/lit/ - Literature

>>15301441
read the sticky

History of philosophy.net is an excellent introduction

https://historyofphilosophy.net/

>>15301441
Coppelstone's history. come back when you're finished and not before

>>15301441
read Plato. his dialogues are short

>>15301441
Why do you want to read philosophy? It's pointless. There are much better things to read. You won't gain anything from philosophy, not even entertainment.

>>15301441
>I know nothing
Congratulations you're done with philosophy

>>15301441
Don't start with history of philosophy or historical philosophers, they will only lead you astray.

Like any subject, you must start with textbooks. After you have acquired the tools of the trade, you'll be equipped to explore particular problem areas in depth.

>Metaphysics:
Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 4th Edition By Michael J. Loux
Metaphysics: An Introduction 2nd Edition by Alyssa Ney

>Epistemology:
Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction by Alvin I. Goldman and Matthew McGrath
An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge by Noah Lemos

>Philosophy of Language:
Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, 3rd Edition By William G Lycan
Philosophy of Language by Richmond H. Thomason and Zoltán Gendler Szabó

>Philosophy of Mind:
Philosophy of Mind 3rd Edition by Jaegwon Kim
Philosophy of Mind: A Contemporary Introduction, 4th Edition By John Heil

>Philosophy of Science:
What Is This Thing Called Science? by Alan Chalmers
Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science by Peter Godfrey-Smith

>Philosophy of Mathematics:
Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings by Paul Benacerraf (ed.)
Thinking about Mathematics: The Philosophy of Mathematics by Stewart Shapiro

>Logic
Logic: The Laws of Truth by Nicholas J. J. Smith
A Mathematical Introduction to Logic by Herbert Enderton
Computability and Logic by George Boolos and Richard Jeffrey

Just think for yourself, sheep.

>>15301551
+10 points added to your curriculum

>>15301551
I study philosophy for a PhD because my future plans involve welfare and suicide, and not to be a dick, but I can't disagree with this post more. Not only is the post itself really skewed from an analytic perspective (which nobody gives a fuck about outside of Britain and the US, and in the US to a decreasing degree), "textbooks" like this are generally likely to be analytically skewed, presenting the entire course of philosophy throughout history as a series of "topics" to be considered using whatever gay new modal logic method is trendy at the time of publishing the textbook. Analytics are known for being worthless at history of philosophy, worthless at hermeneutics, etc. I took a class with a world-famous analytic Aristotelian two years ago when he was visiting faculty and it was a running joke that he did not care what Aristotle meant or what the true meaning of the text was, all he cared about was distorting and contorting it to fit his logical presuppositions.

Nothing wrong with mining these books for things of interest, but saying to do them first while neglecting primary sources and (above all) the history of philosophy is only going to work for the tiny subset of potential philosophy enthusiasts who were destined to become stupid fucking analytics anyway, like the professor I just mentioned.

If you want a taste of what kind of philosopher reading these textbooks will turn you into, read Collingwood's description in his autobiography of Oxbridge philosophy in the interwar period. Spoiler: It turns you into a smug know-nothing cunt.

Read philosophy in primary sources, read it in historical context, and read it in dialogue with modern philosophy, and you can't go wrong. It will take years until you can feel like you're having an authentic dialogue with someone like Aristotle, but it will be worth it when you get there. I don't even object to someone becoming an analytic philosopher, what I object to is the way in which analytics lay out an itinerary like this that ONLY works for future analytic philosophers while not caring about those who will be put off for life by it.

OP, you may disagree with me completely one day that logic is retarded, but at least distrust faggots telling you to study logic primarily. Don't take them at their word.

>>15301519
Lol, exactly. OP should stop while he’s ahead and not get lost into the world of abstractions divorced from reality that only serve to feed his ego

>>15301614
You couldn't be more wrong.

>I study philosophy for a PhD
Doubt it.

>>15301497
Copleston's history of philosophy is a great start imo too

>>15301638
compelling argument anon

>>15301638
you are not being honest responding a huge comment with the argumentative equivalent of smug anime girl

>>15301665
>>15301686
The post I responded to was not remotely rationally grounded. History of philosophy is not philosophy.

>>15301659
I am >>15301614 and forgot to also second this recommendation. I'm sure some would say Copleston is outdated by the standards of recent trends, or undergraduate classes that simply have no standards at all anymore, but he's still one of the best overviews you can get. I've only read him on the Middle Ages and some patristic and thomistic stuff, but it was ideal for a survey text.

Also OP, check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

Not sure if the syllabus is listed in the comments of these videos, but worth following the readings if you can.Try libgen for the course texts. At least this way you can take a college course, of much higher quality, depth, and breadth than anything you're going to get in most universities these days, continental or analytic.

>>15301638
I don't care what you doubt, and you shouldn't care about my claims either. I didn't make my claim to establish some kind of authority, I made my claim to make OP at least consider the possibility that one of us is radically full of shit, which you proved well by responding with flat dismissal.

So now he has to pick between the two of us. Which one is he going to pick? The answer is neither, he will hopefully just start to doubt people giving him high-sounding prescriptions in the future.

>>15301715
>I made my claim to make OP at least consider the possibility that one of us is radically full of shit, which you proved well by responding with flat dismissal.
You posted a heated diatribe against philosophy (or 'analytic philosophy', which is the same thing) in order to talk up your own interest in history. I dispassionately posted a list of well-regarded introductory textbooks. Anyone who wants to actually learn how to do philosophy should read the textbooks. For those with only an interest in intellectual history, read the history books.

>>15301693
>History of philosophy is not philosophy
This statement is actually a decent means of of showing why history is necessary for understanding philosophy. Suppose I replied, "yes it is; understanding philosophy historically is an essential part of understanding philosophy." We have two people disagreeing over the definition of X. You can't just reply "no, it isn't!" again, and assert your definition. So what do you say?

Arguments from authority are obviously out. You can't just say "my adviser told me.." or "in my department, they define philosophy as.." You can point to a statement in one of your "well-regarded" textbooks, or bring in a prestigious guy who wrote the textbook, but that's just another argument from authority. Even ignoring the fact that this isn't an admissible argument, I could just as easily cite my own "well-regarded" books.

The only resolution would be to begin understanding why we disagree, to begin understanding what we both MEAN when we say "philosophy," and how we came to have such conflicting presuppositions that we disagree over its very definition. But this would be history, stepping back and asking how we arrived at this point, how our presuppositions were structured, what schools we were influenced by, what their presuppositions are, etc. Why do people in my tradition "regard well" things which your tradition doesn't, and vice versa?

>>15301799
>philosophy (or 'analytic philosophy', which is the same thing)
"No, it isn't!" Same problem again.

The only way for OP to decide which one of us is right or wrong to take both of our stances as provisional, assume that one of us is wrong, and that there are rational reasons why the wrong person came to be convinced of bullshit. You know, almost like he'd be learning the "history" of our respective philosophical positions in order to understand how they came to conflict in this context.

>>15301799
bro you are reducing the whole philosophy to books approved by the academia and what is discussed in college classes, since that's probably your environment. that's loathsome

>philosophy of ________
>logic

yeah. it's cringe mental gymnastics...

not that poster

>>15301441
Just watch some youtube lectures/essays (I highly reccomend rick roderick's lectures, philosophy cuck) and then start reading what interests you using the staanford encyclopedia of philosophy as a reference for help
Dont slog through it because you'll probably just give up and lose interest, just let your interest guide you and with time youll become knowledgeable

>>15301859
It comes down to this: do you actually want to *be a philosopher*? If so, read the textbooks. If you just want to learn about the history of philosophy, the way you learn about the history of science, or the history of painting, etc., then you can skip the textbooks and read about 'the lives of the great philosophers'. History can add some amusing context, but it is no replacement for actually learning how to do philosophy (or science, or painting, etc).

>>15301985
>do you actually want to *be a philosopher*? If so, read the textbooks.
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF THE COLLEGE DRONE MIND

you don't become a philosopher by reading textbooks, you ignorant, you become an historian of philosophy or a bachelor's degree holder in philosophy. I can safely say you have never met a real philosopher outside of the academic sophistry, which is truly sad. You should honestly do a 10 year vow of silence until you recant from saying something as absurd as "read the textbooks if you want to be a philosopher."

Your post is the ultimate testament of an NPC, a lifeless bugman, who guides his life by academic books. Never a post have brought me more sadness. I lament the existence of your mindset.

>>15302061
Go back to >>>/x/, kid. The adults are talking.

>>15302075
so tell me how old are you?

>>15301985
You didn't even read my post anon, that's rude. I wrote you a gay little Socratic dialogue that encompassed your position, to show that arguments from authority (textbooks) are not allowed. Not only are arguments from authority formally impermissible, it's just plain stupid to use them, because obviously the other guy will start citing his own authorities.

Anyway like I said, let OP decide for himself.

>>15302061
The people most rabidly defensive of institutional standards are usually the ones just starting out in whatever institution they're defending. It's normal, you want to demonstrate (to yourself as much as to others) that you belong in that institution. Dude probably means well.

>dude is pretentious enough thinking he'll become a philosopher by the end of his term
>can't even answer his age in honesty
never gonna make it bro, you are a complete intellectual fraud. not even 1 million textbooks can change this

>>15302116
>arguments from authority
OP didn't ask for arguments. He asked for (authoritative) advice.

>rabidly defensive of institutional standards
I have nothing but contempt for academic institutions in general. That doesn't mean every single product of the university is trash.

>>15302157
what's the problem with answering your age?

>>15302157
Yes, but how is he to decide between contradictory "authoritative" advice?

This is the problem of the criterion, man. Come on. At least answer that.

>>15302165
Why is my age relevant to your recommendations for the OP?

>>15301614
>>15301715

How do you feel about the Anthony Kenny book (A New History of Western Philosohpy)? I've been working through that as my first step to getting up to Heidegger.

>>15302178
im not that anon. i'm simply asking you a question. can you answer or not? you are guiding op on how to become a philosopher yet you cannot even answer the most simple question

>>15302173
>Yes, but how is he to decide between contradictory "authoritative" advice?
I trust he will make the right decision based upon his intellectual interests and goals. That doesn't worry me. All I can do is provide the best advice I can.

>>15302200
Mid 40s. Why do you ask?

>>15302218

>>15302225
I answer your question honestly. Not sure what your problem is.

>>15302241

>>15302264
You have to go back.

>>15301441

>>15301441
START
WITH
THE

>>15301614
>my future plans involve welfare and suicide
why?

>>15301551
Thank you, I love you

I'm making an infographic give me 10 mins

>>15301551
PLEASE do not take this route, this is only useful for academia. I guarantee you will be more philosophical literate after sitting down and reading Aristotle's Metaphysics than you will reading
>Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, 4th Edition By Michael J. Loux
I have a degree in philosophy. The people in philosophy classrooms who do the work read textbooks. The philosophy students who actually care about philosophy read primary texts. I think I bought 2 textbooks in my entire degree and I graduated at the top of my class. Only rely on secondary sources when you are struggling with the primary text, and, wherever possible!!!! NEVER READ A SECONDARY TEXT ON AN AUTHOR YOU HAVEN'T READ IN PRIMARY!!!!!!! This isn't physics, you aren't looking for the most up to date formulas. This is an engagement with the dialectic of human thought. Take it seriously.

start and stop with the greeks

>>15302477
Even this is giving too much credit to those awful textbooks. Those are only of relevance to a very narrow tradition within academia itself. The kind of philosophy represented in those textbooks does shit like this >>15298579
and very little else.

British and US Philosophy departments are extremely territorial and only hire people with PhDs from Philosophy departments. So, the rest of the world basically ignores them, because all they produce is this weird outdated logic-chopping shit, applied to neoliberal ethical topics.

>>15301486
I second this. Very accessible, short, episodes on each topic. I think just listening to the episodes on the classical philosophers would be a nice introduction.

>his dialogues are short
This dude has never read the Gorgias, Republic or Laws

>>15302563
those are exceptions but even then they are short compared to normal sized books. keep it in mind the platonic dialogues are plays

>>15302477
So just outright skip any historical overviews and go right for the primary texts? I think what I find confusing is exactly what or how much I need to read as prerequisites to get to, say, German Idealism. Read the Greeks, yes, but how many of them? You could spend your entire life reading nothing but the Greeks and never make it past 200 AD, so there must be a decent way to filter out exactly which texts are necessary and which are supplementary.

>>15302477
>>15302525
^ clueless pseuds

>>15302664
>Read the Greeks, yes, but how many of them?
>never make it past 200 AD

You'd be surprised. I read one Plato dialogue a day last summer, with a few days for long ones, and I could easily have read two or more if I hadn't been doing it so casually. Then I read all the major texts of Aristotle, plus a bunch of minor ones most people probably don't read. I also read three histories of Greek philosophy or so, all the presocratic fragments from Diels (there aren't many), and some smaller things. All of this took just over two months.

Now I'm going to read a few major synoptic works like Diogenes Laertius, Eunapius, and Philostratus, probably Proclus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and a few others, then maybe Augustine and I'll decide from there.

While doing all this I've been reading my way through early modern philosophy too.

>>15302525
>British and US Philosophy departments are extremely territorial and only hire people with PhDs from Philosophy departments.
Wow - a department hiring people who are actually qualified for a subject - how shocking!

>>15302525
>British and US Philosophy departments are extremely territorial
This is an English language board, hosted in America. If you have a problem with that, fuck off back to your shithole county, wog.

>>15302749
Yeah! Like this qualified woman, whose father ran the department when she was hired and given tenure!

>>15298579

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5SQnQjryzI

>>15302762
Still butthurt about women being allowed to have jobs outside the home, I see. You'll get over it.

>>15302767
That's an interesting point to bring up. As a proponent of analytic philosophy, why do you think there are so few women in philosophy departments? It's known as one of the most male academic disciplines.

>>15302782
Because men are better on average than women at abstract logical reasoning, as required in disciplines like mathematics, philosophy and physics.

Interesting argument going on. OP, an introductory textbook is good to give you a broad view of the journey your are going to take, philosophy is a 3000 year conversation and you should start at the beginning because, just like this shitty thread, if you read the last post first, you wouldn’t understand the context of why everyone is buttmad. Then again, primary sources for these philosophers is like none other, once you see the journey you can start to take it. A secondary source for any theory or thought is going to have bias in some way. Good luck OP.

Rick Roderick's lectures are great

He's our own Mark Rippetoe

>>15302804
Lol, no.

>>15302804
This, Roderick is universally loved.

>>15302810
Yes.

The presocratics

>>15301441
Dude you’re already Socrates you’re already doing it.

>>15301551
This is retarded
>>15302477
This is also retarded

You should be reading selected primary texts (starting with the Greeks) with secondary texts and introductions. You are not an engineering student, and you are not an ancient Greek who can understand what is being said in a primary text without any further context.

>>15302417
Here you go /lit/, made with love

I'm amazed at all these teenage poseurs (like >>15302827) giving advice about a subject they know nothing about.

>>15302804
They lived two hours apart, even

>>15302738
Impressive. I would agree that reading as widely as you can is never a bad thing. You said you're also reading early modern philosophy too, though, and that's the part I'm stuck at. There are philosophers all throughout history I'm interested in, but I don't want to go in with a poor understanding of the subjects they're writing about, especially given how important referencing past authors is in philosophy. So it's the question of prerequisites. There are some contemporary authors I find easy to read without an extensive background (Zizek, Land), but earlier ones I find nearly indecipherable (Heidegger). I'm willing to bet that the skill of determining exactly what's needed as a prerequisite to a work I'm interested in is part of philosophy though.

>>15302854
>i will hover in this thread indefinitely and reply "Lol, no." and "Ummmm, wrong though!" to anybody i disagree with, but never say anything aside from that

thanks for contributing, reddit tourist

>>15302860
Take your own advice, plebbitor.

>>15302865
i did, by critiquing the contentless white noise you are producing

you once again replied "Uhhh no u!"

>>15302860
Watching retarded shills on youtube does not constitute a philosophy education, brainlet.

>>15302871
Truly mindblowing level of projection.

How is A. C. Grayling's History of Philosophy?

I've heard its better than Russell's History.

>>15302664
>So just outright skip any historical overviews and go right for the primary texts?
Many primary texts have introductions/editors notes/ect. for this very purpose. If you are struggling, use secondary texts. There is nothing wrong with secondary texts so long as you use them to aid your reading of the primary text by getting another persons take on it. There is no unbiased secondary text, and they will never amount to a substitute for the original.

>>15301441
Bros should i read The Republic first by itself or The Republic and a secondary source that goes book by book at the same time?

>>15302912
It is very good. Yes, it is more comprehensive, balanced, and up-to-date than Russell's History.

>>15302941
Read the Republic and if you're struggling read a secondary source.

But this shouldn't be necessary, as most Republic editions have introductions and footnotes, and also it isn't a hard text at all.

Things get hard at Kant, but you can still make it through with intros and footnotes, and asking some anons discuss him on /lit/. From time to time we get nice threads.

The next difficulty jump is Heidegger, if you go straight in, he's almost unreadable.

Philosophers like Aquinas, Nietszche, Marx, Russel, are all pretty easy to read IMO.

>>15301441
All Plato does is explain that very reconciliation

>>15302196
I think I've seen that one around. Does it have a whorl of some kind on the cover? Sadly never read it though. Is it good? My view on secondary lit is that like >>15302916 says it's all going to be biased or reductive in one way or another, so you shouldn't be too worried about getting the "right" view from it. If it helps you remember a hundred scaffolding details, and then you end up reading a second book that builds on that foundation and gives you the actual understanding, it still served its purpose in the end.

I actually prefer to read older histories of philosophy, usually German ones from the 19th century, because they take a deep historicist and hermeneutical approach and have better classical educations. I also like layering them. Instead of agonizing over reading one perfect book and assimilating it as some ideal framework, just treat it all as grist for the mill and read a few. Treat them like several experts in conversation with you and with one another at the same time, with all the overlap, conflict, and occasional repetition that goes with that.

Ultimately the point of all this is to be able to carry on conversation with the primary source anyway. That's what Gadamer said taking Heidegger's classes enabled him to do for the first time, to feel like he was "having a dialogue" with Aristotle rather than "reading" Aristotle.

Dreyfus' Berkeley lectures on Heidegger (and Merleau-Ponty also) are pretty good. They're up on archive.org. Sadly the syllabus is now missing from the Berkeley site. Case in point too, sample the way Dreyfus introduces you to Heidegger, it's very conversational and he triangulates Heidegger by means of Bourdieu, Wittgenstein, even things like Kuhn, slowly making progress toward actual understanding. There's no schematic list of concepts, in fact he jumps around Being and Time, doesn't begin with the intro I think.

>>15302912
Grayling is in the analytic tradition so be wary of tunnel vision. Russell's history of philosophy is a joke, he's barely even useful as a list of names worth knowing.

>>15302941
You should read the Republic on its own even if only because it's beautiful and one of the landmark written works of European history, but you'll need some secondary sources afterwards if you want to study it seriously. It's one of the most contentious ones. Be careful of Straussian readings, they claim to be doing deep interpretation but they are more often than not just distorting things to fit their preconceptions.

>>15301519
This unironically

>>15302313
Sneed's Feed and Seed
Formerly Chuck's

>>15301614

Quality post. Are you getting your PhD anywhere good? What’s the topic?

Hey frens
If I’m trying to study philosophy from the beginning to contemporary, basically I want to learn it from a historical perspective AND a philosophical perspective. where should I go after Republic? This is what I’ve done so far;
1. Oxford’s Presocratics by Waterfield
2. The Life and Death of Socrates
3. Republic
Where should I go from Republic?
4.??
5.??
6.??
7.??
8.??
9.??
10.??

>>15302664
There aren't enough surviving Greek texts, don't hurry. Loeb's classic library has 337 most of them aren't super long. All texts up to 400 AD there are up to 16 million words. That's The Lord of the Rings + the Hobbit 8 times over. You could read all ancient Greek texts ever in less than a decade. Plus philosophy is a relatively small part of the texts.

>>15303404
depends how thorough. I'd do more plato.
then aristotle, descartes, leibniz/spinoza/locke/berkeley/hume, maybe rousseau and mill (yuck), kant, hegel. from there just look for stuff u like, schop, nietszche and marx. if you are committed to a chronological development then not much point in cutting too many corners

Read the source material. Don't get memed into reading someone's interpretation. Don't watch YouTube videos.

>>15303584
>337
337 books

>>15303639
and if you have trouble agreeing with this anon, think about how satisfying it will be shutting down some shitdick 'read theory' type when you can expose their opinions as regurgitated secondary material. with people like hegel and nietszche there are well known schools of interpretation, if you haven't read at least a translation of the source, you can't adequately defend your views

>>15303404
>He actually unironically started with the Greeks
You know we were joking with you, right? Everyone on /lit/ is in on it except you it seems.

>>15303404
Anywhere you want, just remember, modern philosophers are usally shit for reasons that you wouldn't understand, so take then with a grain of salt.

test

>>15301486
This OP
Butterfly actually made a good post for once, nice

>>15303660
The Greeks aren't a bad place to start to be fair. Many ideas go back to them, and the dialogues are such that you're probably going to get something from them

I made this for (you)

>>15303735
the fuck sort of shitty chart is this? are you suggesting to read the Greeks then pick up Difference and Repetition?

>>15303404
MORE PLATO. You need to read his Parmenides. For Neoplatonism, read the Timaeus. The Sophist and Statesmen go together and are very dense. If you like Plato, there’s no need to rush ahead, there’s plenty more dialogues then even these. Next step is Aristotle.

>>15301486
Congrats on your first good post

>>15303789
After lloyd p gerson.
Obviously half of the meme collection to the right includes a full chronological order of rationalism onwards philosophers worth reading.
It says Endgame. And the two books on either side of deleuze makes deleuze into a walk in the park, Damascius (and all Neoplatonism) prefigures the entirety of Philosophy that emerged from Descartes, that's why I put them all in the Bonus list, they say nothing not addressed by the Gods of thought (Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, Simplicius...) which our Llouyd P. Gerson proves in his three books in the bottom left. You either do Platonism (philosophy) or you're wrong.

>>15303885
yikes

>>15303892
The Wake of Gerson's new book will shake the anal-ytic sphere, he has completed German Idealism by showing that it was already completed 1500 years ago.

>>15301441
Browse IEP and Stanford on what interests you. And read that.
Also, Read Plato Descartes Nietzsche and Marx.

>>15302327
It's a the humanities are fucked joke.

>>15301614
God bless you. You are based. Could not agree more. Death to analytics cunts.

>>15301441
https://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/IA/IA-outlines-reading-lists
go HAM, kid

>>15303735
>>15303885

So wait, if they figured this out that long ago why the fuck did people keep prattling on?

>>15301441
>I know nothing
sounds like you already have mastered philosophy

>>15304660
>>.docx
Do boomer philosophers really?

>>15301441
>provided I know nothing

congratulations. you are socrates

>>15301519
I love philosophy, but, yeah, this.

>>15301519
Then you get raped by vastly better read and consequently more intelligent men.

Read:
Schopenhauer - Aphorisms of the The Wisdom of Life

Kenneth Copeland - The Blessing

>>15301519
Fuck beat me to it

>>15304984
>you get raped
Hot

Just watch an essay video or a lecture on the book you're going to read before you read it and you will never have trouble understanding any text

>>15302837
this is unironically a really good chart

Don't start with the greeks. Get a tldr book for the context, but so much of it is stone age trash, completely ridden with galaxy brained assumptions, a stunning amount of fallacies and deferrals to their religious ideas. Anyone who's actually read Plato through to Descartes wouldn't fucking recommend it for the common person in the 21st century.

Nietzsche. Dude's fucking brilliant if you're the type who gets him.
>“I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses.”
Always remember there are banks of roses underneath while reading him, lest you become a Hitler or a Leopold and Loebe.

>>15301551
you're retarded and you should kill yourself

>>15301614
Reminder that this anon is a liar. A few months ago he made a similar post with the Aristotle story saying he was a PhD student in another area (think he is history). He makes shit up all the time. It's the Kant/Heidegger/Wittgenstein Germaboo anon.

>>15302837
what is level 4 though?

Don't, you'll spend years only to realize you just went in a circle. Have sex instead

>>15305842
dilate

If you just want an overview, there is a podcast called Philosophize This that does a great job

>>15305896
>podcast

>>15301551
>Like any subject, you must start with textbooks
Die a violent death.

>>15305923

I'm more into reading fiction, but like to learn about philosophy to expand my worldview. So I learn about philosophy by listening to podcasts while working out?

Got a problem? *squares up*

>>15306019
Yes. Audiobooks are better

>>15306475
Got a good source for pirating them? Librivox is very hit or miss and has some terrible narrators.

>>15301486
Wow! I knew you could make a non-putrid post. Good Job!

>>15301659
This

>>15301551
>books that lazy professors assigned in class
Did not like the metaphysics and language books, for bad writing, biases, and borderline revisionism. Chalmers is just okay.

This:
>Don't start with history of philosophy or historical philosophers, they will only lead you astray.
Is completely pulled out of your ass

The historical philosophers and source materials are infinitely better resources.

>>15304702
Damascius was only "rediscovered" past century and only translated ten years ago into English, into French a bit earlier.
Its from reading Proclus that German Idealism even came to be.

>>15306588
audiobooksbay work well, or myanonamouse if you are in (hint: you are not)

>>15301441
>provided I know nothing
Look, he's already taken the Aristotlepill

>>15301551
>be textbook author
>X is wrong for obvious reasons
>doesn't explain why
EVERY TIME
often some shitty modern neoliberal or materialist opinion

>>15302313
PANTIES

>>15307305
thanks senpai

>>15301614
>I took a class with a world-famous analytic Aristotelian
You sure about that? Or are you lying on the internet? Pic related is your post here along with two posts from the archive. All of them suspiciously like your post here. One that says the exact same thing you are saying, and another saying it was your friend. Amazing coincidence that they have similar but unusual phrases like "logical latticework" lol. If you've got two different stories about this, what else are you lying about?

Really gets the old noggin joggin. Also interesting little timestamps on your posts. Eight minutes to respond with the above post. Almost like you are making posts to respond to ... much like someone said yesterday and I've been suspicious of for some time.

>>15307705
This is some seriously autistic level, cringe shit brosef

Not the poster you’re engaged with, but damn

>>15301441
Start with Descartes, read chronologically backwards and forwards from there

>>15307926
You might say digging into some anon's bullshit is autistic, but it is not as cringe as making up stories about themselves on the internet in order to "own" a professor that probably doesn't exist. This anon has been up to this for several years. Defending this is inexcusable.

>>15307968
people lie all the time, its easy, fun, usually stakeless--not much cringe here.
to go out of your way to prove something so trivial, to be so blind not to see how creepy it is to imagine you underlining and comparing and looking at your screen trying to--what?--prove that YOU are right?--truly cringe here.

your inability to acknowledge how abnormal your behavior is just goes to show how indescribably too-close-to-yourself you really are. i'd guess you don't have much quality social contact, not much bringing you out of yourself.

>>15308015
Yeah, I'm guessing I touched a nerve by outing you. The only creepy dude here is the guy (probably you) pretending to own professors in several threads over a year like he's some nerd fighting jocks. If it was "fun" and "easy" for him, he wouldn't be taking it so seriously with long ass posts and replying seriously to people. I don't see much joviality in his posts. You sure seem to be taking this seriously tho lmao.

A one-off post showing the liar above is something that is common to 4chan's history. If this guy was a namefag or had a handle elsewhere, he'd have his own thread on /lolcow/ or kiwifarms. But instead you're trying to gaslight like some tourist that outing pseuds and lolcows isn't a pastime of /lit/ or 4chan. gtfo faggot.

>>15308074
i cant even tell you how happy this post makes me
you make me smile anon. you're off the walls, but you make me smile.

i'm now just curious: how you discovered anything else of value on this board? cut through any other lies?

i'm talking about the truth behind deep and edgy, butterfly, rapture--you know anything about the actual liars?

>>15308074
Dude, it's not that serious. Calm down.

>>15301614
Not OP, but I've started to get interested in philosophy recently. I'm currently working through Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue, and I'm considering going through the Copleston to get the lay of the land before going on to other authors. What do you think of this plan?

>>15306933
What was your opinion on the Ephystemology one?

>>15308101
>What do you think of this plan?
Yes, you'll have a lay of the land. If there's a particular thinker/school/country that intrigues you in particular, immersing yourself in that and then branching out and back can be useful.

look to answer your questions, not others. just starting with the beginning of philosophy will have you bored with other people's problems

>>15305832
Killing yourself

>>15301486
Finally a good post, now get rid of that attention whore tripfaggery and you could actually improve this board.

>>15307705
based autism

>>15307705
Man that's unhealthy

There is /lit/ philosophy project on google doc did anyone check it? Looks like it's not finished

>>15307705
Yeah, the Aristotelian was me + my friend, who is a mathematician doing her PhD now elsewhere. I dropped his class after checking out his book (I forget his name, but it was blue) from the library and having really bad exchanges with him. Admittedly, I'm fudging the story slightly in both instances. I didn't take his entire course, she did, he was just a really good example of that bullshit.

I post on /lit really regularly, autistically you might say. And I hate analytic philosophy. Sometimes I effortpost, sometimes I play things up and shitpost, sometimes I'm writing one way because I just want to casually help a guy out, sometimes I have to write more seriously. There may be minor inconsistencies, but I'm studying this stuff as a job so obviously I'm gonna be pretty invested in it. I'm not sure what you're implying at the end, that I'm samefagging or what?

More stories if you want to keep a dream journal about me and see if they remain consistent ten years later: Took a course with one of the few smart analytics I've ever met, a guy from Spain who insisted he was Catalan, who was visiting briefly. Met him in an analytic pragmatist's class on a continental topic (which was also bad). The Spanish guy was brilliant but absolutely refused to talk about anything continental. Weeks later I met another really smart classicist, we started talking about philosophy, and he mentioned a brilliant analytic philosopher he had met who refused to even think about anything continental, even when he was straining to get outside analytic frameworks and the continental stuff would have illuminated the conversation. After talking about this for 5-10 minutes, he said "oh yeah and he was a Catalan nationalist." Turns out it was the same guy.

Also took a class with a guy who is now a big name in the analytic world as far as I can tell, everyone scrambling over this big important book, and I was desperately trying to follow what he was talking about because I wasn't familiar with enough of the analytic jargon. I would go home after the classes, read up on all the jargon words, come back, and I still wasn't sure what the hell he was talking about. At the end of the class, I talked to some of the analytics (both undergrads and grads) and they didn't know later. Months later, I talked to a few people who were in a reading group for the book, and they still don't know. For all I know, that dude was actually saying some really interesting shit, but despite my best efforts I couldn't crack it, and the analytics certainly couldn't crack it.

>>15308074
I'm not the guy you're replying to here (I'm the autist who hates analytics) but you do need to calm down. That "lolcow" shit is rotting your brain. I've been here since SomethingAwful and I remember Helldump, I don't know if you're old enough for that but it's a bad thing to indulge. Yes it's funny to see epic takedowns of pathetic losers, but making a hobby of it is cultivating ugly things in you.

>>15308101
You may want to see my takedown for being insane (above) before listening to my advice, but that's the best way to do it imo, just balance reading singular things that actually interest you imperfectly with things that can explain/contextualize the parts you didn't understand. MacIntyre is great, I am not big into that myself but I remember being really captivated by him and clearly lots of other people are.

For me it helped to realize that at some point I'm going to reread everything, at least everything important. Somehow that was a tiny gestalt shift that took most of the pressure off, because I now no longer felt like I was obligated to assimilate the book perfectly, remember everything and so on. You'll remember the highlights and those will guide you back to it at a higher level later if necessary.

>>15302327
>>15304373
Yeah this, sorry for missing this

>>15303310
Would respond also but now kinda spooked

>>15310140
Are you rapture?

Here is a good chart for the greeks

>>15301441
https://mega.nz/folder/KhMFDKbY#5k6xwI9odtAtPl8tlBbCWw