/lit/ - Literature

I enjoyed the Symposium. It’s a light read that’s not too hard to interpret. I personally enjoy stoicism as well. As far as more modern stuff, I would recommend starting with Leibniz. I just started Schopenhauer recently too and he seems awigh. Descartes is good insofar as it’s a good way to start practicing philosophical thought.

>>13332206
>Leibniz
wow, it actually IS the Leibniz that I know from math.
a bit more proof of how ignorant I am.. and maybe that today's science is far less conected to philosophy than it used to be

>>13332176

Hey OP,

I would recommend starting with the greeks. No it's not a meme.
Plato is definitely obligatory. Some Anons stated that "Republic" or "Politea" may be hard to understand but I personally think it's not a really hard read.

I guess if you'd like to coninue with theology, like Augustinus or Thomas v. Aquin then also read Aristotle.

If you just want to continue with normal epistemology or ontology read Kant. He is the basis for everything else.

But this would just be be my take. I guess I may left out some important philosophers, correct me if I forgeot something of importance, thanks.

>>13332246
Newton all in all wrote more on religion than he did write on math/physics

t. physics PhD

Besides, formal logic fags like Kripke have books that are discussing philosophy topics, e..g "Naming and Necessity", but fyi /lit/ is essentially 30% philsophy threads and also they hate formal logic and especially rationalism (which I agree with).
Start with the Greeks if you have time, or start with the memes if you want to shitpost early on. I'd personally say actually get the >The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy (Oxford Illustrated Histories). It has about 7 pages on all the fags from Socrates to Heidegger, the main problems and how each builds or expands on the other thinker.

and I mean I agree with the rejection of it

>>13332206
>I would recommend starting with Leibniz
Do you really think anyone without a serious background in the history of philosophy (especially Descartes) and an habitual understanding of philosophical vocabulary would have the slightest chance to understand the Monadology?

>>13333397
>starting with the greeks
Sooner or later you will end up with the Greeks anyway.

>>13332176
1, Ask yourself what you're really interested in. Philosophy has a lot of fields of work. Are you interested in ethics, philosophy of mind, logic, metaphysics/ontology, esthetics, philosophy of science, philosophy of language?
2, After you decided which field(s) you're interested in, help yourself to a good introduction to that field. Use a thematical one, not a historical one: that means, use one which sums up and describes the base problems and approaches of that field.
3, You will find a lot of strange approaches but also a lot of interesting ones. If you find something you're really interested in, check for the books and papers on that approach the introduction lists.
4, Read those texts.
5, Go to 3; rinse and repeat.

Start with pic related
>>13333397
>recommending Kant to a beginner

Just read Hegel (Phenomenology->Logic->Right->Encyclopedia) he will explain every other philosophy to you and he basically won philosophy, which is why it necessarily splintered into lesser non-systems or social sciences in his aftermath.

Don't use secondary literature, as it will just miseducate you and reduce the intoxicating complexity of his though. Kojeve's Stalinist-Heideggerian reading is why we have everything from Lacan to Foucault - you want to know what Hegel was actually about before engaging those.

Good luck. I promise you, nothing will enrich your life more than Hegel.

>>13334459
>won philosophy
You don't have the slightest clue about philosophy.

>>13334459
>Just read Hegel
Recommending one of the most challenging philosophers to a beginner...
>Don't use secondary literature
You don't have the slightest clue about didactics. And you haven't ever seen an academy from the inside.

>>13334459
You're just shitposting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

>>13334717
How far are you in your PhD, anon? I'm in year 3 of a PhD with the most selective merit fellowship my globally ranked top 10 university awards in the humanities.

>>13334730
Sure, dude, sure. What exactly is your thesis about?

>>13332176
Plato's republic then decide if you like his message or not, if you do go to stoics if not go to epicureans. After read a history of philosophy, a simple one, (for fun if you like Plato then read Ben Shapiro's latest book, if not read Russell's they're very engaging) I would read a light secondary on enlightenment philosophers and then German idealism particularly kant and hegel, then I would read wittgenstein's Vienna, then decide whether you prefer plato then read analytic philosophy, if not read continental philosophers

>>13334717
>quoting the same reply 3 times in a post
You don't have the slightest clue about 4chan

>>13336197
Good for him, expertise on philosophy is much more valuable than expertise on 4chan.

>>13332176
Don't even bother. I'm something of a philosopher myself (not by choice) and my life is fucking dog shit. I really don't think philosophy leads one to a happy, fulfilling life.

>>13332246
Despite what you might here on places like /sci/ or /lit/, there tends to be a lot of dialogue going on between scientists and philosophers. It really depends on the field and university though. For instance, psychologists, biologists, chemists, and physicists tend not to engage in as much philosophizing and are often not even familiar with philosophy in general, whereas cognitive scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and economists are generally more likely to have a firm understanding of philosophy (in fact, in cognitive science and economics this is basically a must). In fact, depending on the topic, you can often find CS/cognitive science/philosophy/economics papers in the same journals, since all four of these groups are have take a deep interest in decision theory and game theory in recent years.

Conspiracy against the human race

>>13333559
OP listen to him.

If you're a student, you should take a philosophy course. Otherwise, since you already know that you like computer science, just read Nick Land and Moldbug and pat yourself on the back like all the other nerds have done. Be sure to start using Urbit.

Don't do it, OP. It's useless... it will only turn into despair.

>>13332176
I have written several long posts on this subjects in previous threads with the same question, to generally poor reception, so I will tell you three things and not explain any of them. Listen or don't, but I have good reason for saying all of them.

1. Start with the Greeks, start with the Nicomachean Ethics and the Republic if you're absolutely lost, these will take you far

2. Read Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, or else nothing that comes afterwards will make a lick of sense.

3. Read primary texts almost exclusively, and definitely don't rely on Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy to break you in. Avoid youtubers too. If you find a subject you love, then find some good commentary/secondary papers on it and enjoy, but read primary texts first.

bonus: read Hegel last, but read Hegel, just so you know what everyone else was mad about.

bonus bonus: then you get to be mad too

>>13336852
He doesn't have knowledge in philosophy either.

>>13338146
Desu senpai, I'm pretty sure this is more so code monkeys and web dev types. Hardcore CS types/people with serious talent are usually more into logic and analytic philosophy (or maybe mainstream continental philosophy) than the "critique" style of philosophy exemplified by people like Land and Marx. For instance, off the top of my head I only know one practicing computer scientist with a grad degree, but they're super into Jaakko Hintikka and Saul Kripke. In fact, I realize that probably like 10 people on 4chan even know who Hintikka is, but he's probably actually more well known amongst actual CS that Nick Land.

>>13332176
Heraclitus and Parmenides

Everything by Plato is easy and comfy to read and a good introduction to what is usually meant by philosophy. Just understand that a lot of his arguments are horseshit, which as a CS man you shouldn't have a problem with. Same goes for many other philosophers, fuck it, every other philosopher. Philosophy is gay anyway but a good way to get into more esoteric things.

Nietzsche would be the most literary, but the least philosophical. He’s a good start. If you take something from that move to people like Wittgenstein, Kant and Hegel. My personal favorite is Heidegger and much of what he wrote and thought was a precursor to the reality we see in place today. Heidegger is infamously difficult to follow, though. Especially Being and Time. I will say it’s nowhere near as difficult a slog as Deleuze and Guattari.

Is pic related a good chart?

>>13332176

Read Nietszche, especially if you are a writer.

>>13338662

No, it's terrible.

>>13332176

Everything by Plato is comfy. It reads like a play. Aristotle is less comfy. Most philosophy students start with Descartes here in the UK and Meditations on First Philosophy is quite an easy read.

>>13338662
No.
Read Plato's Meno.
Depending on what interests you more from it, you can either explore epistemology (Theaetetus) or virtue ethics (Gorgias).
From Theaetetus, you can go read Aristotle's Metaphysics, Descartes' Meditations, Hume's Enquiry on Human Understanding, and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Otherwise, Gorgias can lead you either to political philosophy (Aristotle's Politics) or to Stoicism/Epicureanism (Seneca and Epictetus). Aristotle eventually leads over to St. Thomas Aquinas, whereas the Stoics lead to Montaigne, and Epicurus leads to Utilitarianism.

>>13332176
start with plato or descartes