/lit/ - Literature

Not in my experience, unless you read secondary sources
I think theres a degree of grasping a few positive claims and understanding the point of view, but theres a degree of understanding that can come only from speaking with someone else
I find there is only so much i think i get until it turns out that i didnt

>>14861749
No, you really need to take Philosophy courses. Philosophy is an activity, not a set of reading assignments.

>>14861749
>>14861766
>>14861771
The measure of wether you get it or not is going to rely on others in a community. You can make your philosophy in a bubble, and who knows you may become some kind of strange powerful sorcerer, but more than likely you'll just lose it - mentally and physically. If you aren't taking a class, but want to understand e.g. Descartes Meditstions, you'll want to find people who you can weigh your understanding against. If you can't find a real subject to do this with, write down your thoughts and study how they differ with the material that other teachers have prepared for say some free online class on the same topic, or compare them to summary articles, secondary sources on our primary source, etc. You can learn and achieve outside of the existing social structures but not by ignoring them. Read Hegel.

>>14861749
practice what you get from philosophy, make it your own, don't try to "get it", be creative about it and humble while actually discussing it

there is a huge difference between understanding philosophy and giving it a use.

let the understanding for the phil scholar, make use of them if you are interested in the debate, details, anechdotes, and historical context. but don't try to imitate what they do.

how many philosophers got other philosophers right? most of them just had "hot takes" and these phil scholars scratch their heads trying to shove one or two hot takes and make it a thesis. that's why most culture failed and public intellectuals are so criticized by "not getting it right" but they are making an impact. that's not the case with the expert who says: "you wrong bout that"

sure, take phil courses, you need to risk yourself to ideas and views but in the end it is between you, your life and philosophy not only you and philosophy

OP here. Maybe let me relate this to my situation, I'm mainly interested in applying it and enhancing my fiction work.

>>14861771
This. If you're not learning from Dr. Butler you're not going to really get the ideas.

>>14861844
then GTFO
read Hegel, not the best philosopher but the his mental gymnastics will leave you in awe and his concepts are rich and exploitable

Obviously not, stupid goy. Only if you go to our special place of higher learning and pay us to shout marxist propaganda in your face for at least 4 years can you begin to approach the truth of philosophy. Don't ever attempt to study on your own, such foolishness might lead to misguided formation of personal opinions unfavourable of our narrative. Now pay up you pathetic cattle!

>>14861852
Who is Dr. Butler?

>>14861867
t. has never taken a philosophy class

Are the oxford/Cambridgeshire companions any good?

>>14861844
After Hegel fiction and nonfiction will seem like archaic categories

>>14861915
it depends,
to what?
if you want companion/reading guides
Rouletdge
Continuum
Oxford
Cambridge
Blackwell
have series on authors and one of their particular works
you have plenty of options

>>14861749
>autodidact
just say self-taught

>>14861972
That's what that means you faggot

I just dropped 2/3 philosophy courses because a month in and all the professors talk about is how much they hate Trump and why they love abortion. Stayed with my online logic class

>>14861749
Philosophy undergrads don't know anything.

Their studies comprise mostly of reading
short, boring papers written by literal nobodies on stupid, irrelevant contemporary topics (phil of science, modal logic, etc).

The other, lesser part is getting to know the main flow of the history of philosophy, once again mostly through the lens of secondary sources, although usually followed by reading small bits of the original works.

All in all if you honestly devote your time to reading you will be more knowledgeable than not only undergrads, but phd candidates in a matter of 1-2 years.

In addition, the difference between the phil undergrad and the phil postgrad is that the undergrad barely reads at all, whereas your average postgrad gets shoehorned into a tiny corner of the analytic autism playground where he has to grind through an infinite number of the most irrelevant, extremely specified and difficult jargon laden works for the sake of learning - nothing of value.

>>14861749
No, it’s like learning a language. You should be talking to people in the language and making mistakes which they correct you on, can’t learn nearly as quickly otherwise

>>14862352
I have constructed an elaborate web of opposing worldviews within my self to allow the dialectic of pure reason to attain enlightenment fren

>>14861998
*tips fedora*

>>14862224
In other words, you hate philosophy. Thanks for playing.

>>14861749
>>14861749
Have you ever heard of the term "credentialism"?

You're going to get different answers to your questions depending on who's responding. People doing a degree in philosophy or even going to graduate school for philosophy, or who have gotten a PhD in philosophy, will give you a different answer than other people will. They're too invested in their own life decisions and their image of themselves to imagine there can be any people truly knowledgeable about philosophy outside of academia. I'm not just willy-nilly shitting on academics, there's some great and intelligent people in there, but there's also just people unduly smug about how much formal education they've gotten. In a way, so much education can even kill creativity sometimes and pigeonhole academics into creating obscure overly technical articles that don't really have much of an impact on anything or anyone.

>>14862224
What a loser you are. You sound like an undergrad who failed philosophy 101.

I think anyone who identifies themselves as an autodidact on 4chan lacks the critical thinking to analyze philosophy on their own.

Reminder that Skrates was an autodidact. He literally just shatposte4d at the harbour.

>>14862734
You will never be taken seriously by the philosophy community unless you have a PHD or are a current grad student in philosophy. That's the cold hard truth.

>>14863917
>OOOHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>NOT THE ACADEMIC JOURNALINOS
>NOT THE MEDICAL ANALYSIS OF IRRELEVANT MATERIAL CONCEPTIONS OF METAPHYSICS
>PLEASE ANYTHING BUT THAT
Adrono, for all his faults, made his worst mistake in preventing the student revolutionaries from burning down the revolutionaries.
Academic liberalism is far worse than cultural marxism. ALl those faggots deserve witch trials rather than anything equivalent to denazification.

>>14863932
>burning down the universities kek
I'm well done in.

>>14863917
I know. And I don’t care. I’d rather go out on my own then try to fit into academia. And graduate school for philosophy in America is amazingly worthless today, job market is shit and most students end up wanting to kill themselves. Robert Anton Wilson is a fun read if you want to see what philosophy today is like when it’s done outside of academia.

>>14861766
Can't speak for Continental but this anon has got it right for analytic philosophy. Secondary sources should be enough if you want to work hard but classes are designed to turn, say, a bunch of readings into an understanding of epistemology. It might be doable if you bought an anthology, read front to back and hung out on Stanford IEP to contextualize readings.

At the end of the day what's the harm in trying? Good Luck OP.

>>14861749
Yes. You will never be credentialed (arguably a good thing), but you can achieve comparative understanding. The key is to not simply "read", but rather *study*. Devise a structured and more importantly a focused study plan; watch lectures, read secondary sources, find online communities to discuss with, write.

>>14863932
What on earth are you blathering about?

>>14861749
It doesn't matter if he 'gets' it or not so long as his take is strong; most advances occur through misreadings (or wilful perversions) anyway

>>14862224
>Philosophy undergrads don't know anything.
I read almost exclusively primary sources, often in full, in my undergrad. what kind of backwater school did you go to lol