/lit/ - Literature

Aristotles was considered superior in Europe and curb-stomped platonism intellectualy.

No but seriously, I don't really know.

"Start with the greeks" "Start with the Plato"
I did, and now I can see the end of Platon.
But there is a follower- Aristotle.

Do I need to read Aristotle?
Which of Aristotle's books should I read?
Can I ask what order should be?

>>13029080
I've been reading pic related's Metaphysics for a little more than a month and it's so tiresome and rigid. It's such a shock to start reading him right after Plato. You can tell how unbelievably smart he was by the way he wrote though, every sentence and claim is so logically worded and ordered it's ridiculous.

I felt the same way with Kaczynski, but to a smaller degree.

Adjusted list: (Party with the Platonists!)

>level 1:
What is Ancient Philosophy? by Hadot
Philosophy as a Way of Life by Hadot
>level 2:
The Golden Thread by Godwin
The Golden Chain by Uzdavinys
Orpheus and the Roots of Platonism by Uzdavinys
Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth by Uzdavinys
Philosophy and Theurgy in Late Antiquity by Uzdavinys
>level 3:
Neoplatonism by Wallis
Neoplatonism by Remes
Neoplatonic Readings by Dillon
>level 4:
The Presocratic Philosophers by Kirk
Pythagorean Workbook by Guthrie
Corpus Hermetica by Copenhaver
Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magjc by Kingsley
In the Dark Places of Wisdom by Kingsley
Reality by Kingsley
>level 5:
Plato's Unwritten Doctrines by Findlay
Postmodern Platos by Zuckert
>level 6:
Proclus - Elements of Theology
Macrobius - Commentary on the Dream of Scipio
Plato - Dialogues and Letters
Aristote - Collected Works
Plotinus - Enneads
Imablichus - De Mysteriis
>level 7:
The Complete Thomas Taylor Collection
>level 8
???
>level 9
Prophet!

>hurr durr women have half a soul and the sun revolves around the earth
Give one reason this dated motherfucker is still read

>tfw studying philosophy at UT
>tfw slowly realizing the whole ivory tower philosophy is a nihilistic pyramid scheme
>tfw $20,000 in debt

>>11106803
I find Aristotle much more significant. Even though you could argue Aristotle was product of Plato, making all the subsequent philosophy indeed a footnote to Plato. Nevertheless, Aristotle was a lot smarter than Plato imo, and the Aristotelian style of writing and making philosophy is much closer to what the academic philosophers do these days, while Plato's style both in his dialog format and his philosophy seems more of an intermediate between theology and philosphy, a mix of myth and reason.

are there any good books about Logos, Pathos, and Ethos and their usage?

>>10485208
Because the latter features both mythos and logos, whereas the former is pure mythos.

>"the only reason a stone stays in the air after being thrown is because the air itself is carrying it like a bunch of tiny hands moving it along until the stone achieves its natural state of touching the ground"

Is Aristotle stupid or something? There were plenty of writers of his own time who easily recognized that air resisted motion, rather than carried objects, and they were able to come up with theories of inertia, realizing that the arm throwing the stone imprinted the motion onto the stone, and the stone would continue making the motion until the gradual resistances caught up with it. Why do people like Aristotle? I just read about his theories for uni and they are terrible compared to others of a near by time.

Does anyone else here feels really disillusioned with the feasibility of philosophical inquiry as a method to reach truth?
The more authors I study (specially the post-structuralists and postmoderns) the more I feel like things like discourse, rhetorics, trends, cults of personality and politics go more in the way of shaping whatever it is that the field's status quo deems truthful than the ideas themselves.
Am I becoming a nihilist?