/lit/ - Literature

Why the deadline?

Start by reading several intro surveys by philosophically competent writers. Then read a dozen or so key works by great philosophers. Then read some advanced critiques of those works by recent top scholars in the field. Voila! You are now at a bachelor's degree level.

>>13129056
>Wikipedia
>Binge School of Life
>Type the names of philosopher names into Tumblr and read their quotes
>1000ug Lsd
>All of the above

>>13129086
Oh yeah, by the way, nobody in a real philosophy department takes Foucault serioiusly.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

>>13129056
Have sex

>>13129093
>nobody in MY philosophy department takes Foucault seriously

>>13129056
Eat her out from the back

>>13129085

I have two months free and I'd like to do that for one of them and then do drugs and get laid for the other

>>13129108

Real aka Analytic aka Real

>>13129056
You don't, not in 20 days. Try 1 year minimum.

>>13129086
>advanced critiques of those works by recent top scholars
Where can I find a good source for recent secondary lit.
There's roughly 500 books published on Kant every year, for instance. How do I know which authors are in vogue for academia?

I'll usually read secondary lit by authors I recognize (Deleuze, Heidegger, Russel, etc.) but when it comes anything in the last few decades I'm out of my depth.

>>13129233

Google Scholar, look at number of citations

>>13129056
get aids

>>13129056
Stay away from philosophy
You’ve been warned
Just keep living life
Pass that part of the bookshelf
It’s not for you anon
Honestly

>>13129056
Read Kant's Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, and Hegel's Reason in History. I'm not memeing, these are four very short works and you could easily read all four in twenty days without serious effort. If you know these four then you'll know more than ninety-nine out of a hundred philosophy undergrads.

>>13129441
That's a pretty good suggestion. He should also read Plato's Republic, Meno, and the dialogues dealing with the trial and death of Socrates.

>>13129486
Yeah I was about to throw in one of Plato's works as a fifth but I couldn't pick just one to summarize him. He's the easy pick to round out the list though.

>>13129056
Plato Complete Works
Aristotle Complete Works
The Stoics (Aruelius, Epictetus, Senca)
The Medieval Theologians (St Augustine, St Aquinas)
Then Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, ect.
here take this;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>13129525
That'll take a lot longer than 20 days.

>>13129056
I would say your best bet is to read 25 or so Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on whatever you find interesting:this won't give you an undergraduate level understanding, but it will be the best you can get in the time you have.

Make sure you read the articles on
Plato
Aristotle
Plotinus
Augustine
Aquinas
Descartes
Machiaveli
Spinoza
Liebniz
Hume
Kant
Hegel
Marx
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Wittgenstein


...and then read whatever else you find interesting.

It's the best you can do with your time, since your goal is bredth rah

>>13129056
>undergraduate level

casually drift through wikipedia philosophy articles whilst listening to boards of canada for a couple of weeks, or read Kenny's 'New History of Western Philosophy'

>>13129093
This is wrong.
t. Philosophy grad student

You really can't. It's kind of the opposite of science in that you get better when you're no studying. Just the experience of applying what you know from the text to real life and the subconscious workings occasioned by reading Plato or Duns Scotus.

>>13129149
I like your style.

t. Phil BA

>>13129260
This lol.
My outlook on life fluctuates between "life is wonderful!" and "existence is suffering, i should kill myself".

>>13130251
There are certaon doors which, once opened, cannot be closed.

>>13129573
The only departments at my uni that assigned foucault were rhetoric, comp lit, and various grievance studies. The philosophy dept. stuck to plato, aristotle, descartes, hume, kant, hegel, nietzsche, heidegger, and wittgenstein. One of the phil profs did write a book on foucault, but foucault was never assigned reading in any of his classes.

>>13129102
this

>>13129086

You don't get ja undergraduate level of knowledge by reading fucking introductions.

>>13130251
You need Jesus.

>>13130300
>grievance studies
Nice term, I'm going to use it. This message is to assuage my guilt

just watch sargon of akkad's back catalogue, everything u need t know there

If you do choose to get into philosophy, here's some advice

Philosophy is incredibly huge and unfortunately segmented along language lines. People tend to like their philosophy best and think all the other philosophy is stupid, but most of the time this is based on misunderstandings and wilful ignorance. Best thing you can do is patiently enculturate yourself in one little corner of it while keeping an open mind and respectful attitude to the bits you haven't gotten to yet.

In terms of getting started, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is good, there are also some good youtube channels like cuck philosophy for post structuralism, and just in general there are so many resources if you look for them. Good luck!

>>13129056
I'll do it in one post
Pre-Socratic: (how to solve problems of motion)
Everything is water, no wait everything is Apeiron, no everything is fire,
Heraclitus: Change, symbolized by fire (in that everything is in constant flux).
Parmenides: Being or Reality is an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging, undivided.
Introduce monism
Plato:
An individual olive tree have many differences (such as branch shapes) but there is the "form" of the tree unchanging. This form lives in the 3rd realm, realm of the forms
Aristotle: lol no, the form only lives in the thing it self, action and potential solve the paradoxes of motion, (this is the most misunderstood part) the potential is in the things essence. A seed holds a potential of a tree. Potential is not actul till something acts on it.
Aquinas: Christian Plato. Restates augment for god from augment from motion. Unmoved mover (often misunderstood) mover is per say not per accedidenal, meaning the mover is in the here and now and the second god stops
; everything stops. (Compare kicking a ball, to pushing a block, the ball moves on its own, the block stops the second you do, with everything else the block is pushing)
——enter the modern break——
cartesian dualism. New Augment for god, I think therefor I am, even if a evil spirt was trapping me in a matrix world, and everything is fake, because I can still think and experience matrix world I exist. But some thoughts are so strong potentially that they must arise from outside of me, most strongly God, this must have been placed there by god (trademark argument).
Dualism is endorsed by the church to allow scientific experiment (gods realm is now one side of the dualism).
Spinoza: atomism makes a comeback! Rejects dualism, lol determinism. Also everything is god. All knowledge is a priori.
Hume: lol no. all knowledge is gained through the senses. The mind is impressions and ideas
Kant. “I am so great I will combine hume and Spinoza “ (and fail to understand either). Analytic proposition: Synthetic proposition. Morals: Categorical imperative__>> only the means matter i.e., lying is always wrong, so don’t lie to a murderer about where his next victim is hiding.
(___side notes about political philosophy below—-)
Macavilaiin: rulers should lie and rule with iron fist, use propaganda wisely.
Hobbies: nature is war of all against all, we enter a social contract to avoid this, monarchy must be absolute for this to work
Locke: lol no, we have some inalienable rights that we can not give up in a social contract, absolute monarchy btfo.

That’s it. Philosophy is a waste of time. Btw, modernism is a meme, and the Greeks got it right, (when properly understood!!!! )

>>13129056
you're fucked

>>13129056
why do you want an undergraduate understanding of philosophy anyway?
I would recommend just picking 1 or maybe two of the books recommended here and tke your time. You shouldn't rush through a philosophy book if you're beginning to learn. just like you wouldn't rush through a math text when you're first learning a subject. It'll be much more gratifying than going through 5 books shallowly. maybe pick up a history of philosophy book and then plato or something.

>>13130300
>nobody takes him seriously
>a faculty member wrote a book on him

It makes sense that Foucault wouldn't be assigned, that doesn't mean he isn't taken seriously.

>>13131184
No, but you can START there and move on from them once you've got the lay of the land.

>>13129102
Unironically this

>>13132038
He WAS assigned...in rhetoric and comp lilt, but NOT in philosophy.

>nobody takes him seriously
>a faculty member wrote a book on him

Yeah, ONE professor out of 50 took the time to write a book about him 30 years ago, and only because he knew the man personally. And even HE never assigned Foucault to his students. Compare that with how often Kripke or Strawson were assigned.

>watch a lecture on euthyphro
>read 'Understanding Deleuze'
>Study Adorno and Oswald Spengler
>Then end it with reading Jung and Phyl-undhu by Nick Land (as non-fiction)
Now you could be classified as having schizophrenia. Well done.

>>13129088
this tbqh, also nice digits

>>13130300
>people ASSIGN Wittgenstein
lol

>>13129056

The following is a feasible plan. Of course you'll have plenty of gaps in your knowledge and misunderstand much, but you'll be on your way.

-read a bunch of wikipedia articles.
-watch a bunch of youtube videos.
-pick out like 10-15 short major philosophical works and tear through them as quickly as you can. Write brief notes and try to make your own understanding as rapidly as possible. The following may look formidable, but in fact each can be read in a day. The below suggested reading betrays my personal inclination towards political philosophy but here it is.

Lao Tsu: Tao Te Ching
Plato: Euthyphro/Apology/Crito/Phaedo (this can all be read in one pass in a day).
Aquinas: Treatise on Law
Descartes: Discourse on Method/Meditations on First Philosophy
Locke: Second Treatise of Government
Hamilton/Madison/Jay: Selected Federalist Papers (say 1-10, to get a representative flavor and set the hook. Should also incl. some middle stuff where they shit on anti-federalists' intentional misreadings/misrepresentations and later stuff about the judiciary).
Marx/Engels: Communist Manifesto
Dostoevsky: The Grand Inquisitor
Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals
Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations (two days, to get babby's first analytics)
Foucault: Discipline and Punish (two days, to get babby's first contemporary continentals)

>>13134059
This.
This can actually work

>>13129093
This is true. He's used widely in English studies for rhetoric, but that's about the extent you'll see. His writing on the panopticon and maybe some of the shit from body of the condemned is useful or worthy, but the rest is just Foucault being Foucault.

>>13129149
Why not all three at the same time?

>>13134078
Yeah, it's not a bad plan, although some of it is more political science than academic philosophy.

>>13133406
Why lol? They taught Wittgenstein in the philosophy department.

>>13129102
entirely and unequivocally this

>>13129056
Start from Nick Land and work backwards.

>>13131208
It’s a common phrase.

>>13134901

You didn't read the post.

>>13135133
I read it. Half of it is political science. Political PHILOSOPHY would be Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, etc., writers who are taught by the philosophy department. OP wants to replicate what an undergraduate philosophy major would have studied. They would study Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke. It is doubtful they would have studied Lao Tzu or Dostoevsky in their philosophy classes.

>>13129093
mais quel abruti

>>13135162

You didn't read the post.

>>13129093
then stop studying in dumb anglo universities

Read pic related and then read more about the philosophers that you fancy the most on the SEP and the IEP, and check their original texts too.
https://b-ok.cc/book/1224274/c88fbe

>>13129093
doute.jpg

do you nerds read anything else but philosophy and fairy tales?

>>13136833
I also like reading about psychology

>>13129149
>do drugs and get laid
want to know how i know you'll do neither?

>>13129093
This is true. Professors toss out some of his concepts for a quick example of bad definitions (e.g power). The only Professors who unironically love him teach English/Literature lol

>>13129441
You won't understand and digest any of them in 20 days though. Especially Kant and Hegel. Also Kant will make no sense without reading Hume before him, and Locke/Leibniz before Hume

>>13129525
More this stuff. Stick with ancient greek/roman stuff. It requires no prior understanding of philosophy and it'll lay a huge foundation for later stuff if you want to keep learning. Every philosophy major has plato's dialogues and the republic practically memorized

>>13131945
What a garbage summary. Very random choices, and weird points to pick from them


Just do Plato's 5 Dialogues, The Republic, Descarte's Meditations, and Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding if you want a good survey. That's probably all you can do in 20 days

Just look up syllabi from respectable programs and go through that material.

>>13129056
Study. Develop a strict regimen and stick to it. Everyone possesses the ability to understand every concept, all you have to do is set aside the time necessary to accomplish that task.

>>13129093
I love watching literature grad students get sad and angry about this.

There are maybe 2-3 mid tier grad schools in philosophy in USA that do continental stuff, and Germany/France are falling too.

I love continental Phil, and a lot of it will stick around for a while, but it's becoming p clear that it's going to be absorbed by analytic schools of thought.

>>13139089
Will that be the death of philosophy?

>>13139099

No I think it's a good thing desu. For all the bad about analytic (and there's a lot of it), I find them to be a bit more academically honest than continentals--everything with them is becoming dogmatically anti-science, SJW, lazy theory, obscure shit.

I hate scientism, logic fetishization, obsession over non-issues etc. in analytic thought, but the state of contemporary continental Phil is much much sadder than people on this board care to admit.

>>13139125
I don’t know; the fact that a majority analytics are obsessing over the very methods used in philosophy, and are treating as nothing but another science is way more concerning to me, than what is happening in Continental philosophy, in which new development is happening (Land and his ilk) and the more unhealthy strands are dying out. But these are just my impressions though. I could be wrong

>>13139125
both suck and both are more stagnant than pool water. philosophy departments need to be overhauled completely, we need a Kant or Russell to come along and create a new paradigm

>>13139179
>majority analytics are obsessing over the very methods used in philosophy, and are treating as nothing but another science is way more concerning to me
This just isn't true. Hard Quineans do, but the vast majority of analytics wouldn't regard it as another science. Fuck I do science, and I vomit at the scientism that is present in analytic thought, but it's not anything like what you described.

Also Land really isn't any sort of representation of academic continental philosophy. He's primarily an internet philosopher. FN's influence on mainstream continental Phil is not particularly large. New materialists/OOO/new postructuralism etc. all are more relevant.

>>13139182
That'd be great, but I'm a big fan of a couple contemporary analytics. I'm not a philosopher, but I pretty regularly use later Witt, Davidson, Wright, and some other's thinking for my research (cog sci of psychopathology and psychoanalysis).

>>13139266
I should probably add: from my understanding the places that are actively using continental studies the most are the continuations of post-structuralism and critical theory, environmental/animal/gender/race/queer studies, some new phenomenologists and deconstructionists, new stuff in aesthetics (Badiou is still relevant I think?), and some just virulently anti-science "science studies"

New materialists/OOO isn't that relevant. I was using it more to say that Land really isn't much for academics currently, which I honestly think is a good thing.

I could be wrong tho. But from the continental conferences I've attended and people I've talked to, most of them haven't even heard of land, let alone actually use his stuff.

>>13139266
The stuff on philosophy of mind might be analytic philosophy's only redeeming quality, I agree.

>But from the continental conferences I've attended and people I've talked to, most of them haven't even heard of land, let alone actually use his stuff.

You said it yourself, most people interested in continental philosophy are vaguely leftish race and gender fetishists who have stripped it down and raped it into nothingness.

Hijacking to ask: Do you guys actual use Complete Works editions for your primary reading? There's a very popular Plato Complete Works floating around where I live in the U.S., and it's really attractive having that all at hand, but I might not want to put marks in something like that.

>>13139463
Do it if you don't mind the weight. I don't generally, but not for that reason.

Wreck your books with notes, and then you can look back at your progress. If you need another copy later on to fill up again, do so!

>>13139463
I have the Plato book you're talking about. IMO it's a must have.

>>13139266
Maybe. Though I agree with you that actual academic continental philosophy is likely going to die out with in the next 75 years or so, do not outside figures like Land represent in essence a new direction for Cont. philosophy?

>>13139498
That's good to know. I was apprehensive about note-taking in books for the longest time, but I think it's gained its bad reputation from those who don't know how to do it. A well-used book is more attractive in my eyes than a pristine one not to mention.
>>13139500
Excellent then, I'll pick it up when I can.

>>13139506

no. dude. nick land fucking sucks. philosophers not taking him seriously doesn't mean that they are blind to his power. stop sucking him off.

>>13134996
You want him to start with "accelerationism"? That is some next level shit my guy.

>>13129093
He's very superficial. Makes no sense that anyone should take him seriously in philosophy. Even Chomsky said his work is trivial, and Chomsky is a radical leftie.

As others have said, only English students who can't reason properly and are easily impressed by big strings of words respect Foucault.

>>13139545
He's gonna need accelerationism if he wants it all done in 20 days

>>13139506
>>13139444

Yeah from the little I know of his work and actual ideas, I'm not so impressed I have to say. I've never heard someone talk about Land's stuff and thought "Yeah that's original and insightful," but who the fuck cares about what I think. If you like him you like him, but I sincerely doubt any rigorous thinkers in academia are ever going to pick up Land's stuff. I sincerely doubt his influence will reach to serious levels. Even if I'm wrong about his ideas, it seems a big part of his following practices philosophy as basically an aesthetic exercise of thinking, and that compounds the problem of influence all the more.

I also think some continental inclined cog-sci people and continentally inspired analytics (Pittsburg school) are great! Probably should've mentioned that. Embodied cognition people come to mind as some people doing what seems like sort of interesting stuff using phenomenology.

>>13139519
Yeah definitely don't be! My philosophy treasures from undergrad are still my first copies of Witt's investigations, being and time, de anima, and Zarathustra, all completely fucked with underlines and notes that demonstrate a really bad comprehension of the material. You look at those books and their notebooks and it's your history and work staring back at you.

Also I've seen that plato edition too, and it's fucking good.

>>13134059

>feasible plan to study philosophy
>no Hume
>no Kant

At least you got Descartes

>>13129102
Thanks mate