/lit/ - Literature

itt uncomfortable words:

gubernatorial.

>the Northerners are fiery and less good at concentration
>the Greeks are the perfect mix between North and South

>>16350534
Found this myself.

>>15852608
>Yes, I do prefer Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to the stoics

>>15839428
Yes.

>>15659111
It's like he doesn't even know what Being is, only stuck in a referential practicality of a eudaimonology. And because of the commonness of the phrase "it's about the journey" it entails all of the mistakes it is so often used with, like for example if one really just wanted to go on a journey and that was a goal in itself as well as the ending destination, then the word journey loses much meaning.

But I guess it's just a memey twitter post so it doesn't really matter. That some things are eternal, that being is eternal in its character.

>>15578128
Read the presocratics, Homer(no great translation into English), Hesiod, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripides, Pindar(be aware of translation problems) and Sappho if you want. Read about the effect Socrates had on Greece and philosophy in general, the multiple schools of thought which his teaching left to the creation of and such, Plato being one of many, and particularly Antisthenes. After them be familiar with the Greek Stoics and their works. Read Epicurus as well as be family generally with Greek Epicurianism. Read about/the texts of Pyrrhonism. Greek oratory is good to read, and very entertaining, so Demosthenes is one. As well as the Greek myths so Hamilton. And of course, the famous historians of Greece, so Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon and you can read Arrian's Anabasis as well considering the topic of Alexander.


You should read Homer, Hesiod, the Presocratics, Sophocles, Aeschylus and Hesiod around or before the time of reading Plato and Aristotle, but you have to read Aristotle's Poetics before diving too deep into any Greek poetry, the work stands on its own, but you should also read Plato before any Aristotle so of course Plato and Homer stand as the starting points. Supplement with other books if you want, but this group is the general "complete" Greek reading.

Instinct and evolution, modern scientific materialism could never explain this and only corrupts the minds of those innocent enough to accept it. It is this that led Jung to the interest in the inner subjective experience of life, the only true psychology; because it is from his own meaning, what is meaningful to him and makes no attempt to ignore it with outward objective science. It was a phenomenological psychology as Jung called it. This is a science of the mind; "a culture of the psyche" in which Jung was striving for. And he like Heidegger, maintained the validity of the existence of this meaning. It is just that Jung does not speak of metaphysics, only observable and therefore predictable psychic phenomena, which was true and cannot be said otherwise--; the roots and branches, it is the trunk of the whole and as a result the apparent "unfounded-mystical" tautology of this psychology is of no consequence, because it is in truth the sum whole of all truth and all relations and can never be escaped, it would be like in Heidegger to claim you could ever "get out" of your being to being(being in being and so forth), you are mans being in being and this is certain. Jung, as Heidegger also did, eventually discarded strict concepts of subjective/objective to a better fitting symbolic sense of inner/outer. One should also not approach Jung with an empirical sense that he himself did with his earlier theories, instead with a more philosophical insight after all he is a "philosopher in a scientists garbs". Jung's main influences came from Schopenhauer, Kant, Carus and Hartman. Saying himself that he was more influenced by Carl Gustav Carus than Freud.

In the end, we can say this is why Jung had such fascination with the symbol. A direct representation of meaningful phenomena. If one can cultivate a care for symbolical appreciation he can get so much closer to the truth of life, and as said evidently phenomenological in character for both of these men.

Are you just asking for texts after Plato? I guess i'll just add that it's easy to get bogged down in exegesis and descriptive explanation when going over historical texts, but these aren't terribly conducive to actual philosophizing. It's important to seize on the point being made and discuss the merits and implications of that, rather than what is the correct or incorrect reading.
actually, what is your background with philsophy? some of your comments are a little strange.

Which parts of Plutarch's Moralia should i skip? It seems like he wrote mostly trite moralism in his work but there are more interesting parts like On The Malice of Herodotus that I'd like to read after finishing the Separate Lives.

post a bigger blackpill in literature.

Who's gonna pay?

Well /lit/, who was better?