/lit/ - Literature

>>21356286
knock knock. If you actually read history you would know how impactful Philosophy was on it. If you were passingly familiar with history you should be aware of the confluence of mentality and circumstance. Philosophy isnt something made in a void and its contents do not drain into a void either. its part of your "box". Hell, most philosophers totally admit this and incorporate and reference things irl. You miss out on understanding the enlightenment without enlightenment phil. you miss out on political-philosophical trends of the 1800s without phil. You miss out on the monadic trends in the late roman republic without phil.

Even your words are very obviously a 2 bit philosophy. For some reason you presented philosophy as some corner outside of the system, and assumed that some nebuouls subject said that you should study it in a void, something that I dont believe anyone said here.

>>21323035
It should be manifestly obvious by how they present their information. The trustworthiness of something can usually be ascertained by the methodology, framework, and process.

Something that attempts to understand rather than to question (since any good questioning should come after a well rounded understanding)

Does the book give very specific examples that illustrates a rather narrow point without acknowledging the limits of the example? does it not provide other interpretations or examples on a subject? does it seem to skew towards a narrative unduly? Does it ignore major intentions or perceptions in the period? If it honest with its scope and the limitations of its project, it should be fine.

And primarily, does it actually try to give you a nuanced understanding rather than trying to feed you a particular myopic narrative or thesis.