/lit/ - Literature

>>16315304
No need to read all of Aristotle.

Naw. Just cut to Epicurus.
Unless you want to be a philosopher someday, that is.

>>16315304
No one expects anything from you, you're just some random retard. But if you don't want to be a retard in philosophical discussions, you should read them.

>>16315304
All philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato

>>16315304
You can skip recent philosophers and stay with Plato and Aristotle.

>>16315304
No just a few of each. Gorgias and theatetus is good if you like those then the republic as well. For aristotle nichomachean ethics, metaphysics and politics/physics if you're interested in his ideology.

>>16315304

With Plato, you'll want to. With Aristotle you can pick and choose.

>>16315304
Plato you probably should but if you’re only interested in philosophy you can skip a lot of Aristotle. I’m a med student and biology graduate so I find his zoological works interesting but you probably wouldn’t.

>>16315304
Yes.

>2 years later
>still on the Greeks
for fuck sake guys I just want to start reading Spinoza and Kant that are sitting on my shelf

>>16315304
Aristotle wrote about plants and shit, you skip those parts. But really why do you need anything other than Rhetoric?

>>16315304
Just go straight to Neech and Evola desu.

>>16315438
Then do, you absolute mongoloid. What are you afraid of? That you won't understand everything? You probably wouldn't regardless. Besides, you still can go back to them for a second reading later on.

>>16315438
>Spinoza
my g-d are people still interested in this shit?

>>16315493
Seeing as how trad Christianity is dead, yeah. Use the force, Luke.

>still no good critical edition of the Organon

>>16315315
Kys tranny

>>16315304
Aristotle was the last Western philosopher worth reading. Why do you need to go further?

>>16315304
Not really. Just read Republic and Aristunkies Metafunkies

>>16315438
just read Descartes before Spinoza and you'll be fine

>>16315315
We've got no text by Epicurus, you goddamn pleb

>>16315315
honestly just kys butters, Epicurus would endorse it, nothing to fear

>>16315467
o-oke...>>16315691
Damn I was so close! Now I have to read some other fucking guy too before I can begin.

>>16315332
This.

>>16315919
you don't have to read everything Descartes wrote, just at the very least read Meditations on First Philosophy

>>16315315
STOP TRIPFAGGING on this FUCKING board. I don’t even care what you have to say because I see that stupid ass butterfly and know there will be nothing of value because you have no respect for the rules and culture of this website.

>>16315956
Your attention keeps her motivated. Stop responding to her and she’ll stop posting. It’s that simple.

>>16316001
>her
Pffft

>>16315493
>Spinoza
My natura naturans are abrahamics still seething this hard about being btfo by him?

>>16315315
Epicurus really has shaped you

>>16316135
I'm only Abrahamic ironically and it is just rather pointless to read him.

>>16315691
Spinoza is irrelevant and boring. How about Descartes and Kant. That seems well-balanced.

>>16315324
This.

>>16315304
No just read Dostoevsky he's a good start. Learn what a world looked like with God in it before and compare it to now.

>>16315304
Of course not OP, I'm sure Plato wouldn't have wanted anyone to read everything. I have asserted this arbitrary heuristic before and I'll contend it again. Only 40% of Plato is relevant. Of course, the other 60 percent is equally as relevant, you figure that one out. Aristotle is more mechanically relevant, I suppose, he's more physically robust and precise. You can just read Feynman's lectures and acquire all things that deal with the natural world, more easily and more thoroughly than pursuing it from an Aristotelian angle. I would maintain then that there is a certain paradox revolving around the immediate relevancy between Plato and Aristotle. Neither more pragmatic nor functional than the other and both equally as disposable, though having the knowledge 'under your belt' may not seem to benefit your academic status or tighten your scholastic posture, what the fuck is relevant, then? Fuck it OP, read them or don't. All philosophy is just spinning the hands of a clock. Faster... Slower... Faster... Backward... Forwards... Slower... Slower...holding the hands still... etc etc.

>>16315304
No, you're expected to read the entirety of both Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon and then NOT move on to more recent philosophic thinkers because nobody born after 1596 should even be on your list. Maybe Marx, if only to learn how NOT to do historical analysis correctly.

>Try to design a system of scientific history
>Oh whoops it's all unfalsifiable a-priori bullshit

>>16315315
Epicurus was a fucking retard. Jump straight to Seneca the Younger, whose school of thought, unlike Epicurus's, was actually useful for something more than making arbitrary moral tautologies.

>>16315315
What's it like to be the FDR of /lit/

>>16315438
Good, because it all begins and ends with the Greeks. Everything after them is pseudo-philosophy. That's the true meaning of "Start with the Greeks".

>>16315326
Not mine

>>16315304
Nah just read a few to get the overall vibe and terminology

For most peoples needs its honestly fine to read some secondary literature on plato and aristotle and just start with Descartes. If your not trying to get too deep into logic I'd say starting with descartes is fine for your average autodidact.

>>16316359
Bacon and Hume birthed Newton and Kant single-handedly gave rise to Einstein. Their psuedo-philosophies were merely meagre attempts at unraveling the true Form of the Universe (which according to Russell doesn't exist anyway), thus all philosophy after the beginning is an organization of variables, elaboration of definition, fine-tuning of equations, and reclassification of our overarching matrix. Rinse, wash, repeat. So I wouldn't say circular anon, but perhaps wavelike in its capacity to proliferate and widen fundamental theories of understanding.

>>16316349
Pretty good.

>>16316419
>Kant single-handedly gave rise to Einstein.
Kants whole project happens on both a transcendent and empirical level. Kant can influence science but ultimately hes reaching beyond sciences bounds.

>>16316419
And what has Einstein given us that is good?

>>16315304
If you don’t WANT to spend an uncertain and likely very long amount of time with the Greeks, then you’re already not gonna make it. Which means no, it’s doesn’t matter what you do. For your purposes skipping around will suit you just fine

>>16315315
Those who want to be philosophers would do best to skip anything written before 1950 until they learn the craft.

>>16316210
he said he wanted to read Spinoza AND Kant, not one or the other
all I said was he should read Dcartes before Spinz

>>16315438
>Spinoza
he says nothing original except, it's just reductive stoic determinism and basic bitch monism entirely disproven by Plotinus and Proclus

>>16316459
A clearer picture of what it is we are looking at. A mathematical explanation for all the constituent parts that make up this fishbowl. Now, that must be appreciated as an ontological, epistemological, and philosophical advancement for our species, agreeable on some level? We mustn't forget that Philosophy and Science are inextricably connected and mutually synonymous in this pursuit of understanding. And also microwave burritos. I'm sure in some form or fashion Einstein helped with those kickass snacks.

>>16316600
yeah, sorry just read that. Still, Spinoza sucks. He's like a creepy preacher boogeyman. If I wanted to read fantastical fictitious accounts I'd read Tolkien again.

>>16316686
Please don't drop out of college, companies need code monkeys and I'm bored of listening to the government every year saying the same old "we need more IT/STEM monkeys".

>read Plato
>realize I could have skipped literally all of him and missed nothing important

woops

>>16316336
>Oh whoops it's all unfalsifiable a-priori bullshit
based retard

>>16316321
Take your meds.

>>16315304
>Are you really expected to read the entirety of both Plato and Aristotle before moving onto more recent philosophical thinkers?

yes, i´m doing that lol

>>16316686
>And also microwave burritos. I'm sure in some form or fashion Einstein helped with those kickass snacks
Take your meds.

>>16316804
I think you pick up some dialectical tricks. Which may ironically sandbag a well-adjusted complex of personality. Socrates is more akin to Hamlet than Falstaff. Certainly garner greater insights than having not read him... It's all a fickle dynamic that can be self-subverted on a whim. As Emerson said, which has gifted unto me a great spiritual freedom:
>“Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradicts everything you said today.”
I dunno maaaaan, take it or leave it, maaaan. It's all the saaaaame, maaaaaan.

>>16316974
Sorry. I'm on a strict /fit/ diet. I dream incessantly about donuts and microwave trash pockets. It seeps out sometimes.

>>16315304
Philosophy is retarded. Read Plato and Aristotle out of interest in history and classics rather than being a philosofag

>>16316135

>My natura naturans

Kek

>>16315315
flat earther misogynist

>>16315304
Just read all of Socrates and you'll be alright

>>16316419
what do you mean by birthed? Hume was 10 years old when Newton died

>>16318725
16 yo *

>>16315334
>read the Republic after Theaetetus
You mad bruv?

>>16315304
No, just skip to Kant

>>16315326
I've never read him so how is that possible? Or is this just a veiled No True Scotsman?

>>16319446
We all live in the mind of an Ancient Greek student listening to one of Plato’s lecture in his Academy whether we are aware of it or not.

>>16315304

you should be somewhat humble in approaching philosophy, if it takes you 5 years to read the greeks, whatever. we don't need more shitposters who haven't heard the arguments to basic questions

>>16315304
Nah, just read Thomas Aquinas, basically

>>16319976
based and breadpilled

>>16319477
Take your meds.