/lit/ - Literature

>>16138205
Start with Kant

then proceed directly to Hume. the last page of the Treatise is the last page of philosophy you ever need to read.

>>16138205
does western culture start w descartes? no, it starts with the greeks

>>16138227
not wrong, but not completely right either. it would be a better world if all children were taught this.

>>16138235
Unless you can clearly and concisely define what Western civilization is, where and when it precisely began, then that is a meaningless statement. Modern philosophy began with Descartes.

>>16138205
I ThInK TheReForE I aM XD
Descartes was overrated, Hume was an autist. Go straight to Kant and take a hot steaming log on anything written by analytics

>>16138269
Kant's moral and aesthetic work is laughable, and w/r/t epistemology the pre-Kantian rationalists said everything Kant did first and better.

>>16138205
was there ever a philosopher that didn't start with the greeks?

>>16138357
Wittgenstein

>>16138269
>overrated
Not really, he's the most misunderstood and slighted philosopher ever.

>>16138360
Plato lived in Wittgenstein's head rent free
The moment he did an actual reading of the Greeks, Wittgenstein completely revised his view point
>>16138397
So is this thread cope for France having no good philosophers?

>>16138245
>what Western civilization is
european
>where
greece
>when
as soon as the pleiades had risen

>>16138205
You can honestly do this and get pretty far, Descartes attempted a reboot by breaking from scholasticism and it worked.

bro the answer is god trust me bro

descartes started with the greeks

>>16138520
bullshit western civilization began with charlemagne, or perheaps with constantine the great(pbuh). anything else is cope

>>16138520
>>16138692
Western civilization started with the Gothic cathedrals

>>16138703
>you're a marxist
yes

>>16138222
Based and checked
what should I read before I read Kant

Reminder that Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" is just a shitty Enlightenment rehash of Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument, an argument that got BTFO so hard by Aquinas that many of Descartes' colleagues were ashamed of him using it because it had been so thoroughly discredited.

>>16138205
start with camus. everything else is irrelevant

>>16138769
What has the ontological argument got to do with the Cogito?

>>16138769
how do you even disprove cogito

>>16138828
Nietzsche said it's a grammatical tautology (or something like that) that proves nothing by itself, except Descartes' faith in the ego.

>>16138783
Cogito isn't merely related to the ontological arguement
It IS the ontological arguement targeted at oneself than to God

>>16138828
you don't bother

>>16138873
Hmm you could be right. His argument that the cause of an idea can't be greater than the idea itself indirectly creates a hierarchy of ideas, with God at the top, Nature at the bottom, and Man in the middle. It seemed very much to me that Descartes' sole mission was to make Man master of the world, and even though his philosophy was very religiously inspired and he goes to great lengths to prove man's dependency on God, God's position at the top of the hierarchy ultimately comes second to the practical use of Cartesianism which is Man's subordination of the world.

>>16138760
Kant is very hard if you don't have any philosophical background. I do not recommend because you will be discouraged from philosophy.

>>16139023
What should I read in order to understand/enjoy Kant? I've already read Descartes and the Greeks.

>>16139086
Leibniz and Hume. but he'll still be difficult, bc he's a shit writer.

>>16139086
Just read Hume's enquiry and you should be good to go.

>>16139102
>>16139107
Thanks, mates

>>16138205
>>16138222
Start with Hegel, and then infer the rest of western philosophy while riding a unicycle

>>16138945
>hierarchy of ideas, with God at the top, Nature at the bottom, and Man in the middle
So... Like the Greeks?

>>16139086
>>16139102
As much as I like Leibniz, I'd sooner suggest Locke. He comes into play more in Kant and I haven't found Leibniz to do much for me reading Kant. Not yet at least

>>16139726
No. They had a rigidly stratified worldview that is reflected not just in their cosmology but in the immutability of their social classes, the corporeality of their gods, and the closeness of the agora and the polis itself. They originally thought the Earth was a flat body enclosed by the sky, and after they found out the Earth is round, they still thought of it as a closed body. There was no friction inherent in these structures. The Cartesian hierarchy is much more imperialistic; God commands Man, but Man commands everything in God's Creation. The industrial revolution is already germinating in Descartes mind. I recall him saying in the Meditations (though I may be misremembering) that it is Man's right to be Lord and master of nature.

>>16139916
Stop talking so arrogantly about shit you literally know nothing about

>>16139932
Who's being arrogant here? You must be a Marxist.

>>16138828
prove that thinking needs to be happening to a thing. husserl btfo it

>>16139737
Leibniz is the under-acknowledged grandfather of German philosophy, he's super important.

>>16141100
I've read Leibniz and I'm aware of his influence. I think that's all people are speaking from here, assuming that he must be key to understanding Kant. I'm telling you, having read both, that it doesn't do as much as you would think. In terms of studying the actual contents of Kant's philosophy I find my knowledge of Locke to do much more. Leibniz is better for advancing your sense of logic than he is for metaphysics or epistemology in my opinion, the value of his metaphysics to me is more of an aesthetic and self-contained one.

>>16138205
He got metaphysically btfo by Vyasa though

>>16139737
What specific work of Locke? His theory of mind?

>>16141466
Yes, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" is mostly what I'm referring to.
Again, I'm only talking about what I found helpful, not making an argument about Kant's influences. Between reading that and reading Leibniz's Monadology, the former did much more for me. It's often said that Kant was educated in a context of "Leibnizian tradition" but it could just as easily be said that his work was a deliberate departure from that. I feel like the Critique basically says "this Leibniz thing isn't working, let's take a step back and establish a different footing for that sort of enterprise".

>>16138205
The pornhub guy?

>>16138205
Don't start

>>16139970

>>16138205
Apparently Descartes had to walk everywhere, he couldn't stand being near horses.
There used to be a saying when you'd gone about something wrong- "You're putting Descartes before the horse"

>>16138397
Are you the same Marion poster as last time? How far from Paris 5 do you live?

>>16138205

Start with Peterson.

Start with Schopenhauer and finish with Schopenhauer

>>16138205
Don't start with outdated philosophy or science in general. Duh.