/lit/ - Literature

>>17567785
Just. Fucking. Read them.

>>17567785
Do whatever the fuck you want if you are compelled to wander off on your own into the darkness away from the light and you're warned yet heedless fucking go for it stupid cunt good luck to you everyone starts at the beginning else they don't start.

>>17567785
Do midwits really?

>>17567798
>Just. Fucking. Read them.

>>17567785
>I've already read a lot of philosophy just fine without having read anything more than the Republic, so why do people recite this same old silly line?
You can understand Heidegger and Aquinas just from one Platonic dialogue?

>>17567805
>everyone starts at the beginning else they don't start.
Oh, so I trust that you are well acquainted with Sumerian literature such as the hymns and poetry of Enheduanna, high priestess and daughter of Sargon of Akkad, right? RIGHT?

>>17567851
Yes, I've read Kant, Descartes, Locke, Wittgenstein, etc. just fine.

>>17567785
It gives you the fundamentals of western philosophy, because almost everyone later were immersed to some degree of Greek thought.
You'll also find the Greeks deal with many major problems of philosophy that you may consider modern novelties.
You don't need to read that much of the Greeks to get the bigger picture.

>>17567860
That's not who I asked about, midwit.

>>17567897
>Have you read these two specific philosophers that rely on the greeks? If you haven't you don't understand philosophy!!11!1!!
I've read some of Heidegger's being and time but I haven't read Aquinas, so what?

>>17567946
>I haven't read Aquinas, so what?

>>17567785
You need to start with the Greeks because all subsequent cultures are just inferior copies and incomplete attempts at recreating our example of model civilisation. It's the apex of humanity and it's the greatest source of intellectual insight and cultural richness.

You and most of /lit/ simple got filtered, so we just repeat it for people better than you.

>>17567785
>I wonder if I can stick my dick into that?

>>17567854
*step-daughter

>>17567785
>why
>is given reason
>surely there's better reason
no there's not everyone references them
phylosophy is just footnotes to Plato and Aristotle and litterature is just sad imitators of Homer, deal with it.

>>17567854
yes and she was a pseud.

>>17568019
I don't really read theology and Aquinas just seems like dense medieval autism to me.
The best theological writers I've read are probably Luther, Calvin, and Kierkegaard.
I think, essentially the only book you really need to read is the Bible though.
Jonathan Edwards is also really good, his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is one of the most powerful sermons I've ever read.
>>17568052
Yes, that's right, my bad.

>>17568105
kek

>>17568123
>>17568052
Wait nvm, I was right, what are you talking about?

>>17568137

skip the greeks, skim the wikis, read the classics in your own language

>>17568150
based

Great Conversation

>>17568143
Kek you were making a joke about a fucking E-Celeb, my bad I missed it.

>>17567785
i suggest you dont read at all

>>17567785
der bug man

>>17568269
>>17568280
>Wahhhhhh, wahhhh, you didn't do x,y, and z so you are le not aloud to pick up a book, waaaaahhh, wahhh.
Kill yourselves.

>>17568306
Fuck off with your threads about your intellectual security. You'll always be a midwit.

>>17567785
Jfc OP, I hope you're baiting, otherwise yet another shitty thread.
>So you can understand the heckin' referencerinos!!!!11!1!!1
It's not for obscure references like in Ulysses, it's because most philosophical works build off of ideas from other authors/texts and the vast majority of people who go in blind end up missing a lot. Now you might be the exception, but given your replies here I strongly doubt that.

>>17567785
then dont read them and fuck off, nobody cares what you do

>>17567785
Because they're crucial to learn the very foundations of Western philosophy tradition and you can find either Plato or Aristotle in any philosopher worth reading.

>>17567785
Here's the thing OP. Reading Plato changes a person. The way his dialogues approach questions and encourage answesr is not taught in our society and is not intuitive. The school system doesn't teach people to be "socratic" in their approach. It teaches people to be "critical" in their approach. (of course, this "criticalism" does not extend to being critical of establishment narratives but that's for another post).

Take for example Phaedrus and rhetoric? What is the purpose of rhetoric? According to the dialogue, rhetoric is NOT about truth but about convincing people of a point of view. Getting to this point only requires being convincing, it does not require truth. How are you convincing? Knowing your audience and the type of argumentation which would be most poignant to them. If average people understood this they wouldn't be upset about "fake news" since they would know that all rhetoric is by nature fake. Yet, people honestly thought that there some aspect of honesty in the type of information we were receiving. And this is just one small part of the whole dialogue. Pro-tip: Get yourself a relatively modern translation, don't get archaic 19th century translations, and you should be good to go.
>>17567854
It's not about chronology or being "first.' The Sumerians just wrote mythology. They didn't have anything insightful to say about philosophical questions unless you plan on becoming a sumerian pagan and adopting Sumerian cosmology. Otherwise there's nothing overt you can be taught by them. I suppose you could perhaps use the actions of their gods as to clarify what's good and bad, what is honerable or dishonorable etc. But are you really? I doubt it. Plato explicitly touched on timeless themes that remain topical in our lifetime. Sumerian mythology does so only in an obscure way and that's only if you choose to interpret it as such.

>>17568739
This isn't a thread about what I do, it's a thread meant to call into question this stupid cliched advice.

>>17567785
Read em if you want but I didn't find it particularly instructive. Their ideas permeate so much of modern thought that it can feel like really obvious stuff at times.

>>17567785
Because all western philosophy after them was built on top of what they said.

>>17567785
Thank you

>>17567785
Because the Germans were obsessed with the Greeks when they developed modern ontology and the French, Brits, and Americans have been trying to larp as Rome with their revolutions (which is just Greek larping).

>>17569392
>Their ideas permeate so much of modern thought that it can feel like really obvious stuff at times.
Because people take it for granted.

Greek philosophy is basically the ground floor for philosophy. It’s the foundations, if you were learning a martial art you would start with the basics. Later philosophy is built off Greek philosophy. You don’t have to start there but starting on something like Absurdism is like listening to math rock or something before listening to classic rock. Later philosophy is more specialised and obscure. You won’t get “the big picture” like you will with early philosophy. The Greeks flow into everything after, it’s a progression, but the opposite is not necessarily the case.

>>17569419
Of course, and I'm not denying that they were geniuses of their time. But if you're even semi well read you'll probably not get much new out of their more famous works. I guess if you're an absolute beginner they might be good places to start

>>17569457
>But if you're even semi well read you'll probably not get much new out of their more famous works. I guess if you're an absolute beginner they might be good places to start
Terrible mindset to have.

>>17569457
>But if you're even semi well read
nigger how are you well-read if you never read the greeks? What you reading, "to kill a mockingbird?" High-school core.

>>17567785
Because the Greeks are the forefathers of western philosophy and narrative and reading them will make you understand how those two aspects have evolved and transformed over the ages. But also because they wrote some damn good stories and presented some very relevant ideas. Just read them, anon, if anything because you'll have a good time doing so.

Anyone have a good chart on getting to grips with the Greeks?

I recently started reading philosophy with Kierkegaard's fear and trembling, it's well written but I'm not into Christianity, should I read it anyways? What other philosophy text should I check out besides plato?

>>17567785
The Western canon is best thought of as a conversation spanning two millenia. There aren't many works in philosophy that aren't in response to another work. I would start with Zeno of Elia and read onwards. Try to only focus on seminal works and thought experiments. Then only read references if you have to as you progress. Don't just read Hegel or Nietzsche. Both of them are arguing with Kant and Plato. You can't understand later works without understanding what they're trying to undo.

>>17567785
>wants an answer
>inb4s answers
Fine, don’t do whatever you want.

>>17567785
You dont start with the greeks, you fall upon them by necessity later on.

>>17569304
Sumerian wisdom literature > Ecclesiastes and Psalms

>Possessions are flying birds -- they never find a place to settle.
>A heart never created hatred; speech created hatred.
>He who does not support a wife, he who does not support a child, has no cause for celebration.
>Fate is a dog, well able to bite.
>Fate is a raging storm blowing over the Land.
>Tell a lie and then tell the truth: it will be considered a lie.
>Hand added to hand, and a man's house is built up.
>A hand will stretch out towards an outstretched hand. A hand will open for an opened hand.
>As long as you live you should not increase evil by telling lies; for if you do, to succumb will be your lot.
>Weighing scales made with sinews are a trap made for the feet; a man should not take a merchant for his friend.
>He who insults is insulted. He who sneers is sneered at.
>A good word is a friend to numerous men.
>When present, it was considered a loincloth; when lost, it is considered fine clothing.
>When righteousness is cut off, injustice is increased.
>The lion who lives a life of compassion will receive it.
>A man raising his hand in anger does not see clearly.
>Whatever the man in authority said, it was not pleasant.
>Whatever the man in authority said, it was not right.
>Ignoramuses are numerous in the palace.
>Oh Utu, you are my judge: pronounce my judgement! You are my decision-maker, decide my case! The dream that I have seen -- turn it into a favourable one! Let me walk straight, so that I can catch up with my companion!
>That my friend should be well is our wish, and that our enemies should be gone! May those friendly to you reach their goal as a ship does a friendly harbour! May your enemy, like the flood waters of a river, return to his city.
>A loving heart builds houses. A hating heart destroys houses.
>Let the favour be repaid to him who repays a favour.
>To take revenge is an abomination to Ninurta.
>When a trustworthy boat sets sail, Utu seeks out a trustworthy harbour for it.
>The rich man's heart is sick, it is very sick indeed.
>Talking endlessly is what humankind has most on its mind.
>By following craftiness, one learns how to be crafty. By following wisdom, one learns how to be wise.

I want to "start with the greeks" just so I have the necessary basics but I don't want to spend too much time on them, could someone recommend me the absolute barebones must-read list?
What are the most important works from Plato and Aristotle that I should read before getting into other philosophers?

>>17567785
because others wasted their time and they need to cope by pretending it's worthwhile

alternatively, they're brainlets who actually believe Plato's """"conclusions"""". a shocking number of people in this latter group here, actually.

>>17567785
If you want to into genre fiction you start with Tolkien and go from there, for reasons.

End with the Greeks

>>17569304
>the school system doesn't teach people to be "socratic" in their approach
sorry you went to public school anon, but mine did. I get that for high school dropouts who enjoy Christopher Nolan films Plato seems deep and insightful. But you had an ounce of the insight you claim to have gained from reading Plato, you'd recognize the flaws in the dialogues, how Plato writes characters to not question the hand wavy bits, but then also act as strawmen that Socrates can beat down. The "socratic method" is not what's demonstrated in Plato, in spite of that being its origin; unless, by "socratic method" you mean an ebin pseud btfo'ing literal children

Start from the Greeks isn't just saying to read them because other people reference them it's because all of philosophy and western human thought in some shape or form relies on the Greeks as a starting point. Without understanding Platonic or Aristotelian thought, you cannot understand Christian Thought. Without Christian thought you cannot understand enlightenment. And so on. It really can just be taken as pragmatic advice not because of some preference of what philosophy or area of thought is best.

>>17569304
>people wouldn't be upset about fake news because all rhetoric is fake
imbecile, the problem is that the news isn't supposed to be rhetoric. Obviously, it's always going to be twisted and interpreted, but lately news has gone from "deliberately misleading" to flat out falsehoods published as fact.

>>17571170
Faggot

>>17571136
Anyone?

>>17571087
inb4's are for lazy incels who think prediction cancels out an argument.
chad move: state opinion in entirety with no posturing to mock possible counter-arguments.

>>17567785
It's not an invitation, OP.

>>17567785
I accept this but i want to know what order to red them in and who.

>>17571136
Read these:
Corpus Aristotelicum
The Republic

>>17571233
Complete Works of Plato and Complete Works of Aristotle or go back to r*ddit

>>17569814
Read the greeks then read the birth of tragedy and genealogy of morals

>>17571260

>>17571205
>this is the type of rhetoric plato cultivates through the socratic method

>>17571284
I got the nicomachean ethics already, are they important?
>The Republic
I thought people said not to start with this one

>>17571288
but these are both extremely r*ddit suggestions

>>17571291
Garbage midwit chart

>>17571300
go back

>>17571136
>just so I have the necessary basics but I don't want to spend too much time on them
What's up with this sort of five-year-plan mindset in relation to reading philosophy? You aren't just collecting thinkers, you're reading them. Why don't you want to spend too much time on them? What do you think is more pressing? How do you even know what's pressing to read if you're so uninitiated into philosophy?

>>17571288
>>17571300
Oh, I see now. You were suggesting either:
>go read Plato or Aristotle
or
>go to r*ddit to learn how to argue like Plato or Aristotle
Got it. I think, having witnessed the results of Plato's education firsthand on this website from the /r/philosophy migrants in this thread, I'll pass.

>>17571313
stop replying to me with your cringe posts

>>17571312
I'm not particularly interested in platonism. I want to read him because it'll apparently give me the necessary basics to understand other philosophers better. So I don't want to spend more time than necessary on him

>>17571313
>I think, having witnessed the results of Plato's education firsthand on this website from the /r/philosophy migrants in this thread, I'll pass.
I get that you're engaging in an anonymous autism battle with the other guy, but this is an awful mindset. Don't let retards taint your impression of a thinker

>>17571328
You don't know what platonism is you hopeless pseud

>>17571328
>I'm not particularly interested in platonism
How do you know that when you haven't read him? What do you think you're more interested in?

>>17571174
Christian thought, I'm sorry but no you don't get to claim the modernity. Fuck off trad tard.

>>17567785
>I'm reading should stand on it's own and
lel, then there would be no room for interpretation. this is your brain on late stage prostestantism, ladies and gentlemen.

>>17571340
I've read about platonism, sorry for making you angry that wasn't my intent
>>17571345
I've read about platonism from secondary sources. I'd like to read about subjective idealism and relativism but apparently I won't understand shit if I don't read the greeks first.

>>17571327
no, I'll keep replying till you say something substantial. You can expect a lot of (You)s in your future

>>17571374
Sorry anon but you won't understand shit regardless of what you do

>>17571386
That's not nice, why do you say that?

>>17568123
Aquinas is really cool. The way he distinguishes essence and existence was revolutionary and his take on hylemorphism and direct realism is also pretty interesting, especially when contrasted to modern epstemology

>>17571332
Honestly, I've read a bit of Plato. Just the 5 dialogue meme with trial/death of socrates + meno. And I wouldn't even mind it, if it we're just considered for its historical merit (ie promoting the socratic method, thinking deeply about things, whatever). But any time I try to discuss it here, most people seem to legitimately think that Plato had it all figured out. That souls just cycle between living and dead. That we just remember things from past lives. It's interesting as an idea but completely flawed logically. I have trouble taking this board seriously when 90% of posters don't seem to recognize the logical fallacies Plato makes and just take it as gospel. It's the exact opposite of what is claimed -- that reading Plato makes you think -- when in reality it's just another "regurgitate what someone famous said" meme.

I'm going to continue reading it, largely because it's just interesting to see how people thought 2500 years ago in such clear detail. But there's very little to take away from it in terms of logical thinking

>>17567785
so you can appreciate bussy

>>17571304
>Fagles instead of Lattimore
Chart confirmed garbage

>>17569411
>IT'S ALL LARPING BRO

>>17571432
It's for people who can decide on their own translations and order of reading

>>17571431
This

I'm reading Plato now after gaining significant familiarity with modern philosophy, and I'm getting a lot more out of it than I would have had I read it first.

In truth, it doesn't really matter where you start in the hermeneutic circle.

>>17567785
If you creeps actually made an effort to further conversation instead of baiting ppl you'd probably get your goals completed.

>>17567862
Don't answer a low effort bait thread. It's just a shitty mod living off the high of other's efforts

>>17571425
What I think is most interesting is really just the themes Plato brings up and their lasting relevance. Plato's take of recollection persisted for over 1500 years in various schools and especially the Church. Augustine's modification of recollection to illumination, further modified by Aquinas is still one of the major standards as an explanation for universals.
I also really liked Socrates answer to the pythagorean in the Phaedo about consciousness. That still persists today in the debate about emergent consciousnesses. And I reccomend every pagan I converse with to read Meno. Some guys I used to talk to knew me as the guy who would always say "Read Plato"

>>17571472
The only way to get any kind of answer is through bait. I've made so many damn threads and posts that sincerely and competently enquire into a subejct. They all go unanswered. I make some half assed bait post and I get (You)s up the ass.

>>17571404
he's a projecting pseud

>>17571487
>And I reccomend every pagan I converse with to read Meno
Meant to say Euthyphro

>>17571509
>no u
Cope midwit

>>17571501
That's the start you retard and a terrible desperate one at that. You expand the metaphysics to go into other subjects and answers for them. You're just getting high off baiting newfags and sifting for gold. It gets old. Post interesting opinions and develop on them. Especially when you contradict yourselves by allowing political and drug threads.

>>17571501

>>17571487
What you described is a perfectly valid reason for reading it, and is basically why it's interesting to me, too. I think there's stuff to get out of it. But I think the type of people who believe everything semi-convincing they read (most of this website, /pol/ being a great case study) should not read Plato, they are unlikely to suddenly start thinking, and very likely to start believing things that are completely false.

>>17571425
>I'm going to continue reading it, largely because it's just interesting to see how people thought 2500 years ago in such clear detail. But there's very little to take away from it in terms of logical thinking
It sounds like you're pretty much on the right track. I think there are actually some pretty great arguments in there too, though. The conclusion that stands out most to me is "virtue is knowledge."

>>17571515
suck a fat one, bitch boy

>>17571425
0 iq post

>>17571526
You don't find Plato interesting if you think that. This site is based on being manipulative and separatist.

>>17571549
0 effort post

>>17571526
Absolutely true.

>>17571487
>>17571526
I also think that midwits have a tendency to fall for rhetoric rather than logic (somewhat ironically mentioned above as something Plato teaches you) and so see a dialogue where Socrates is chad and everyone else is brad, and then they start to really /feel/ like socrates and develop a superiority complex where they self-insert as socrates
>>17571549
I'm sure you'll come up with a good insult one of these days. You were almost on to something with this one >>17571327 Keep it up!
>>17571550
I guess I'm bored while reading and didn't even realize it, then

>>17571543
>>17571549
Nobody gaf about your "individualist by contrarianism" philosophy. I find it funny you faggots are pro nazism but act like the biggest turbo liberals in exactly everything

>>17571565
There's no difference between rhetoric and logic unless you're schizophrenic.

>didn't realize it then
Then why even post?

>>17571556
>>17571565
>>17571574

>>17571574
what in god's green fuck are you blathering about. I'm having a bitch-off with a dumbass, far as it goes.

>>17571583
rhetoric is the attempt at convincing someone you have logic. If you don't understand the distinction, you've probably fallen for a lot of rhetoric and thought it was logic.

>>17571350
Liberalism originates from the Medieval developments of nominalism and is Christian in origin.

>>17571589
>having a bitch-off with a dumbass
is that how you've been interpreting our exchange? lol

>>17571587
they're all tards, but not circlejerk tards.

>>17571523
I guess I am the midwit

>>17571108
I can't tell a difference. Seems like it's saying the same thing in similar language.

>>17571587
>>17571589
The truth my friend that's why I made you self conscious and I don't need to spend an hour posting two word replies until you're tired to do so.

>>17571591
Do you know which rhetoric that is and can you prove it in a metaphysics or are you just full of shit like I said?

>>17571187
>the problem is that the news isn't supposed to be rhetoric
it IS supposed to be. It was always weaponized information. You are such a great example of a boomer idealist. News was always fake.

>>17571600
You're a creepy liberal who got his whole personality from MTV or its derivatives

>>17571583
>are you [false dichotomy]
example of you using (bad) rhetoric in an attempt to appear logical

>>17571549
This

>>17571610
Why is news meant to be rhetoric?

>>17571624
because it's a conversation to convince people of something.

>>17571598
who are you? I just tell people to suck cox.
God. I just came here to get one one book I should start on to learn greek philosophy and now I'm rolling in the mud like a fucktard
Yeah it's pretty tarded. no more telling people to suck cox. I like the way you think. you red-pilled me on being nice. From now on, I only say things that convey constructive meaning instead of hurt.
wholesomepepe.jpg

>>17571599
>but not circlejerk tards.
That's exactly what they are. Literally none of them understand the first thing about Plato yet they pat themselves on the back for being below average IQ. It's just a r*ddit convention of intellectual midgets trying to feel good about their inability to grasp philosophy.

>>17571425
>But there's very little to take away from it in terms of logical thinking
It is said one should read the Greeks because they are such a great source of logical thinking, as you literally said:
>promoting the socratic method, thinking deeply about things
They did a very good job in getting things right, ironically the things you said they got wrong I don't even disagree with you, but my general takeaway from reading Plato is that it changed me from someone random and contextual to someone with a universal goal. A literal awakening. Again I have the exact same reservations as you, based on what you wrote, and yet our takeaways are vastly different. Focus more on the first thing, about the type of life that they offer and everything about that life, because that continues to be best said by them or at least said incredibly well.

>>17571614
Not a liberal and I never watched mtv. I probably am creepy tho

>>17571630
Is that what news means? It doesn't mean an update into what's happening? Let me head you off, if you say humans don't have complete epistemic knowledge then how can we know or study anything? We certainly do otherwise school wouldn't mean anything

>>17571634
>pat themselves on the back
exactly. They're selfjerk tards, not circlejerk tards. do you see any shared love here? other than me loving you ofc. wholesomepepe.jpg

>>17567785
>Why? Can some one give me an actual answer?
They dealt with nearly everything relevant to the human experience , and some of them had better takes than anyone who would subsequently appear in nearly two and a half thousand years.
The rest of philosophy, as Whitehead put it, is merely a "series of footnotes to Plato."

>>17571174
That chart is missing Bacon and Jung, I cannot forgive that

>>17571583
>There's no difference between rhetoric and logic unless you're schizophrenic.
What?

>>17571610
I'm talking about what people are looking for when they read it. Obviously it's always been and will always be manipulated. There's no way to "objectively" relay facts. It's always open to manipulation. But people are still justified in being upset at egregious levels of manipulation, and completely falsifying facts, as has been done more recently, is less common and something people are less willing to accept. You can tell me a black dude died and he was a good boy and didn't deserve to die, and I will know I'm being manipulated, but it's not falsifying the whole thing, just the way it's told. But if the black boy had a gun and that's completely omitted, or stated that he's unarmed, that's not just casual manipulation, that's outright lying. That's what people get annoyed about. Because even if you are aware of the bias, you can't account for it, because once you can't believe the stated facts in an article, there's absolutely nothing left to believe

>>17571643
Yes you're not a liberal because you look on social media who tells you what liberal is. You're an individualist justified by contrarianism. You're a liberal.

>>17571605
>The truth my friend that's why I made you self conscious and I don't need to spend an hour posting two word replies until you're tired to do so.
that's fine /thread

>>17571633
You were already rolling in the mud. You were the one trying to bring me in to roll around with you. But unlike you I'm not a catamite, so I'll just stick to reading the Greeks for the memes and ignore all their conclusions. Don't @ me

>>17571660
Bait doesn't work shithead. You're incapable of knowing anything except feelings. I left this board and all that exists are the high from the last board culture.

>>17571657
I would say in a sense that Christianity is the fulfillment of Plato at least for pagans. We tried our best, our best actually was not that bad, and then we got a bunch of revelation and ironed out all the inconsistencies with Augustine or Aquinas.

>>17571678
I hear ya

>>17571641
see my post here >>17571526 I think we may agree more than you realize from my earlier posts

>>17571678
>Don't @ me
Go back

>>17571509
Well I'd appreciate advice anyway
I checked my books and I got the nicomachean ethics, the apology, phaedrus and the banquet. If I read these, then the republic, will it give me a solid foundation?

>>17571691
>real 4channel users never references other websites' memes for a joke

>>17571690
Saw that after my post, seems pretty true what you said. Its interesting how some read and begin thinking, whereas others go on not thinking.

>>17571678
>I'll just stick to reading the Greeks for the memes
>Don't @ me
Yeah, that's exactly what someone who ignored the conclusions of the Greeks would say.

>>17571583
>There's no difference between rhetoric and logic unless you're schizophrenic.
The most retarded thing on /lit/ currently

>>17571722
>that's exactly what someone who ignored the conclusions of the Greeks would say
в cмыcлe?

>>17567785
The Greeks have yet to be surpassed.

>>17571666
Nope nope and nope. Stop trying to analyze an anonymous person

>>17567785
Because they’re good and an important part of western culture and literature? And for philosophy you have to start with the Greeks because that’s where literally all philosophy starts and ends, it all comes back to the Greeks.

>>17567854
Sumerian literature can be useful if you’re trying to study religion because aparrently a lot Middle East ancient literature and Greek philosophy leaked onto Judaism and later on to Catholicism and Christianity. I’m not too knowledgeable on that, but then again I’ve only read the occasional footnote or commentary on random books.
I guess what that anon is trying to say is that you need to understand the basics of a field to approach more efficiently the advanced stuff and then make your own stuff. The appeal of /lit/ is philosophy and “start with the Greeks” is something that this board, literature and philosophy majors employ.
Old school literature teachers know how to read in Greek and Latin in my country.
T. Wanted to be in arts but went to a more profitable career

>>17567785
read whatever you want holy fuck why is everyone on this site so insistent that they're an independent thinker/actor while also adhering to whatever the site says is good and scorning everyone that says otherwise
I mean really, it takes a special level of fucktard to delude yourself into thinking you're free while also being dependent on the hive for your opinions, and then assuring yourself that you're a member of the collective by retardedly defending the opinions of this collective

>>17568150
Based low T score poster poster

>>17571603
I don't think any of those are from the OT.

>>17571432
>Not pope

So what do I do after finishing with the Greeks? What Romans and Christians are essential?

Plato himself said you shouldn’t waste time learning something you already know because you already learned it in another life. If you find the Greeks boring don’t read them, it’s what Plato would have told you.

Plutarchs Lives

>>17572353
Philo of Alexandria
Plotinus
St Augustine

>>17572391
>strong interest in female anatomy
>tfw all my past lives were virgins

>>17571350
Descartes and Locke were both influenced by scholastic and medieval philosophy. This is just a fact. I'm not saying modernism was created by Christianity but it was definitely part of the process by which these certain thinkers developed their thinking.
Locke, Hume, and Kant certainly did not believe in the same thing, but their individual opinions both influenced and advanced their thinking in some way.

>>17571658
Bacon is #51

>>17572444
I was reading about Aquinas's epistemology last night and I found it extremely interesting to see how similar it was to Locke's. Even tabula rasa was originally Thomist/aristotelian
Also found it funny that Descartes skepticism and cogito are basically lifted from Augustine.

>>17572471
Even Hobbes for example gives us a story of how he learned about hylomorphism as a young man in his verse autobiography.
It's pretty obvious that all of these early enlightenment thinkers at some point dabbled in Christian/Scholastic philosophy.

>>17572353
You're not done with the Greeks.
Nobody's done with the Greeks.

>>17571905
Thank you. Everyone on this board is clinically retarded

>>17571593
Not for me, and many other political theorists, it starts with Rawls.

>>17567785
The Greeks successfully embodied the essence and represent the core aesthetic of philosophy. Socrates was fucking killed for doing philosophy, what better place to get a sense a justifying grandeur of what you are about to undertake? After reading them you can do whatever the fuck you want.

>>17571665
>Because even if you are aware of the bias, you can't account for it, because once you can't believe the stated facts in an article, there's absolutely nothing left to believe
This is post-modernism. It's real. It has real effects.

>>17571905
>fucktard
kys

>>17573203
stay mad

>>17571665
Fuck off racist

>>17573217
in what way?

>>17568143
KEK

>>17571291
>>17571304
Thanks. Can you both please come to a conclusion about who is the midwit though so i can pick a chart to read?

>>17573416
Charts are midwit

>>17567785
you'll be fine. look up any bits you don't understand as they come up. are you really going to read the entire philosophical canon sequentially? -- are you actually going to read Summa Theologica?

Read Republic and some Aristotle as a look at the tension between Idealism, Empiricism, and Materialism when you get to the Modern era

>>17571405
based cognitive realist