/lit/ - Literature

Keep in mind that only the late era can be confidently assumed to be plato's "late period". The early and middle periods are inferences made philologically. We also know that The Laws is Plato's final work (and should not be skipped, it represents him at the height of his maturity). Ideally you read Homer, Hesiod, the Tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides) and Aristophanes before reading Plato.

>>17988425
>it represents him at the height of his maturity
More like it represents him as a completely broken man lmao

>>17988367
Start with The Death of Socrates by Plato, it’s 4/5 short dialogues.

Is there any general reading guide or flow chart?

You could follow an online course like this one
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLw4-Fp0S2dJbBtytnCcVUXCaVZOvsPs00

Most uni courses are much more shallow than this now unfortunately, more topical skims, until you get to higher levels anyway. But this is a good all round introduction. He isn't as great on the most recent modern stuff (and he skips a few things), and also you might not want to read as much medieval stuff as he does (you could consider skimming those lectures), but it is a good intro in general.

I recommend looking at earlymoderntexts.com, which has cleaned up and annotated versions of some major texts and a good set of major names. Cropsey and Strauss' Political Philosophy is also pretty good for basics on early modern stuff.

If you want to do Being and Time, look up Dreyfus' Berkeley lectures on it, on youtube or archive.org. Sadly the syllabus is no longer available. Oh and look up Daniel Bonevac's youtube series on 20th century thinkers too, those are nice introductions.

Starting will be hard, reading Plato and Aristotle if you've never read anything like them will tax you initially but it's worth it. You are basically learning how to think. Reading order is kind of meaningless honestly because while there is an ideal reading order, something like starting with the Greeks and then reading the major early moderns (and maybe an overview of Aquinas and scholastic philosophy or something if you are interested), then Kant and German idealism, etc., it would take so long to do this and you will have so many reversals and changes of viewpoint along the way that it's dangerous to burden yourself with a strict chronological approach. Most likely you will jump around and take a while to find what you really like, what approaches you instinctively feel more at home in, and this will guide your reading.

But you can't go wrong trying to get a handle on the Greeks honestly, and the early moderns. I would avoid Barnes' book on the presocratics, just a heads up.

>>17988466
>Dreyfus
based, go watch his lectures on homer and aeschylus also, they're on youtube

>>17988425
I don't think all that is necessary before reading Plato. I mean everybody should read Homer, Hesiod, and the Greek playwrights in their lives but thinking you have to do all that before setting foot in the Meno is just going to overwhelm you. OP should at least try reading Meno, Euthyphro, Crito, Phaedo, and Phaedrus before he goes crazy doing preliminary readings, to get a taste of Plato at his more famous and iconic moments.

If you want to saturate yourself in Greek culture prior to reading Plato you could always read something hefty like Jaeger's Paideia.

>>17988464
I've never seen a perfect one, they either include too many figures without distinguishing in priority between (let's say) an Aristotle and a Boethius, or they include too few figures. Not that there's anything wrong with Boethius but he ain't as important as Aristotle, and a chart that puts those two and Descartes and, let's say Gassendi on the same level is going to give you the wrong impression (that you have to read chronologically through every major and "minor" figure from start to finish).

If you do find charts like that, use them for general guides, start getting the lay of the land, but take them all with a grain of salt.

>>17988367
You already have a lot of good starting material, I’d suggest looking into the pre-Socratics while complementing it all with some tragedies (Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides) and of course, the Iliad and the Odyssey.

bump

>>17988367
I would recommend starting with some sort of history of philosophy book to get a basic understanding what kind of questions the philosophers are working with

>>17989903
I have the bertrand russell one, is that one good?

>>17989907
Haven't read it, but it's probably fine. Think I heard he's not afraid of giving his own opinion on the ideas in the book, so just keep that in mind.

>>17988367
According to Heidegger, everyone had it wrong up until him. So I guess you could start there,

>>17988367
>>17988464
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>17990083
Very long post

>>17989907
Not great, neither is Kenny when it comes to stuff outside his analytic purview

>>17988367
How about figure it out on your own, retard? Yeah, you won't, cause you're a dilettante. Even if I presented you with the perfect reading guide you would ignore it or want to skip books because you're a moron and a dilettante, instead of being humble and getting to reading.

Just pick a fucking "philosophy" book you find interesting and get to reading. If you are a normie simply wanting to impress other normies, go read Wikipedia.

Copleston's History of Philosophy volume 1

>>17988367
https://4chanlit.fandom.com/wiki/Charts#Philosophy
See the charts here.

>>17988367
>I mostly read fiction literature.
>I want to get started reading philosophy.
You'll still be reading fiction

Philosophy 101 by Peter Kreeft

The Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee

>>17988367

Several thoughts:

(1) There is an abundance of ill-founded advice circulating /lit/ which suggests one ought to start with <i> standalone </i> resources in one's introduction to philosophy (e.g., Copleston’s History or Russell’s History) — this is, quite plainly, bad advice. These works should be treated as companions at best. There are a few reasons for this; the primary one is the unavoidable biases that beget these histories. As a special example, Russell’s History is chock full of tendentious and remarkably unsatisfactory analyses of many thinkers of the modern era. One would be ill-advised to begin their introduction by reading Russell without the original texts.
Advising that one ought to “read the original texts” is by no means a ground-breaking insight — though it is crucial point that need be made.

(2) All modern philosophy is a reaction to Cartesianism; more specifically, modern philosophy consists of answers to the challenges of modern skepticism — i.e., those produced by Descartes’s observation that mind is logically self-contained. This idea is true for Hume, Locke, Kant, Heidegger and countless others. And it’s because of this that I will argue that Descartes should be our starting point. This is by no means an uncontroversial consideration. There is in many ways a certain kind of esotericism or mysticism that is inextricably tied to Plato that unnecessarily confounds the amateur philosopher — the source or cause of this is not what I’m interested in discussing. An introduction to universals, for example, through the existence of non-material forms is simply at odds with our common sense intuitions as modern readers. It is the sort of doubt engendered by Descartes’s observations that is immediately relatable to us. The Meditations suck us in almost immediately.

>>17994539
When will I be knowledgeable enough to start getting into German idealism, starting with Kant?

>>17994825
If you're interested in getting into German idealism, I would recommend the following writings, in order:

(1) Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy I-II
(2) Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book I
(3)* Leibniz's New Essays on the Human Understanding
(4) Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
(5) Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (you can start from Section I).

* denotes the reading is optional.

This is, of course, a general guide for the modern reader. If your interest is in epistemology or metaphysics in particular, the order may vary to some degree -- and so may the chapters/sections.

In reading the authors listed above, you'll also pick up on the problems with which Plato and Aristotle grappled -- and become acquainted with the solutions these Greek philosophers posed; however, in general, Kant explicitly references the writings of the authors I'm encouraging you to read above.

From here, I'd say you have enough of a preliminary understanding to begin touching upon Kant's other writings -- and, by extension, the works of the post-Kantian idealists (e.g., Fichte, Hegel).

>>17995120
Thanks anon, Im screencapping this as I'm currently working through Plato with the end goal of reading Hegel. Helps a lot.

>>17995171
Glad I could help

>>17995120
Do you have any similar writing recommendations in general?

>>17995411
recommendations of writings* >>17995208

Do you have any opinion on the general "must-reads" of philosophy?

>>17988367
You can pretty much read that list chronologically

>>17988466
Where can one find the readings for the course?

>>17988367
I suggest picking an subject that interests you, and researching the founding works on that subject

>>17988367
Do some background history reading in preparation

>>17995424

>Do you have any opinion on the general "must-reads" of philosophy?

There are many works that get thrown around /lit/ that I'd characterize as "must-reads" -- I'll try to limit the scope to one of the author. Please let me know if you’re interested in my thoughts on a particular philosopher or work though.

I see Heidegger mentioned pretty frequently in this thread, especially Being and Time. There's an inventiveness to Being and Time that is unsurpassed by both most contemporary philosophers -- perhaps with the exception of Wittgenstein. It's a game-changer in some ways.

To see precisely how it's a game-changer, it's important to revisit the point I made earlier; namely, that modern philosophy is a reaction to Cartesianism. See, philosophers like Kant and Locke and Hume mistakenly assume, like Descartes, that the relationship between man and the external world can be reduced to the relationship between the conscious observer -- the subject -- and that which is observed -- the object. This is an unspoken implication to many of the questions being posed by these thinkers. According to Heidegger, this is misleading — and also wrong. For Heidegger we are, firstly, <i> beings </i> in the world. That is to say, we are, more fundamentally than we are subjects conscious of objects, beings who exist in the world. What this actually means takes up a good portion of Being and Time, but to see what Heidegger means, take the following example: if I am a professional golfer, I can swing the club with relative ease — perhaps even without thinking about the act of swinging; that is, without being conscious of the act of swinging. Additionally, while I’m swinging I may be in a philosophical discussion with a fellow golfer. As a matter of fact, there is a variety of activities I can be engaged in simultaneously. The reductiveness of philosophers that preceded Heidegger fails to account for the richness of human experience — the experience of beings in the world.

>>17988367

>>17995756
I just wanted to say thank you anon, you're really enlightening. You study philosophy?

>>17995855
No problem! Thank you. I studied philosophy as an undergraduate. I’m in a math graduate program (logic)

>>17994539
>get indoctrinated by the trickster cathar right from the start
Nothing personnel kid

>>17988367
Pic related. It gives a chapter overview of each philosopher, their lessons and how to apply it to your life. It has both western and eastern philosophers and is what got me started in philosophy.

>>17997045
kek

>>17993492
do anything but this

>become more fat
>legs grow slowly stronger to brace against the extra gravity
>as legs gain more muscle mass, the nutrient requirements to sustain them increases
>eat more food
>grow more fat
This is the circle of life and basically the key to all philosophy

>>17988367
>Copelstone’s history of philosophy
If you have the time, this is a good chronological intellectual history overview.

>>17988425
>>17994825
This + PreSocratics & Tao Te Ching

>>17994287
Magee’s great