[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.05 MB, 1200x1826, thales-of-miletus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13994739 No.13994739 [Reply] [Original]

>you have to be familiar with all ~2600 years of philosophical thought if you hope to truly understand any of it
what kind of bullshit is this?

>> No.13994765

>>13994739
>what kind of bullshit is this?
Complete bullshit because that isn't true

>> No.13994791

You don't, you just read people from around today and you pick up all you really need in order to engage with the ideas. If you're interested in one idea, you then go deeper but even then you read commentaries or a paper on stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Then if you're bored you read the source material. This is all we do for a mark of 85 in my BA phil degree

>> No.13995258

>>13994765
>>13994791
how can you be sure you know what you are talking about?

>> No.13995278

I wish hair grew and looked like that

>> No.13995284

>>13995258
You can't and then you just live with the fact that you might be wrong.

>> No.13995315

>>13995258

Because I can tackle questions and hold a conversation.

But sure there's always more I could know. I feel confident that scholarly texts, found by the uni departments, are offered. I use those, so I know the authors are informed. Same goes for stanford, they're publishing standard which is a 95 at least, they don't hand out 95s at BA, or at least they shouldn't unless it's immaculate.

>> No.13995325

>>13995258
By being able to hold a good conversation and be on the same playing field with people who've read the same philosopher. Stanford is publishing level, 95 marks at least at my uni. The commentaries are essentially "my reading of X, I think I'm right and here's why" or "here's what X is getting at" and it's usually clear when someone is wrong. These commentaries are also checked by the department of the uni so I'm quite confident. In addition, the stanford papers usually use good commentaries you can check out in the bibliography.

>> No.13995328

>>13995315
>>13995325

Oh I already replied, whoops, sorry anon, am tired

>> No.13996328

>>13994765
This. No professional philosopher knows all that shit, it isn't humanly possible. Many scholars spend their entire lives on just one text.

>> No.13996335
File: 47 KB, 600x737, 1570917536828.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13996335

>>13996328
>professional philosopher
>professional

-What do you do for a living?
-I love knowledge.

>> No.13996626

>>13996335
Yes.

>> No.13996798

>>13994739
>Imagine reading Kant without knowing all the dilemmas he is replying to attempting to solve
>You will miss so much
>This is applicable to every philosopher where knowing their influences is essential to grasp their work.
You have to be in a state of thought as the author was to understand what he has written. Your independant interpretation is irrelevant.