/lit/ - Literature

>>18899430
Yeah and that's why you have the retarded shit that comes out of academic journals and philosophy students.

>>18899430
Who cares? We do what we want and we read what we want and you can't stop us.

Yes it is.
Secondary sources are almost always bad.

>>18899430
For me it's the zeroary sources

I don't want to study philosophy. I want to DO philosophy.

>>18899547
You want to fuck philosophy?

Plato scholars corrupted Plato by not focusing 99 percent of their attention on the two gay dialogues

>>18899430
Incorrect, this is the only way philosophy is studied. To study secondary works is to study commentary on philosophy, not to study philosophy.

>>18899430
You do know that /lit/ isn't a philosophy board?

>>18899430
This is why I promote Leo Strauss. Read Leo Strauss.

>>18899430
Why do you think philosophy majors are always retarded and never have any clue what they're talking about? 90% of their study is secondary sources and only 10% is of primary sources.

>>18899564
highly exaggerated claim

The worthwhile secondary sources essentially graduate to primary sources themselves (of the commentor).

Why the hell should I read secondary sources?
You think I wanna hear what John Sanchez from Florida State University has to say about Immanuel Kant? No I wanna hear what Immanuel Kant has to say you bitch.

>>18899430
Fuck academia

>>18899430
Why would I read about what some guy thinks the book means when I could just read the book and decide for myself?

I don’t even read the prefaces. I don’t want to know what tranny thinks about a philosopher before I read them.

>>18899624
>>18899652
>>18899665
You should obviously read the actual primary sources first, but life is pretty long. Once you've read Kant you can read some secondary sources on Kant. It's not going to pervert your view. It will most likely deepen it.

>>18899652
>having your own opinion
You dare!

>>18899430
Not studied this way by your fucking hack sophists? I don't give a shit

>>18899562
No one cares about your kike

so much autodidact cope itt lol

>>18899562
Jew

>>18899947
>>18899953
Read Leo Strauss. Then read his students. Then read everyone else. There is value in secondary literature.

>ITT: seething secondary sources

>>18899430
Sapere aude—have the courage to use your own understanding!

>>18899990
You can't tell me what to do, you're just a cartoon!

>>18899958
Yeah if you're sub 140 IQ

>>18899430
I'm interested in philosophy, not in modern interpretation of someone's philosophy.
Philosophy means thinking, i want to read someone's original thoughts and analyse them myself

>>18899430
>studying philosophy
lmao thats you become a schizo tranny who thinks zhe is a tree

>>18899430
I have been pointing this out for a while. Have you just now noticed that this board is filled with pseuds? The same people who are seething in this thread will no doubt go into another thread and proceed to make elementary errors in exegesis that could have been easily prevented by reading the secondary literature.

>>18899652
Because you're not as smart as you think you are, and by doing so, you remove yourself from the conversation of philosophy.

>>18899430
I'm too high IQ to know that anon.

>>18899560
>he thinks /his/ is the philosophy and religion board

>>18899564
This, actually

>>18901105
OP getting utterly rekt ITT

I only read secondary texts on the Bible or accidentally when Aristotle talks about the presocratics or Kierkegaard talks about Hegel or Kant talks about Wolff etc. I'm never going to let an academic poison my brain with his retarded shit.

Secondary sources are usually pretty bad. Sometimes it's obvious they haven't really read it. You're better off learning a bit about the language and historical context, reading primary, then having a look at secondary (preferably old and grounded).

Academia has designed its literature and philosophy education to produce articles for journals? Why? Because that looks like "research" to the people who keep those departments funded. It's not meant to educate, its meant to sustain itself.

>>18902188
but many of the authors you mentioned were academics....

>>18902240
They were philosophers first and academics second. I'm reading their philosophy texts not secondary/academic texts.

>>18901963
/Pol/ is the philosophy board.

>>18902422
Incredibly based. /pol/ creates contemporary political philosophy while /lit/ is still getting filtered by the Greeks and jacks off at subpar fascist and communist "thinkers"

>>18899430
Reading a good secondary source might or might not be worthwhile, if you've read the relevant primary source(s). But reading a secondary source without reading the relevant primary source is definitely bad. It's like trying to build the first floor of a house without the ground floor. Any sane secondary source will assume you have read the primary source.

No-one has time to read all the important primary sources.

Therefore reading any secondary source means one more primary source you won't read.

Is any secondary source worth more than an important primary source?

Possible, but unlikely.

Therefore our Rule 1 should be:

READ NO SECONDARY SOURCES

— Amendment to Rule 1:
In acknowledgement that this is a slight approximation to perfection, we'll add a whitelist to override this rule. If someone we respect recommends a particular secondary source, we put it on the list.

— Amendment to the Amendment::
No-one who recommends secondary sources is to be respected. (They're probably just shilling their own book or something.)

CONCLUSION:
See Rule 1.

>>18899519
fpbp

>>18900833
How do I know what the right secondary sources are? Sources? So it's a popularity contest where the voters are a bunch of people that can tolerate reading secondary literature to make 1/2 what they could otherwise? Professing isn't what it used to be.

>>18902980
You can just try a bunch and decide for yourself if that's your issue dumbass

>>18902422
I keep debunking their schizo arguments when they come to /lit/ and all they do afterwards is to call me Jew or CIA agent. That's how I know I have won.

>>18903057
Sounds like you got dunked on so hard you didn't even realize it.

/lit/ is my secondary source.

>>18900819
If a text requires exegesis then that text is wrong from the start. Exegesis of a text is essentially a new philosophy, which might well need its own exegesis.

>>18900833
>conversation of philosophy.
Philosophy is fundamentally personal and not dialectical.

>>18899430
If i wanted to be soulless academic I would go into academia.

>>18902235
This. Scientism killed the humanities.

I only read literature and fiction. I have read The Trial and Metamorphosis this week.

>>18903115
Fitting image for saying something that dumb.

>>18899430
>You guys do know this isn't how philosophy is actually studied, right?
>Giving a shit about what unoriginal, mediocre thinkers in academia do
>NOOOOO YOU CANT JUST DEVIATE FROM WHAT MY HECKING ACADEMICINOOOOOOOS DO

>>18899958
>There is value in secondary literature.
No, there isn’t.

>>18899430
Utterly BTFO'd by Schelling

>>18903276
OP has been quite quiet since this has been posted

>>18903103
Holy based

>>18899430
Show me one secondary source that isn't slobbering $0Yjak retarded

>>18903291
Oh there's more

>>18903095
No. I used reason and plenty of sources disproving their claims. They either discarded those sources, called me names or stopped replying. If they attempted to refute me, it was some pathetic attempt resorting to more logical fallacies or shitty sources from other schizos.
It's not hard to win an argument against /pol/tards when they all spend their time in some ecochamber, the same goes for /leftypol/

>>18903276
>To exhaust the depths and very soul of a single dialogue of Plato, such as the Sophist or Philebus, will certainly yield each of you much more significant results than an entire army of commentaries.

>>18903149
You WILL engage in the conversation of philosophy
You WON'T form your own opinions
You WILL take your opinions from the popular discourse

>>18899547

Agree with the anons above. Reading primary sources and letting the ideas turn in your mind before secondary sources (if you must) is important.
However, if someone wants to read someone like Lacan, I would recommend secondary sources immediately.

>>18903307
Thinking you can refute fascism or antisemitism with sources shows me the discussion most likely flew over your head entirely.

>>18903381
Free will and determinism are two of the most overrated and ultimately least important questions in philosophy. Most heavyweight philosophers have basically never seen it as relevant to deal with this "problem" and for good reasons. The only exception is maybe Kant, and Schopenhauer if you consider him a heavyweight. I think even both of these came to conclusions about it which basically made it still irrelevant as a concern.

>>18903438
Bro, Julie Goldberg from the Harvard University wrote in her book, published by Rutledge, that fascism is fundamentally homoerotic and schizophrenic, seeking to be transgressive when all it does reterritorializes the status quo of the inherent contradictions of capitalism vis violence. Bro, get this, Julie cites Deleuze scholars, Agamben scholars, and various secondary and tertiary sources to substantiate her claims!!! What do you mean she hasn’t actually deleuze, agamben and any of the philosophers she cites? What do you mean she just cited secondary and tertiary sources and pulls the exerts from deleuze from other scholars who haven’t read deleuze? Do you have a source for that?

>>18903457
They're very important to normal people

>>18903501
No, they're not. Normal people have no idea what freedom even is. It's an invented concept with no real meaning, no one has ever nor will ever be able to describe what freedom is. And if that is impossible, then "free" will is impossible to even formulate as any possible reality.

>>18903511
Normal people are 100% aware of the concept 'i didnt choose to be the way I am' and they differ in their responses to it

>>18903457
Kant basically ignored it after demonstrating you can't prove it either way and focused instead on "practical free will" (this is what people care about >>18903519)

>>18903519
>'i didnt choose to be the way I am'
That's not what I meant. I'm speaking about the metaphysical idea of freedom. It is impossible to even formulate it without necessarily imposing restraints upon that same freedom, which contradicts the very idea. Fichte gives a better explanation of it than Kant, although he focuses on ego self-positing and its consequences. The common person's dealings with free will basically amount to whether or not they are consciously aware of an action prior to when they perform it (and thus will it), or whether they act unconsciously of intending to act. Obviously this results in the academic term "compatibilism", because all our actions are a mixture of conscious and non-conscious thought. Thought in itself is not the ground of metaphysical free will though because it is entirely conditioned, and so it doesn't actually help with any investigation at a higher level.
>>18903541
Yeah, practical free will is just ethics, though. It has nothing to do with the reality thereof. Ethical actions are naturally detached from something which can't even be given criteria to reason with, and so they persist irrespective of freedom.

>>18902954
You’re on an American website, the ground floor is the first floor.

>>18903438
The discussions were about the vaccines and central banking, nothing to do with fascism and anti-Semitism.

>>18903794
Are you the central banking defener lel
What is your endgame seriously, you're now also defending the vacsneed?

>>18899430
It is at any philosophy department worth its salt.

>>18899430
I got a degree in philosophy. We never read secondary literature.

Anon let me tell you a quote I've heard a while ago: there's no canadian geometry

There isn't much to study in philosophy, important key aspects of world view in, let's say, "healthy minded philosophers" tend to coincidence with one another. Other than that, practice is the hardest thing, not studying it. After "the school of thought" though you how to think, all you need to do next is think (or not).

>>18903815
I'm here to fight for truth and the truth is neoliberalism.

Yes it is a lot of the time and that's why it's bad. Don't assume academia is any better. One of the worst things about the way university teaches academia is that it's too afraid of upsetting the students' delicates sensibilities to actually force them to bend and break their conceptions through rigorous study, so it "offers up" the philosophy to them on a platter and lets them sample it lazily, while also giving them the illusion that this is "how philosophy is studied."

Reading primary sources can be rigorous if you actually collide with them with enough force to crack your mind open on them and have to put it back together. Reading secondary sources can be even more rigorous if you do it the right way: for actual understanding. That way, the bar is "Have I actually understood the primary source or not?," and not "Have I read the required book to pass the test and move on with my life?" When actual understanding is the goal, you have no idea if you'll have to read two or five or twenty books to understand Kant. That's up to you.

It's a lot like learning maths in that way. The kids who care will do all the problem sets. The kids who care will take the lectures as supplemental, and go home and actually take the ideas apart and put them back together again. Maths is lucky, because it's grounded enough that even lazy normies still respect it, and respect when they fail and the kid who did all the problem sets passes with flying colours. Philosophy isn't so lucky because it's a more nebulous subject by nature.

Teenagers and young adults are arrogant and stupid. When something is offered up to them on a platter for their "thoughts," they will presumptuously offer them, assuming they are already qualified and entitled to do so. In maths if you do that you will be laughed at. In philosophy, you'll be rewarded for precocity and patted on the head.

Nothing about "how philosophy is studied" encourages actual philosophical knowledge or thinking. It encourages knowing a few catchphrases and soundbites so you can pose as an educated elite. The few students who actually care may actually fall behind because they naturally try to slow down and understand things before moving on, while all the rest of their confident midwit peers are blazing ahead, content with having read 60 pages of Kant and heard the professor's spiel. The same shit students who say "nah I understood it on the board, I don't need to study" in maths classes are rewarded for that behaviour in philosophy class.

The best way to fix this is to encourage real understanding. Not "originality" as judged by some pretentious postmodern professor who is half a fraud himself, but of venerable things that one can't fail to understand with effort, and that would benefit every philosophy student to know. Weed out the presumptuous poser students by forcing people to do "easy" but rigorous, gritty analysis of classic texts, with the aid of secondary sources.

>>18904647
>The few students who actually care may actually fall behind because they naturally try to slow down and understand things before moving on, while all the rest of their confident midwit peers are blazing ahead, content with having read 60 pages of Kant and heard the professor's spiel.
Thanks for this post anon, really good. Helping me set my mind right for this upcoming semester, as I strive to be among those who actually care and interface with the material outside of class.

>>18903461
>Jew Jewberg wrote in her highly credentialed book that fascism is gay and crazy
i laughed but the insane part is that they actually argue like this

>>18905009
Bad choice. Make sure you get a good grade first. Learning comes second and in your own time. That's just how it goes.

Yeah okay nerds

>>18904574
You just said "I am retarded" with slightly more words.

>>18899560
>/lit/ isn't a philosophy board
According to your philosophy...

>>18905230
I do get good grades, don’t worry anon ;)

>>18903306
Holy BTFO

>>18903461
kek too accurate

>>18899430
You dumb fuck. The first step to think about something is to know that something. Have some balls to form your own opinion about a primary source, then compare it with secondary sources. Are you really this lame?You dumb lamb. People like you talk about things without knowing shit.

>>18899430
You make it sound like you're studying history. The point of reading a philosophical text is to engage with the ideas as if you're having a conversation with its author. I generally don't read secondary lit on philosophy because I don't want to read some faggot's interpretation when I can read it clearly for myself.

this must have really ruffled you faggots feathers to make you seethe this hard

learn top read german...in philosophy it is very cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNy3AHdmvyU

>>18899430
>all of /lit/'s recommendations on philosophy are just primary sources with no secondary sources
good. Develop your own conclusions on a text rather than a prepackaged one.

>>18907921
Nah

Incredibly based thread. Academicucks btfo

>>18899430
That's the point. You don't want to turn out like academics. It's not uncommon for them to be more familiar with secondary literature than the primary sources they're supposed to be experts on.

Hi lit I read man and technics by spengler and want to read some primary sources. Is that goethe?

>>18904463
>I got a degree in philosophy
for what possible reason?
>t. also doing that