/lit/ - Literature

Bump

Bump

>>16970561

>>16970561
Start with the first philosophers by waterfield. Optionally get History Of Western Philosophy for a reference work way too fucking long. 700 pgs. Then cherry pick what interests you from the J Adler reading list and Harold Blooms list

>>16970561
Immediately. This "Let me start at the beginning of philosophy and work through all the great works and *then* I can actually think about the issues myself" is a big mistake. Start by exploring some philosophical issue your actually interested in. How is consciousness possible? Do we have the kind of free will that we seem to think is required for moral responsibility? Does God exist? What does morality require, and why should one be moral? Etc.

Check the Stanford Encyclopedia or search around for an introductory survey book to find some influential works to read and read some of it. But more important than the reading--indeed, what will guide what you read--is your own thinking. You should always be reading with an eye to figuring out the philosophical issue you're interested in. And you should be thinking through the issues as rigorously as you can, trying to formulate clear positions and arguments for those positions. You'll quickly run into issues like "Oh, I need to figure out how to think about ontological reduction, so let me read up on that" or whatever. This will get you to read and think about other things. And so on.

To keep yourself honest, you should write up your thoughts in paper/article form, defending positions on various topics or you should regularly discuss your thoughts with others. Ideally you should do both.

If you really need some book to start with, I guess I'd recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Norton-Introduction-Philosophy-Second
But DON'T JUST READ IT. Pick one of the topics, read one of the selections, try to figure out if it's right. This should take a long time. Then read some of the other selections on that topic and see if they help. Then if you're still interested, branch out from there to stuff outside this book. If you're not, move to another topic within the book.


t. literal philosopher

>>16970561
This is the only "chart" you need

>>16970561
bump

>>16971496
keeping yourself honest? nobody wants to do that!

>>16971496
Thanks for writing that out. I'm a brainlet trying to expand my horizons and I'm going to follow your advice.

>>16971496
Calling yourself a philosopher in >current age is pretty cringe, bro.
There's no such thing as philosophy anymore, only rearrangement of citations.

>>16973078
Wrong.

Here, look at the articles in some recent issues in philosophy journals:
https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philosophical-review/issue/129/3
https://www.pdcnet.org/collection-anonymous/browse?fp=jphil&fq=jphil/Volume/8883%7C117/8991%7CIssue:%209/
https://academic.oup.com/mind/issue
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19331592
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14680068
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10884963
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/phos/current
Or some reviews of recent books:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/recent-reviews/

Maybe you think this stuff is bad (if so, write up some devastating replies!) or not sufficiently 'deep' to hold your interest. But it clearly goes beyond mere citation arrangement. It also seems to me continuous with the activity of Russell, Mill, Kant, Hume, Descartes, etc. all the way back to Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, as well as the lesser philosophers they were arguing with. I mean 'philosopher' as someone who regularly enough engages in this activity, not as an honorific for someone who is very successful at it or is some kind of guru.

>>16971496
Don't listen to this guy. The point of reading philosophy is in its metaphysics. This is liberal academic crap.

>>16970561
Start with Plato's Gorgias. If you agree with him read his Theatetus and his Republic. After Plato read Aristotle's Nichomachaen Ethics. If you agree with him read his Rhetoric. Whether you agree or disagree, read his Metaphysics after. You don't have to read it all but it's a great step to understanding ways to perceive Metaphysics, or systems that map reality (like Physics, the modern subject instead of Aristotle's book, is a system that maps material causation).
After that, check two metaphysical heavyweights out in Parmenides and Heraclitus. From reading Plato and Aristotle you'll see how a Metaphysics can have a wide range of applications in fields like math, a creation narrative, how things exist, ethics etc. Parmenides and Heraclitus are metaphysical extremists but they come from a time before wide applications were expected. What they bring up can be answered by your metaphysics, which you already have before reading these writers.
After that I would recommend reading a nice history of philosophy that is a bit more biased towards your metaphysics so you can see their interpretation across other philosophers.
Alternatively you can read The Cave and the Light by Arthur Hermann for an even take on how universal their metaphysics is.
After that pick where you want to explore and refine your metaphysics. The next big metaphysical clash is between the Stoics and Epicureans. The largest clash would be the German Idealists where a lot of work was done trying to refute the rationalists and empiricists. Ultimately choose what draws you and after exploring that I would read another history of philosophy to tie it all together and fill in knowledge gaps then explore modern philosophy in either the Analytic or Continental philosophers to get more modern tools and terminology to put into your metaphysics.
After that you can explore any piece you missed or want to revisit or you can get into logic and try to develop or adopt a logic language that speaks to your metaphysics.

>>16973652
That's nonsense. None of those articles found their arguments in metaphysics so how are they even negation-complete statements?

>>16970950
why the FUCK isn't Epictetus on the stoic section.

>>16973707
Okay, what's your Metaphysics that this wonderful method has helped you develop? And why think it's true (if you're even aiming for that)?

>>16973718
???

>>16970950
Why aren't Anarchist philosophers included?

>>16973826
>anarchist philosophers
pick one

>>16973774
My metaphysics is founded on existence. By this I can check my metaphysics to see how close it aligns w existence.

Those articles don't explain anything of which you can critique them on. Its citation storms and some deduction that is not from an established metaphysics

>>16971496
don't follow this morons advice, start with the greeks that way you have a good foundation in those that are arguably the most influential philosophers of all time

>>16973916
Ah, I see, that's where contemporary philosophy has gone wrong, it forgot to found its metaphysics on existence!

I would be interested in how you check this alignment. Could you give an example?

I would also be interested in what makes your metaphysics 'established'. Like, do you have some argument for it?

>>16974060
Sure, if I'm asserting or critiquing a dualistic metaphysics of mind then I'd have to prove or rebut dualism as an ontological dimension that is grounded in truth or existence. Then I can apply it to mind.

>>16973652
who is your favorite active philosopher and what is your favorite school of thought

>>16970561
>At what point should I X?
When you feel like it. This is the answer to all questions in life. If you're not ready, you'll know it and feel more motivated to go back and continue doing preliminary work.

>>16974009
lol'd

>>16971544
Based

>>16970561
/lit/ philosophy guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>16975338
That's great for diving but not a good reading guide overall

My experience has been that the best way to start is just deeply reading and trying to understand one of the great books rather than trying to follow some sort of system where you like start with the pre-Socratics or something. Like:

>Plato, the four dialogues in "Trial of Socrates" then Republic
>Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
>Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals
>Descartes, Discourse on Method/Meditations
>Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Having a guide (I like the Cambridge Introductions) will really help. Doing this will sort of naturally lead you through the spiderweb that is philosophy

>>16974776
Maybe Stalnaker?

I dunno. And things these days aren't mostly organized around schools.

But here are some others, in basically random order: David Chalmers (mind, metaphysics, epistemology), Frances Kamm (ethics), Shelly Kagan (ethics), Timothy Williamson (epistemology, metaphysics, language), Sarah Moss (epistemology, language), Mark Wilson (phil science), Gideon Rosen (metaphysics, metaethics), Christine Korsgaard (ethics, metaethics), Jim Joyce (decision theory), Ruth Millikan (mind, language), Kit Fine (metaphysics, language), Susanna Siegel (mind, epistemology), David Wallace (philosophy of physics), Caspar Hare (ethics), Elizabeth Anderson (political philosophy), Martha Nussbaum (political philosophy), David Christensen (epistemology), Elliot Sober (philosophy of science), Ted Sider (metaphysics).

Some greats whose work is still engaged with as contemporaries, even though they've died or otherwise aren't really producing new stuff: David Lewis, Saul Kripke, Derek Parfit, Judith Thomson, Jerry Fodor.

>>16976313
You're not learning philosophy qua philosophy that way. You're learning about a particular metaphysics of a philosopher and not w any particular eye to metaphysics. You can only take them at their word.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

>>16970950
What about eastern philosophy?

>>16978094
What about shutting tf up

>>16977268
Fuck that lecture series. He comes off like a midwit

>>16978094

Stop pretending that any thought of value has ever originated in the east that has not come up in the west in a more refined extent.

>>16979097
I'm more interested in the topic as a cultural study than anything else. Legalism seems to be highly influential there to this day if RoTK's long-standing fame is anything to go by.

>>16978094
Basically doesn't exist in english because everything is mistranslated, misinterpreted, or some kind of scam or smear.

>>16970950
Where's my man Camus

>>16977268
>>16978180

Better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2J7wSuFRl8&list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0

>>16973826
Because they are irrelevant outside of a very fringe group of uneducated faggots

>>16970950
Shouldnt there be Freud on this? I mean psychoanalyse was the big new philosophic category in the 1900s.