/lit/ - Literature

>>22670158
very very based.. both the Bakker and the Greek talk. I did philosophy in college and I unironically think you can start AND stop with the Greeks. enjoy the Dialogues - they are wonderful.

Medieval phil was interesting but very focused on religion and thelogy. nothing wrong with that, but a lot of it is Augustine defining the attributes of God etc etc. Modern phil.. well Kant is neat. Analytic phil, jesus christ no thanks, it's navel gazing to the fullest extent. continental phil, jesus christ no thanks as well, it's word salad to the fullest extent. honestly I wish I started and stopped with the Greeks and never got into philosophy otherwise - it's just too much; it made me feel WORSE (in the sense that it brings up more questions than it answers). The Buddha and the Theravada Buddhists were seemingly right in that: asking metaphysical questions leads to suffering ---- therefore, do not ask metaphysical questions. thanks for reading my blog

>>20462551
I like this answer.

>>20463339
>critiquing what our world is up to
I like this phrasing.

I think the point to reading philosophy is probably personal for each person. I like it more from a "history of ideas" perspective - I find it very interesting to read how various people through the ages thought the world was like, how we should organize ourselves, how we should act, etc etc. Beyond that, philosophy helps me cut through bullshit. for me, it's the Greeks. shit you can start there and end there.

Where do I go after him? No memes

if you can swing it, do what I did: double major in philosophy and something more concrete/tangible/allows for better job prospects. sure, you can get just a phil degree then if you are a decent interviewer and can network well just become a marketer or an analyst or a dishwasher or a lawyer or pick up programming yourself or whatever.. but for you specifically I'd do phil + comp sci. I did phil and electrical engineering and now I program robots in factories and occasionally go to philosophy seminars in my university town. I'm happy with how it all turned out

>>20097922
based question and checked. I'm a bit like OP and studied a bunch of philosophy especially in my early 20s. I've tapered off and now just stick to genre fiction (sci-fi mostly), history, and yes still a dash of philosophy. but to your questions: I'm fairly content, longest relationship of three years, yes I have comfortable income, currently not in a relationship. is your point to suggest that the Non Content gravitate towards philosophy? Because for me it is the case that when I was Less Content I was focused on philosophy, and now that I am More Content I have focused a lot yes on philosophy

>>20097884
and OP to your point, what specific eastern philosophy do you like and what books would you recommend? I've only ever read a book on Buddhism callead What the Buddha Taught which was a nice succint outline of early Buddhism, but beyond that I am clueless

and man I love Plato's dialogues. peak Western philosophy imo. I'm not saying Plato is right but my man is comfy.

>>20034632
So when I think Aristotle I think: ground, grounded, physical, earth, science, rationalism, categories..kinda like an engineer, very left brain, who is focused on the "tangibles". I also seem to think of Aristotle as the first Western "scientist" (in that he categorized stuff, etc etc)

when I think Plato I think pretty much the opposite: the heavens, the ineffable, the intangible, the right brain, emotive, etc

is my very generalized understanding of these two correct? and god I hated reading the Metaphysics. Plato's Dialogues are infinitely more comfy

>>19974255
1) Plato
2) Aristotle
3) Aquinas
4) Kant
5) I don't know

>>19774806
>Most sci-fi IS fantasy

How do you define fantasy? How do you define sci-fi? They are pretty separate in my book. Hell at base level it's space ships versus elves. At another level it's "future what-if scenarios that heavily lean towards technological and scientific themes" vs "other world with debatably-impossible qualities to them (e.g. magic)".

>scientists, metaphysicians and philosophers writing sci-fi are long gone.
Egan is a mathematician. Reynolds is what.. an astrophysics? Watts is a biologist. I don't know about any academic philosophers that write sci-fi but I'd be happy to read and review them if you can offer any suggestions. Philosophy is absolute top tier, and one of the main reasons I read sci-fi is that it offers us little philosophical thought-experiments.

>30
>electrical engineer at a factory
>God Emperor of Dune
>Heretics of Dune
>lose these last 20 lbs (I'm down 40 lbs from this year)
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrR82XLCKq8

>>19658048
very based and blessed anon. what is your PhD in?

>>19658427
>PKD
based

>>19660003
>he's over 30
based

>>19660259
I really really thought I wanted to be a psychiatrist. spent about a year volunteering in a substance abuse ward at a hospital while also reading a lot of books on psychiatry and the philosophy of psychiatry, that latter of which really turned me off the field. nothing against (You) but psychiatry just seems absolutely bunk. I'm not necessarily opposed to the medication involved, statisically speaking (they) are claiming that it works in the lab setting, but (they) have no idea how it acts causally. Or maybe (they) do and I'm incorrect and talking out of my ass.

>>19595868
I've got my BA in philosophy just like the next guy but what the hell does "great ontological mystery" mean?

Do I have to read any plays before I start reading Plato and Aristotle?

YOU WILL NOT READ POETRY
AND YOU WILL BE HAPPY

Which of this guys work is actually worth reading? He has so much shit but I only want the essentials, cut out all the fat.

Do I need to read ALL the Greeks? Or can I just read some of the key works of the time period and then come back to it and finish it later?

He invented Christianity

I kneel

I kneel

>The elements of UP [ur-Platonism] according to my hypothesis are antimaterialism, antimechanism, antinominalism, antirelativism, and antiskepticism.
Holy shit so he was wrong about EVERYTHING?

Just finished reading the Republic. It contained some pretty weird arguments that wouldn’t make much sense today, but for its time it was pretty good.

>When there is a build up of seed in a man’s marrow, and it becomes copious and profuse, like a tree overladen with fruit, his desires and their satisfaction bring him agony and pleasure, time after time. The pleasures and pains are so intense that he spends most of his life in a crazed state, but although his soul has been infected with mindlessness by his body, he’s not generally held to be ill, but to be a bad man, by his own choice. In actual fact, however, sexual incontinence is a soul-sickness caused largely by the presence in the body, thanks to the porousness of the bones, of just a single substance, in profuse enough quantities to moisten it. And indeed, hardly any of the bad behavior which is commonly attributed to lack of control in the face of pleasure and is said to be shameful, as if it were freely chosen, should really be held against a person. For no one is bad of his own choice: an unhealthy body and a vulgar upbringing are what make a bad man bad, and these are afflictions that no one chooses to have.
Thanks Plato

>When there is a build up of seed in a man’s marrow, and it becomes copious and profuse, like a tree overladen with fruit, his desires and their satisfaction bring him agony and pleasure, time after time. The pleasures and pains are so intense that he spends most of his life in a crazed state, but although his soul has been infected with mindlessness by his body, he’s not generally held to be ill, but to be a bad man, by his own choice. In actual fact, however, sexual incontinence is a soul-sickness caused largely by the presence in the body, thanks to the porousness of the bones, of just a single substance, in profuse enough quantities to moisten it. And indeed, hardly any of the bad behavior which is commonly attributed to lack of control in the face of pleasure and is said to be shameful, as if it were freely chosen, should really be held against a person. For no one is bad of his own choice: an unhealthy body and a vulgar upbringing are what make a bad man bad, and these are afflictions that no one chooses to have.
Based Plato standing up for the coomers and horndogs

>>18926258
We have art as a surrogate for the truth which we are too weak to attain.

Don’t read fiction.

I am never reading Greeks again