/lit/ - Literature

stop reading primary sources and start reading textbooks and guides

>>15894309
Can you elaborate on this or send links to pdfs?

Despair not young one! For you are frank and time is on your side. Self-study is the hardest of paths; it is a battle between your lower, old self and the higher, novel self. Take it slow and seek help. If you do not understand the Statesman then--after you read it once--seek help online. A vast world of knowledge is at your disposal and your only a couple of clicks away from it. You can try Youtube, Google scholar, Libgen, Stanford Enculyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. to find what you need: be it a textbook, a paper, or a lecture. Time is on your side. Despair not, earnest effort is always rewarded in the end.

>>15894303
Did you start with Plato’s Statesmen? If so that’s where you went wrong. One should start with the trial and death of Socrates—so Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo—then Meno and the Republic. Nothing else is necessary, though it’s all glorious, especially Symposium.

It may help to familiarise yourself with Hesiod, Homer and the presocratics beforehand, though only the presocratics are ‘philosophy’ and they’re fragmentary and often enigmatic.

If all of this is too much for you right now—though it shouldn’t be, the only barrier is self-resolve—pick up Aristotle’s Ethics, which I’d equally foundational and simple to follow. Equally the Stoics are an excellent and accessible place to start, Epictetus’ discourses and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations.

You’re only 18 so you’ve got a lot of reading time ahead of you.

Moreover, do not be afraid to leave Statesman, or whatever it is that causes you trouble, and return to it when you have gained the tools and knowledge to understand it completely. The path to knowledge does not go forward all the time. Sometimes it is necessary to go back, make a circle or two and then thrust your self forward.

>>15894303
>I'm 18 and i want to improve myself through means of philosophy.

Life lesson from a man twice your age: philosophy has never helped someone improve himself. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most philosophers were unhappy men. Studying philosophy will only make you more confused and give you a false sense of wisdom. Here's what will actually help you become a better person:

-Eating better (less sugar/carbs)
-Sleeping more
-Spending more time outside
-Some physical exercise
-Dressing better
-Getting a job if you don't already have one
-Being more social

After you've done all that, if you still feel the need to improve yourself (you probably won't), you can read philosophical books. It's okay if you don't understand 100% of a book the first time you read it, actually I'd say it's almost expected.

If it was possible for someone to completely understand Nietzsche the first time you read him, he wouldn't be worth reading. You're also really young: your brain won't reach its full maturity for another 10 years or so.

>>15894419

>>15894458
>Studying philosophy will only make you more confused and give you a false sense of wisdom.

So where did you get your false of wisdom from, anon?

OP here. Thanks for all the tips you guys gave me, as all you stated I'm very young and have a lot of time ahead of me and shouldn't worry to much about my current state of understanding things.
>>15894419
Will do, it would be my first time using external sources outside of classes in school to help me understand the literature I am reading.
>>15894438
It was a mistake maybe, nevertheless i will finish this book and then start with your recommendations and after that probably reread the statesman so I can see my improvements.
>>15894458
But aren't the false sense of wisdom and confusion are at the beginning of learning? I see the truth in things more important in comparison to comfort or happiness, these two are temporary where as the truth can give you purpose in life. I just want to understand the world and the people in it, politics and societies. Also everything you said on improvements I completed and am currently maintaining, all except the last two. Still in school and planning to go to academy after that, the social thing is very rng in life and I have fallen off with half of my friends.

I will probably report my progress in the near future in another thread, thanks again for your help, it is much appreciated.

Philosophy won’t improve you. Reading philosophy is for understanding philosophy.

>>15894458
this

>>15894749
Yes, but if you read philosophy you’ll invariably come to understand this. It’s implicit in all philosophical works and explicit in many of them. You’re just being pedantic in an attempt to appear profound. You’d do well to read more philosophy yourself, anon.

>>15894720
>But aren't the false sense of wisdom and confusion are at the beginning of learning?
Usually, those who start on a path of self-education are aware that their understanding is still very limited, which is why they turn to philosophers, in hope of gaining wisdom.

>I see the truth in things more important in comparison to comfort or happiness, these two are temporary where as the truth can give you purpose in life.
If you're the type of person who puts truth above all things, I'm sorry to say this, but you won't live a happy life. The more you understand about the world, the harder it'll be to find a purpose in life, because you'll see every purpose as illusory. You'll keep chasing the truth, hoping there's some kind of reward at the end of the journey, but there isn't.

Also, as your knowledge grows, so will your loneliness, because the distance between you, who studied life, and other people, who lived life, will have increased.

>Also everything you said on improvements I completed and am currently maintaining, all except the last two.
Good job! But don't underestimate the importance of socialization!

>>15894720
>I just want to understand the world and the people in it, politics and societies.

Then my advice is not to start with philosophy, but instead anthropology, unironically read Sapiens by yuval.

>>15894845
No, he's right. OP said he wants to improve himself by means of philosophy, and many people who want to do that are left disappointed that there's nothing in there for their purpose. OP shouldn't waste his time with philosophy if his aims don't align with the goals of philosophy

>>15894303
Start with the Greeks is a meme.

>>15894303
If you want to get the Hegel there’s no need to start with the Greeks, Just Kant. There’s these two guides, one called the rationalists and one called the empiricists that you should read prior to Kant, along with the prelegomena and a guidebook to the critique, specifically the Cambridge one.

>>15894458
This. plus plato says one shouldnt start philosophy until middle age.

My dude, when my age was yours I read Schopenhauer. My understanding was enough and many ideas remained unveiled. But the fourth book of the first volume of his capital work was like having a direct conversation with a genius. If your objective is reading Schopy, read that section.

>>15894458
t. Hasn't read Nietzsche

>>15894309
dont do this

>>15894438
this.

>>15895148
Good, I don't have to read.

What happens after you read books? Does it affect future actions and thoughts? Will books change who you are to become?

>>15894309
Actually the opposite of this. Texbook and guides are often brainlet tier compared to the original text. What's more, they are sometimes misinterpreted.
>Should I reread
This. Do this until you get it. You can get help from wikipedia, videos, eventually texbook, but don't read the textbook first, mostly because it will get you a bad habit of only reading textbooks, and not the original book.

>>15894458
What makes you think improving yourself should make you happy? Monkeys at the zoo seem to be doing fine and I don't aspire to be more like them.

>>15894303
OP, you can't jump right into Statesman with no background. Here's the Plato reading order:

LONG LIST, for those seeking a deep understanding of Platonic philosophy
1. Euthyphro
2. Apology
3. Crito
4. Phaedo
5. Alcibiades I
6. Symposium
7. Meno
8. Ion
9. Lysis
10. Republic
11. Timaeus
12. Critias
13. Phaedrus
14. Parmenides
15. Laws
16. Euthydemus
17. Protagoras
18. Gorgias
19. Cratylus
20. Philebus
21. Theaetetus
22. Sophist
23. Statesman

MEDIUM LIST, for those who wish to delve a decent amount into Platonic philosophy
SHORT LIST
1. Euthyphro
2. Apology
3. Crito
4. Phaedo
5. Symposium
6. Meno
7. Republic
8. Timaeus
9. Phaedrus
10. Parmenides
11. Laws
12. Gorgias
13. Theaetetus
14. Sophist
15. Statesman

SHORT LIST, for those who simply wish to have a surface-level understanding of Plato
1. Euthyphro
2. Apology
3. Crito
4. Phaedo
5. Symposium
6. Republic
7. Parmenides

I'd suggest the long list, but the other two are here if you feel you don't have the time to read basically all of Plato's extant works.

>>15894309
>brainlet needs everything spoonfed to him
pseud

>>15895076
don't. It's an unscientifc work. It uses his own definition of history and never constrasts it with others. It interprets myths in a disgustingly modern manner. There's no value in this book

I haven't finished a book in about 6 years. I am going to read schopenhauer, Nietzsche, kant, jung and some Greeks. Does anyone know a reason why I shouldn't do this?

>>15894845
You sound like a pseud and you're wrong lmao

>>15894458
Fuck off back redd*t npc

>>15894303
You should read Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy and then get some overview on the history of philosophy. Best approach to entering philosophy imo.

>>15894309
>

>>15895593
Is reading the Philebus before the Theaetetus highly recommended? For some reason I had it in my head that Philebus comes after Statesman but I can’t remember why

>>15894303
If you want to read Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, just read them. You're getting discouraged because you're starting with something you don't actually care about and it's hard work that doesn't feel like it's leading anywhere. Just start with what interests you and expand out from there. I wouldn't recommend starting with Hegel, my understanding is that his work is practically unintelligible even in the original German. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are both relatively accessible authors though, you don't really need some deep understanding of 2000+ years of philosophical tradition in order to follow their ideas.

>>15894303
read napoleon hill

>>15894303
>I'm 18
go to college

>>15895148
This is completely out of context and frankly stupid.

>>15895086
Nonsense. Of course studying philosophy can aid self-improvement. Have you actually read anything critically?

The Neoplatonists do everything those three did 1500 years prior. Yes, all three in symphony before they even existed

Statesman is the third book of a Trilogy. Obviously you won't get it.
Read Cratylus, Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman, Parmenides, Philebus.
Oncce you get to them.
Start and end with Lysis.