, 1406647837758.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5213008

>>5212944
>>5212900

>> No.5213012

Start with Dworkin

>> No.5213015

>>5211997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sloterdijk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Jank%C3%A9l%C3%A9vitch

if you like the historical perspective i strongly recomend you michel foucault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault

>> No.5213024

>>5213008
>Nietzsche
>unsubstantiated opinions
What the fuck, as far as I'm aware he sketched the first genealogy of western morality, and did similar things for Greek scholarship.

It sometimes seems like analytics dismiss the strong analytic aspects of Nietzsche just because he doesn't fit into their narrow atheism, humanitarianism and glorification (or overstatement) of the natural sciences.

>> No.5213028

>>5213024
Why would you take an image macro seriously?

>> No.5213029

>>5213028
By analytics I meant those on /lit/, which the image represents. I'm sure the actual academics respect Nietzsche however.

>> No.5213031

>>5213024
most analytics who aren't edgelords on 4chan acknowledge Nietzsche as an influence, its more the 20th century cunts they reject (also Hegel, fuck Hegel)

>> No.5213040

Nietzsche didn't take sides on the Schopenhauer vs Hegel thing just like Rorty's impartiality in the 20th century divisions.

Why don't you consider Rorty the final word on philosophy /lit/?