/lit/ - Literature

>>18347515

Ignore all Russell hating trannies, this is the ticket

>>17988367

Is this a good place to start? Heard mixed opinions on it.
>Inb4 Just start with the Greeks
I do plan to get into Plato and Aristotle's work individually. But I dont care much about the rest of olive branch fuckers. Just need need a base to wider understanding

>>16828996
Read this. He summarizes the Greeks well. He is biased on certain philosophies but I havent found a better "Jumping In" compendium. Otherwise just start with Plato

Is this a good book?

If one was to read only 10 philosophers, who are the most important 10?

I’m reading pic related and am on this paragraph:

“Another error into which Aristotle falls through this mistake is to think that a predicate of a predicate can be a predicate of the original subject. If I say “Socrates is a Greek, all Greeks are Human” Aristotle thinks that “human” is a predicate of “Greek” while “Greek” is a predicate of “Socrates”, and obviously “human” is a predicate of “Socrates”. But in fact, “human” is not a predicate of “Greek”. The distinction between names and predicates, or in metaphysical language, between particulars and universals, I am thus blurred, with disastrous consequences to philosophy”

I’m failing to see how Aristotle is wrong on this, please spoon feed me

I've read A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel. What is a good book to follow up? One that explains the post-modern philosophy.

I'm currently reading history of western philosophy by Bertrand Russell. I'm liking it so far. What did you think of it?

When I got to the Catholic philosophy section which is a third of the book, I immediately started reading from the end of the book as well as from the middle, so that I could alternate theological nonsense with modern nonsense.

It's almost 800 pages as well. Many of the philosophers are products of their time, which must be the dirty secret of philosophy. I think the equivalent for science and maths would be learning about how much famous results relied on applications and experiments for inspiration.

I laughed because there was a section on Henri Bergson but he seems to be in there just so Russell can pick on a continental. He doesn't think much of Nietzche either and called him a beta with overly grandiose ideas. I know that Russell has to describe the important stuff but despite this he still seems too accommodating towards metaphysical bullshit. And he didn't seem too impressed by sceptics among the ancients.

I like the book despite it being really dense but superficial. I have read a few non fiction books like this and I don't think this is a good way to learn in general.

Just bought pic related. Is it good? Will it help me later on when I read the philosophers he writes about in this book?