/lit/ - Literature

I just read novels.

Thanks for your long-winded explanation of a meme, dipshit

>>20916444
This has nothing to do with the meme itself but moreso with the mindset of modern philosophy students. If you can't see that you're just being intellectually dishhonest.
"Start with the Greeks" may be a meme, but it's still accurate nonetheless. This is quite literally what they teach you in school.

>>20916438
Why would I?

>>20916438
No you just have to start with the mesopotamians

>>20916438
Then do the opposite and read Anti-Oedipus first.
Nobody can stop you.

>>20916455
I don't know. Maybe I'm right then.
>>20916457
I'll read the bible first so I can get a decent grasp on the origin of man. Understanding where we come from is important context for understanding F. Gardner I presume. >>20916466
I'll read whatever I want, nigger.

>>20916438
If you wanna read fiction or literature then starting with the greeks is pretty pointless. If you wanna study philosophy then its kind of necessary

>>20916438
Trying to read the work of a philosopher without understanding the fundamental concepts he is working with is like trying to understand calculus without learning addition and subtraction first.

Why do otaku always take this stance when they have difficulty reading. It's like lain avatar fagging is also a key component when they perform this cope. You don't want to read the classics, OP, that's fine. They're for people who believe in a material tether linking generation to generation because we have nothing else that really transcends the concept of death except a literary canon. You don't want to believe that, that's ok, nobody is forcing you to do so, but nobody is going to take you seriously if you can't read a book to form an opinion afterwards, rather than expecting every book to jelq you like an identity driven story like Madoka or NHK might.

>>20916438
I'm a brainlet. Is Robert Graves' book on the greeks sufficient to get me started?

>>20916535
I posted the Lain image because it seemed provoking. Simple as.

>>20916538
Buy Oxford's complete Aristotle & Plato so you can see what he's even referencing, but sure. Having a contemporary aide is only going to help, but it's important to carry the source material so you don't get entrapped by an author's particular bias.

My bias is that I like Aristotle a lot more than Plato.

>>20916540
>The definitive "o-ok..." post
good, now fuck off and find a reason to post here beyond attention seeking.

>>20916531
just read max stirner and realize that everything related to natural sciences already got butchered out of philosophy and the only real value it has now days is questions that no one has been able to answer over history of humanity or its ability to remove all values and doctrines from a human that doesn't even know he has been indoctrinated by his peers and surroundings

>>20916571
You do understand that reading the classics isn't about regarding them as truth, but to understand how people form their viewpoints with as little facilitation as the greeks had? This is why gnostic schizophrenia is so rife now, it's not a coincedence that it's occurring at the same time that people are becoming more and more illiterate.

You can accept an author from the 18th century as truth, sure. You can probably even very well see they read classics themself, but the point is to form an opinion on your own.

I can only imagine this idea of reading something that may not deepen your understanding of contemporary sciences, is because you're all so panicked about the idea you're running out of time to read anything at all. Truth is, there is always enough time to read the classics and eventually reach a point of connecting it to your relationship with modern literature. Stop trying to take shortcuts.

>>20916580
your veneration of classics speaks volumes of your love for tradition, that is not a compliment

>>20916438
Starting with the Greeks is great advice for those enthusiastic about philosophy, but not enthusiastic about "literature" (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Cicero, et al). That's the main reason I recommend them, because I want to see more serious students of philosophy as Plato knew it, and not more literary halfwits who think being able to slam out a page of philosophical-sounding words which sound coherent at first glance is equivalent to being able to think correctly and come towards the light of truth. So yes, I will keep recommending novices to start with the Greeks, and no, I will not cater to your literary fetishism when it comes to philosophy.

>>20916571
>just read max stirner
LOOOOOOOOL

who are you gonna recommend next? rene guenon?

>>20916590
>next
next i would recommend you read it again if you still need to read philosophy after that, and i would tell you to keep reading that same fucking book for as many times as it takes for your addled mind to digest the idea of dismantling values and recognize the ego to be the root of all motivations

>>20916588
See, I'm of the differing opinion that you should recommend the classics to creatives, and not the likes of Nietzsche, so they can go ahead and develop prose in a similar way that Nietzsche might have. Having that grounding of actual philosophical discussion, and scientific endeavor, means they can go ahead and write characters that have a more purified creation, than trying to make them explicitly fun to read, or nuanced.

>>20916585
love of tradition? I'm arguing the opposite. You read the classics so you can understand how we got to where we are now. I read a lot more contemporary media like visual novels because I like seeing where narrative structure is headed. Your conceptulisation of "research of the past = adherence to tradition" reeks of paternal issues.

>>20916585
>why do you read all those old books anon, it's 2022 duh
>and there are hardly any bipoc, queer and female writers on your shelf, criiiinge

>>20916610
>see son you need to dig the ground with your bare hands to understand the soil, and also you have to poop the seeds into the hole and let the rain grow the seeds, if you don't do this you won't understand the soil and agriculture
veneration of the "saints" is a bad habit anon
>>20916614
at which point did i tell you to read modern ones? stirner is literally the only philosopher you will need to read, he kills the entire field of philosophy bar rene descartes, rene doesn't really offer you answers they just hammer in the point "you really can't be sure so fuck it", you can make do without that revelation with just stirner and you still would have come at the end of "well if all of this is just ego jerk and indoctrination then wtf am i supposed to do for meaning?" which will just lead you to either regress back to religion with kierkegaard or makes you a nihilist who carries on because dying is a bother, your life is still meaningless but at least you know it so congratulations your quest for truth brought you freedom at the price of killing all meaning, and no absurdism isn't meaning it is just a stockholm syndrome cope

>>20916625
I read the classics because I wanted to, not because I think they are any kind of ultimate truth.
>>see son you need to dig the ground with your bare hands to understand the soil, and also you have to poop the seeds into the hole and let the rain grow the seeds, if you don't do this you won't understand the soil and agriculture
trying to compare reading a book to being laborous toil is probably only relatable for you, sorry. I like to read

>>20916633
you can be as thorough as you want with your academic jerk off, the fact is people already build on top of the classics so reading them is redundant as far as utility goes, telling someone to go read the classics because you're a bookworm is retarded, you don't tell IT guy to go learn binary just because you have autism if you're trying to teach them how to code some basic shit they need

>>20916438
>The unadultered want to learn about important thinkers and your surrounding world is far outweighed by the fact that more-knowledgable elitists are forcing curious young ones to go through a whole entire catalogue of thousands of books before they are even allowed to engage in discussions or form their own thoughts.
I am sympathetic to this but the problem with not reading the work that proceeded the things you base your "new" ideas on is that it is very common for people who do this to waist their time coming up with "original" thoughts that were already hashed out by someone else. Its why many companies now keep a detailed log of ideas that havent worked for one reason or another, so that new creative blood doesnt waist time with things that already have been done or shown to be lacking. that being said you dont really need to read all of the greeks starting out if you want to get into philosophy (especially if you are only interested in one or two branches of philosophy). that would be an equally catastrophic waist of time. Its good enough to get the broad strokes of ideas in your field of interest from something like a history of philosophy book. that way at least when you come to a conclusion that sounds familiar you can go back and check against the older stuff and if needed know where to go in depth. If for nothing else then to save time better used towards refining these ideas or coming up with new ones. I do think that some people believe that a tendency toward this approach is some how less rigorous than reading everything in chronological order but those people tend to be impotent and unoriginal so why would anyone give a fuck what they think.

>>20916642
This doesn't refute my argument in any way. Reading the classics means that you can see what authors from 1600-1900s are disputing in the first place. Reading Aristotle is not like trying to teach someone binary, that would probably be trying to teach someone the first indo-european language.

Your assertions are rife with metaphors, which kind of indicates a vacuum in your understanding of the world. Not to mention it also means that you can tell when one author is a charlatan, if they're just regurgitating aristotle or plato. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the kind of person who's constantly imagining their own school of philosophy, and the idea of retreading a concept from 2000 years ago utterly terrifies you.

>>20916654
you have profound autism so i will leave you with a in your face metaphor that will fly over your head to ponder
https://youtu.be/_kF2-Cr6yX4

>>20916663
That's a very strange way of saying I metaphorically kicked your ass.

>>20916665
no it is me flipping you off that you revealed that you're turbo autist that can't grasp metaphors by complaining about them in the first post, after that i compared the build on top of the works to a combine harvester which is a more efficient method of doing things instead of the old way of farming by hand and ox, it is a ripe metaphor that you're venerating the classics because they were literally written to be understood by barely literate greeks who powered through with sheer power of autism so they speak to you on a deep level, trying to understand anything build on top of that is a enigma for you because the more recent ones in history were oozing with metaphors and symbolism that you simply cannot grasp so you default back into the kids pool with your floaties of classics, since a lot of the authors build on top of the classics you can still understand references to them, without the shared background of reference to the classic you would not understand the philosophers so you glorify the classics to not lose your connection to philosophy through your crutch
see if you actually understand philosophy you can strip away most of the metaphor and even explain it to a moron just like you

>>20916673
chill, freak.

>>20916682
all motivations root from the ego, understand this and you understand stirner, the only difference is if you're doing this voluntary and consciously or involuntarily and unconsciously, apart from that he just goes through the list to dismantle values with reasoning and shows you that the systems that people venerated were just there for control in the end
congratulations, you now understand stirner and you didn't even have to open his book, and now you also understand why i'm rubbing it in your face while at the same time being helpful to you, if i did it without helping you understand it i would just be an asshole, but since i am teaching you i am a philosopher, isn't this a great ego jerk that benefited you jack shit in this moment but later on you will understand what happened here and perhaps even learn a thing or two about why stirner kills philosophy

>>20916673
>>20916691
Been a while since I saw a /lit/ meltdown this good, even better that it's a stirnerfag.

>V0GAY

>>20916700
can you guess why no one wants to do philosophy for a living?

>>20916438
I'm going to start with the Greeks and I'm going to read every work, fiction and non-fiction, available chronologically and structurally, and there's nothing you can do about it.

since you love the classics ill give you a hint that even you can understand

>>20916708
who are you even talking to anymore, stirnerschizo

>>20916714
to a highly concentrated thread full of retards that can't grasp metaphors

Anon, I have been drawing for 15 years.

While I have made some progress after a few thousand hours of practice, I'm nowhere near professional level.
Recently I realized I lack the fundamentals more than I initially suspected, and that the biggest hurdle in my way is basic motor control, the ability to observe and copy what's right in front of me.

I skipped the boring, old books about drawing boring, old naked people with boring, old pencil and paper, for a boring, old-looking result.

I have also learned Japanese, yet I never bothered studying kanji, I just guessed them for years, and now it's come back to bite me in the ass, I hold a 30k+ vocabulary knowledge, can read ancient literature, but I keep failing basic, everyday words comically because I can't tell some similar kanji apart.

The point is: you can read whatever you want in whatever order you want, especially if that's what keeps you motivated to keep going, it's better than not doing it at all and dropping out.
But eventually you'll have to face the basics and it's probably more time-efficient to start with them.

And more experienced people are aware of how much time they might have wasted by not following this course, that's why the push you to do so.
Granted, they often fail to acknowledge what I just told you about a non-structured learning being more motivating and interesting, but you seem well aware of that. So just understand its downsides and shut the fuck up, go read whatever you want.

>>20916705
You'll be dead by the time you're not halfway through

>>20916721
>took me 15 years to understand how to draw human anatomy and shadows
>so anyway, here's my two cents on why fundamentals apply to philosophy even if the author who build on top of it explains it as a stand alone book
mmmmm anon, is that a estrogen addled scent i whiff upon you, what did the classics say about female philosophers?
https://youtu.be/ubNqUyf0op0

>>20916727
Good.

>>20916721
Yes, you sort of got my point.
I hate the structure, but that doesn't mean I will never check out the classics to further my understanding. I simply don't want to force myself to adhere to a chronological order; that'd make me lose all the passion I had.

>>20916730
I mean this (>>20916653) basically said the same thing. if you wanted to be a dismissive cunt why even ask the question?

>>20916654
>if they're just regurgitating aristotle or plato.
You misspelt Kant and Hegel

>>20916730
christ what a cunt

>>20916738
>hegel
burn it on a pyre
>>20916737
your heroes hated your kind, go hit the gym if you want to venerate the classics
>>20916741
philosophy without lesson is

>>20916745
>your heroes hated your kind, go hit the gym if you want to venerate the classics
you are projecting some kind of hero worship that isnt in either of the posts you are responding to here. you clearly didnt read either post. Its about not wasting time, not about sucking off idols.

>>20916756
>you have to understand your fundamentals in philosophy through the classics
>this is not veneration this is a fact
>well okay you don't have to but ill compare it to being a artist that doesn't know how to draw anatomy or shadows

>>20916764
>referenced post: Its good enough to get the broad strokes of ideas in your field of interest from something like a history of philosophy book. that way at least when you come to a conclusion that sounds familiar you can go back and check against the older stuff and if needed know where to go in depth
>art post: The point is: you can read whatever you want in whatever order you want, especially if that's what keeps you motivated to keep going, it's better than not doing it at all and dropping out.
But eventually you'll have to face the basics and it's probably more time-efficient to start with them.
Both say get the foundational IDEAS. neither say read the classics because they are holy. I am starting to suspect you resent reading because you are yourself illiterate

>>20916783
think i'm done with trying to teach special ed to you, have a nice day

>>20916691
As a sleep deprived guy running on zero brainpower who just stumbled into this board and this thread, I appreciate your posts anon.

>>20916730
I have no rebuttal to offer to a non-reply.
Try stating your opinion next time. Preferably in better English than this.

Additionally, post your work, here's something from 5 years ago to give you some leeway.

if you read philosophy just for personal enlightenment or entertainment then yeah, 'start with the greeks' is a meme. reading them without proper guide to know what to read for no right purpose is just pointless. what basic would one get from 'posterior analytics' that is not better in some other forms?
you will want to look up all the hard words on some sites or dictionaries anyway. i see no fundamental or basic idea that require you to slog through those texts, aforementioned serve you better.
the only philosopher who is not a fraud that require you to know something of the greeks is hegel as i can see, and he's already some kind of fraud regarded by some. but the point is to know what he's getting at so it may not be necessary and can be substituted somehow
though a lot of people are better off just reading some general books to know the ideas and arguments. being a layman once having read a lot of them to a certain extent you may realized their concerns are not the same as your
to try to understand philosophers you have to be some kind of dogmatic, otherwise you would just pass off many of their arguments as bs anw. maybe that's why it's hard for philfags to process logically the thoughts of the people they read to see the problems. having spent a lot of time on /lit/ and used to ate up philfags bs here i think the only good thing i have ever found about them is just their rhetoric skills though. i doubt you really want insights from people with a largely useless degree

>>20917036
The sheer lack of grammar in this post should assert to you why you should ignore people who say it's fine to not read the classics, OP.

>>20916438
>Lain posting
didnt read lol

>>20916591
And here I thought spookfagging was a dead meme

>>20916580
Good post, some of these intellectually lazy fags will never get it.

desu, the Greeks are boring as fuck, and everything they discuss can be picked up if you've ever seen Star Trek.

>>20916438
you are right, you should start with mesopotamians and egyptians instead

>>20916591
>>20916571
Based and true.

Imagine getting filtered by the Greeks lol they used to teach Plato to children