/lit/ - Literature

>>18492083
>Plato is way too easy and pleasant to read.
>/lit/ contrarians think these are bad qualities for a writer to have

>>18492083
Very few people on this board actually read, and you can always tell those who don't by their obsession with recommending random assortments of primary sources. The "start with the Greeks meme" is the most annoying example of this, not to mention the Eurocentrism it betrays.
The Organon is certainly not the worst place to start - most people in the West historically started with it, or with something like Porphyry's Isagoge - but you are obviously much better served by starting with a good contemporary introduction to whatever area of philosophy you are interested in.

>>18492083
Plato is recommended first because, in general, Plato trains the ability to think in a philosophical fashion more easily. To put it in context, I was in an intro to modern/contemporary philosophy class where people argued against Descartes because they did not think it was provable a demon was actually deceiving them right now. Without the liberating nature of the dialogue you'll have imperfect births of wisdom. Aristotle will perfect the precision of thought, but to have thought at all - that is best left to Plato.

>>18492083
Its worth understanding the context surrounding Aristotle. It isn't enough to know that he was Plato's student-- what did Plato teach? Plato's dialogues make little sense until you understand that much of them are just imaginary take-downs of his critics(Sophists) who themselves were the predominant 'philosopher' of the time. They were something like the post-modern psueds of our time.

Plato described the Good; Aristotle taught how to live it.

>>18492338

>Plato's dialogues make little sense until you understand that much of them are just imaginary take-downs of his critics(Sophists) who themselves were the predominant 'philosopher' of the time

You can't really appreciate those "take-downs" without understanding formal logic.

>Plato described the Good; Aristotle taught how to live it.

Aristotle didn't even believe in "the Good" and he doesn't really write about how to grow in virtue either afaik, though he writes about what the virtues are.

>>18492560
>You can't really appreciate those "take-downs" without understanding formal logic.
You can, considering formal logic did not exist until ~1800's.

>>18492580

The word "formal" is homonymous...

>>18492083
Aristotle was filtered by the Greeks.
Starting with Aristotle is a guaranteed self-filter.

>>18492083
This is the official /lit/ phil101 reading list: Camus -> Cioran -> Euthyphro -> Meno -> Apology -> Phaedo -> Eric Perl - Thinking Being -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Plotinus -> Aquinas

>>18492083
The truth is that where you start doesn't really matter. I started at 15 reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra and didn't understand a fucking thing. Took me 3 years to circle back to the Greeks. What matters is that you keep reading, and that you practice some fucking humility toward the place of the text and the author in history.
Because if you just started, you ain't in any fucking position to tell us where people should start.

>>18492083
>start with the Organon.
Man, I swear I tried.
Didn't get anything out of this.
It supposedly requires a "key" to make sense, I suppose.

>>18492560
>You can't really appreciate those "take-downs" without understanding formal logic.

basic logic will suit you just fine, if his dialogues are confusing you either lack context or aren't ready for them.

>Aristotle didn't even believe in "the Good" and he doesn't really write about how to grow in virtue either afaik, though he writes about what the virtues are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
>The theme of the work is a Socratic question previously explored in the works of Plato, Aristotle's friend and teacher, of how men should best live. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle described how Socrates, the friend and teacher of Plato, had turned philosophy to human questions, whereas pre-Socratic philosophy had only been theoretical. Ethics, as now separated out for discussion by Aristotle, is practical rather than theoretical, in the original Aristotelian senses of these terms.[1] In other words, it is not only a contemplation about good living, because it also aims to create good living. It is therefore connected to Aristotle's other practical work, the Politics, which similarly aims at people becoming good. Ethics is about how individuals should best live, while the study of politics is from the perspective of a law-giver, looking at the good of a whole community.

read more.

>>18492083
Kindly reminder that the english translation of corpus aristotelicum by Oxford is available on archiveDOTorg in 12 volumes.

>>18492780
>circle back
lol

>>18493044
The Revîsed Oxford translation by Jon Barnes is FAR superior, correcting archaic and innappropriate language that had made Aristotles' ideas difficult to understand. I bought it and find it enormourly better than the free online translations I had been trying to read. OC Sure comments on this in the first of his latest series of talks on Aristotle. He is the best current Aristotelean I know of, a Wolf of Apollo!
https://youtu.be/sk9HZBX3qrg

>>18492124
>Eurocentrism
Opinion disregarded

>>18492083
The best way to study Plato is by studying Aristotle, who understands Plato a lot better than the Platonists.

>>18492100
Pretty sad that shit writing is conflating with filtering out plebs.

In order to understand Aristotle you need to read the pre socratics. That's what the whole act potency distinction is; a response to the pre-Socratics. What are you some kind of retard? Read it all faggot.

>>18492124
>not to mention the Eurocentrism it betrays.
Stfu you cuck

>>18492124
>Eurocentrism
Go back.

>>18492083
I think the best introduction to something would be to learn it's history, that way you get the whole picture and then choose where to go from there, depending on what you found interesting, i think it's actually better than jumping straight into any other area like metaphysics or something without proper context.

I'd recommend starting with Anthonny Kenny's history of philosophy series.

>>18493258
>>18493631
>>18494357
the actual seethe

>>18492124
>not to mention the Eurocentrism it betrays.
Share with us the Negroid canon.

>>18492083
It's important to start with the presocractics (namely heraclitus)because thousands of years later, their thinking inadvertantly killed millions of lives

>>18492083
Philosophy doesn't happen in a void (sadly). Each is a "yeah, but" to those who came before him. This only refutes the genre according to their standards, not according to your standards.

>>18495392
With that comment, I mainly had in mind how the "start with the Greeks" approach ignores Indian and Chinese philosophy. I am not equipped to recommend reading on Black/African philosophy, but you could do your own research.

>>18495430
Western philosophy doesn't comment on Indians and Chinese until the 19th century so you can ignore it until you get there. There is no black philosophy because there is no black culture.

>>18495480
>Western philosophy doesn't comment on Indians and Chinese until the 19th century so you can ignore it until you get there
This is exactly the kind of Eurocentrism I was talking about. Asian philosophy is worth studying for its own sake, not simply to examine it through the lens of Western philosophy.
>There is no black philosophy because there is no black culture.
This is refuted by a basic Google search.

>>18495513
lolg o back to leftpol BITCH

>>18495513
If you're an Asian, sure. But in that case, go back and talk to people in your own tongue. And there is no black philosophy, only blacks borrowing Anglo philosophy for their own purposes.

>>18495516
Is that the only response you have?

>>18495521
>If you're an Asian, sure
It's still worth studying even if you're not Asian.
>And there is no black philosophy, only blacks borrowing Anglo philosophy for their own purposes.
Again, refuted by a basic Google search.

>>18495534
Not really. Even if they imagine so Asian philosophers aren't speaking to everyone, they're speaking to their people in their culture. If you are of the western culture, absorb your tradition until they are speaking to you. And no, there is no google search that will make philosophers of black men.

>>18495545
This is a bunch of closed-minded babble. I don't read philosophy to pretend I am communing with my ancestors.

>>18495575
You should. That's its only value. Otherwise you are just a tourist. Still waiting for the afrocanon.

>>18495588
I'd rather be a tourist than a larper.

>>18495575
Kike

>>18495596
Larping as what exactly. Do you even know where you are? That universal truth your slope philosophers unearthed would surely have won the day by now, right? Right?

>>18495534
I did a google search and found nothing

>>18492124
>Eurocentrism
Biggest meme since Derrida himself. Self-refuting idea that only gains validity with ressentimental moralists hellbent on fruitless critique.

>>18492135
Why didn't your professor educate those kids better? Even my community college intro to modern philosophy emphasized that Descartes was looking for a universal standard of certainty, thereby justifying the thought experiment.

>>18495633
ever heard of the Ethiopian bible?

>>18492124
Isn't it best to start with a good contemporary introduction to the Greeks?

>>18495644
The Ethiopian bible is black philosophy?

>>18495648
If you are interested in the Greeks, then yes, that would be a great idea.

>>18495648
You can thank me later