[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 429 KB, 720x655, 1606806191285.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16926164 No.16926164 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw too stupid to understand philosophy

What do I do guys? I tried reading Spinoza and couldnt understand him, so moved on to Kant and I cant even understand the introduction to CoPR

>> No.16926168

Are you a woman? Women can't understand philosophy.

>> No.16926176

>>16926168
No, I'm a 20 year old man

>> No.16926187

>>16926164
> "moved on" to Kant after failing to understand a different philosopher
> Kant, the infamous filter
Don't worry, it's just that you're too stupid. Not too stupid to understand philosophy, but too stupid to pick a book you have a chance at understanding

>> No.16926194

its ok to start with secondary sources

>> No.16926199
File: 1.10 MB, 1200x1831, lossy-page1-1200px-Fantomas_1911_cover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16926199

>>16926164
You come to where the fun is, anon...

>> No.16926214

start with the greeks

>> No.16926230

>>16926214
I've read a lot of greeks already

Also read hume, descartes, a bit of scholastics, Locke, Leibniz, Baumgarten

But I dont feel like I've learnt anything from all this. Nothing with me has changed and I can not understand Kant

>> No.16926240

>>16926164
>tfw too stupid to understand philosophy
Read Jordan Peterson.

>> No.16926258

>>16926164
Whoa there friend. You gotta back it up.
Spinoza is heavy. Kant is HEAVIER. There are scholars who spend decades trying to parse through a single chapter of Kant. The man is basically the greatest thinker of the past 500 years (barring Uncle Ted).
Unironically, start with the Greeks. Listen to some lectures (Oxofrd and Yale both have some good stuff online) to help you through the readings. Starting with some of the more politically oriented texts might be best, as the ideas from those are a bit more digestible, as they still have resonance in contemporary discourse.
Get a good base going, and revisit Kant in a year.

>> No.16926287

>>16926168
Women write the best books on Hegel,so you're wrong

>> No.16926319

>>16926164
You need to learn how to analyze the books you're reading

How to Read a Book has a really good method for doing so. I suggest you read it and apply the methods.

>> No.16926340

>>16926164
its normal, you're entering a conversation mid way through

start with plato, aristotle and plotinus

>> No.16926342

>>16926287
rose is mediocre.

>> No.16926343

>>16926319
> "how do I learn how to read books"
> "read a book"
> "fuck"

>> No.16926362

>Go get Sophie's World.
>Read the parts in Arial font.
>You are now better versed in the history of philosophy than 95% philosophy majors.

>> No.16926385
File: 441 KB, 3056x1234, c4f9a61c302fa6adae0d6422b6d3dc3d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16926385

>>16926258
This
Kant is infamously difficult

>> No.16926429

>>16926343
It should be on every bookshelf in every home

>> No.16926431

>>16926164
You don't study maths by starting from the calculus instead of the arithmetics.

Start with the Hellenes. 99% of philosophy you could ever read is a continuation of some Platonic or Aristotelean point anyway. Until that German hillbillie resets it by restarting from Parmenides.

Second - place yourself into the context. Both authors you have mentioned have been read for centuries, and are themselves based on centuries old discourses. Read secondary literature before the primary one.

And set your reading goals straight, philosophy is a goal driven process, it's not poetry. If you don't expect to learn something specific, you won't.