/lit/ - Literature

>>21821146
Socrates never read a single book in his entire life

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9GwT4_YRZdBf9nIUHs0zjrnUVl-KBNSM

https://www.youtube.com/@PhiloofAlexandria/playlists

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnXXfVF21G8xfFXRKt2X_RuOWrPudXnJC

>>21821155
Books didn't even exist back then, dummy.

Plato's Republic

>>21821155
Socrates was widely read, he read most of the works of the pre-Socratics of which we now only have fragments.

>>21821146
Sumerian myths and legends->Egyptian myths and legends->Hindu myths and legends->There is a good chart on /lit/ wiki from this point

>>21821146
Right here:
https://youtu.be/sk9HZBX3qrg

>>21821146
Read Plato and then the history of philosophy.

>>21821146
Start with the Greeks. If you want a full view, read thr Iliad and the Odyssey, optionally Hesiod, and even less obligatorily, the playwrights. If you want to quickly get in, just skip all of the above, or as much as you want, with the importance dictated by the order they appear.

To get into Plato for philosophy, you can follow the order of this image, but try to read 1 Alcibiades first (or right before Meno) and Phaedo right after Crito. So your first reading might look like
>Euthyphro
>Apology
>Crito
>Phaedo
>1 Alcibiades
For instance. The Laws are also still relevant to his philosophy, but it's highly unsavory to college student and academics for his chuddiness.

>>21821146
Plato. Watching the Arthur Holmes lectures the other guy posted is also a good idea. Don’t start with republic, use this guys >>21821498 order (but ignore his advice about reading Homer and Hesiod, that’s a meme). Plato’s works are partly designed as an intro to philosophy.

>>21821627
>>21821146
Remember to read Philebus before Parmenides... I don't know why the graph is missing it.

>>21821146
With the Romans.

>>21821146
Certainly this >>21821498 my only addendum is that I think one is better doing the full circuit of the Socratic Dialogues before moving onto the something like Meno or Gorgias and proceeding onwards. Don't neglect things like the Charmides or Lysis, they are edifying works, but they are also charming and overflow with Plato's unique stylistic brilliance. The early works are to be as little neglected for their insight as their beauty.

>>21821146
Plato>Hume>Kant>Schopenhauer>The end

>>21822191
Spoken like a true pseud

>>21821146
Don't read Plato. Don't read Idealists basically. They can't accept that materialism is truth. Majority of the philosophy is pseudo-scientific.

You should read Democritus and Nietzsche. I think reading Richard Dawkins may help about philosophy pseudo-science.

>>21822191
That's not too bad. But then go back and do Aristotle and then the late Platonists as well.

>>21822191
Where do Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre place in this?
t. read Plato and Aristotle and just started Hume

>>21822708
They're worth knowing but not in depth imo.

>>21821146
Get a compilation of the fragments of the Presocratics, Hackett's Philosophy Before Socrates and Oxford's The First Philosophers are good options
>>21821155
Retarded and waste of double dubs

>>21821146
A secondary source that gives an overview of history/progress philosophy isn't a bad idea. It'll also help you figure out where you want to go with philosophy and your interest. Rn, I'm reading McClelland's one for political philosophy. If you want to specifically 'get' a certain philosophical era, I'd reccomend becoming versed in the context of that time and place as well as at least being familiar with its influences and predecessors. I plan on starting with the Greeks so definitely need to at least read something like 'A Brief History of Ancient Greece' and Edith Hamilton's 'Mythology' for general knowlege of the stories/history that every Greek knew and referenced in works. And then reading a summary of the pre-socratics before Plato which aims to btfo them and their democratic thinking.

>>21821146
Start with the cave paintings.

>>21822611
I've seen too much stupid on this site to tell whether this is bait or genuine

>>21823094
While listening to the soundtrack for Cave of Forgotten Dreams by Ernst Reijseger. 'Shadow' is my favourite track.

>>21823096
It's probably not bait. His view is fairly common today.

>>21823101
How is Richard Dawkins taken seriously? He's like a materialist jordan peterson. There are actual proper critiques that raise genuine points of discussion but it's not him.

don't start with the greeks, start with the egyptians

>>21823411
Why should I and how?

>>21823487
By reading Plato, by the dog Egypt.

Anywhere. To get anything out of it you are going to have to re-read. Re-reading makes simple books hard, and hard books simple. Find something that interests you, commit to reading it at least 5 times cover to cover.

>>21821146
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

>>21823487
read egyptian mythology, philosophers that inspired plato went to study to Egypt, many such things in the greek mythos have their origin in egyptian mythos, very cool!

I know more about philosophy than 99% of the board.

Nearly all of Greek philosophy can be skipped and has zero relevance to modern society, but if you must read something from them, I would recommend Aristotle's Metaphysics, followed by the Organon. Plato is trash, not a philosopher and can be skipped entirely.
Literally everything between Aristotle and Descartes is NOT philosophy and also can be skipped.
Medieval philosophy is NOT philosophy.
Descartes is sort of essential, but all you need to take away from his work is "Dude like just be rational and use your mind lmao." There, you just read all of Descartes.
Read a wikipedia article on Locke and Hume to prepare you for Kant.
I personally enjoy Rousseau's writing, but will readily admit he too is also inessential in the grand scheme of things.
Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, slowly and savor it. It is not a meme. It truly is the greatest work of literature ever. It's like a journey into the mind and your guide is a 5'2 virgin. It is pretty schizo though I will admit.
Hegel for the most part is discount Kant, but his lectures on aesthetics and history are kino and far more interesting than the Phenomenology.
Read Nietzsche. Most of what he says is self evident and obvious to anyone who isn't a midwit, but reading Nietzsche at least once is a rite of passage.
Then finally, you have reached the final boss and the end of philosophy. The Analytics. Mr. Russell, Mr. Wittgenstein, Mr. Frege, Mr. Ayer (pbut).
Now that you have read the analytics and learned that philosophy is bullshit and a waste of time, you can now either A. start learning STEM. Or B. Take the occult- and esoteric-pill. Or both.

>>21824220
esoterism is as useless and bullshit as philosophy

>>21824220
>A. start learning STEM. Or B. Take the occult- and esoteric-pill. Or both.
Both is obviously the patricians choice

>>21824220
>No mention of Schopenhauer

>>21824233
Sadboy shit. Completely worthless. Barely even a philosopher.

>>21824240
Okay but can you at least tell me why Plato is worthless?

>>21824220
This has to be one of the best examples of Dunning-Kruger condensed into a single post

>>21824249
He used an anti-philosophical method. The dialectic and Socratic method is manipulation and not true philosophy. Every other philosopher starts with an idea, and then adds evidence to support said idea. Plato is one of the few who does the opposite. He will trick the reader into thinking he is casually nonchalantly "just asking questions" through Socrates, so when the answer is reached (which Plato decided on in advance) it will seem natural and organic, and not manufactured. It's a very dishonest way of presenting your ideas, which is a shame because some of what he had to say had merit.

>>21824254
Cry more. I'm right about everything.

>>21821146
Nietzsche - Dawn
Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil
Nietzsche - Genealogy of Morals
Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols
Nietzsche - Antichrist

Rosenberg A. - Philosophy of Science. A Contemporary Introduction (2011)
Rosenberg A., McShea D.W. - Philosophy of Biology. A Contemporary Introduction (2007)
Risjord M. - Philosophy of Social Science. A Contemporary Introduction (2014)
Rosenberg A. - Philosophy of Social Science (2015)
Loux M.J., Crisp Th.M. - Metaphysics. A Contemporary Introduction (2017)
Restall G. - Logic. An Introduction (2005)
Priest G. - An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. From If to Is (2008)
Colyvan M. - An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics (2012)
Barberousse A., Bonnay D. - The Philosophy of Science. A Companion (2018)

Richards R.A. - Biological classification. A philosophical introduction (2016)
Turner D. - Paleontology. A Philosophical Introduction (2011)
Nelson L.H. - Biology and Feminism. A Philosophical Introduction (2017)
Sober E. - Ockham’s Razors. A User’s Manual (2015)

Turner S.P. - Explaining the Normative (2010)
Turner S.P. - Cognitive Science and the Social. A Primer (2018)

Turner J. - Philology. The forgotten origins of the modern humanities (2014)
Vernon M. - The Meaning of Friendship (2010)
Agamben G. - The Omnibus Homo Sacer (2017)
Blumenberg H. - The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (1985)
Arendt H. - The Human Condition (1998)

Carroll N. - Art in Three Dimensions (2010)
Scarinzi A. (eds.) - Aesthetics and the Embodied Mind. Beyond Art Theory and the Cartesian Mind-Body Dichotomy (2015)
Churchland P. - Neurophilosophy at Work (2007)

>>21824262
It's clear from your replies and that original post how ignorant you are. I know you're probably between 18 and 20 years old, if not younger (which would be more excusable).

>>21824270
OK, and you keep wasting your time reading philosophy. I'm sure this is what triggered you, being reminded that you wasted the best years of your life reading the writings of dead virgins who died in asylums. Don't worry, I know.
The irony is that in order to understand that philosophy is bullshit and you wasted the prime years of your life wallowing in nihilism and existentialist nonsense, you have to read a lot of it first to realize how worthless it all truly is. You will eventually come to the same conclusion though, just give it time.

>>21824220
If reading philosophy and being right makes you someone insufferable as this, it's probably better to not bother with philosophy at all and avoid burning in hell misusing it.

>>21824220
>>21824280
Thank you for showing me the dangers, you're right in that I should not bother reading philosophy.

>>21824280
>>21824284
based, philosophy is like weed, it'll make you think you understand the universe but you were just admiring something inane and had inane thoughts about it

>>21824254
the Dunning-Kruger you have in mind is a meme

>>21821146
1. Read the Bible
2. Read "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview"

>>21824258
>Every other philosopher starts with an idea, and then adds evidence to support said idea.
So philosophy = post-hoc justification of bullshit? Hard pass.

>>21821155
False. Books Socrates read

>Everything by Anaxogaras (hated him because he focused on physical science and not metaphysics)- mentioned in the Phaedo
>Aesops Fables - enjoyed them. His last work before dying was a lyre tune rendition of one of the Fables - Source: The Phaedo
>Hesiod - cited frequently. Read all major works
>Homer- cited frequently. Read all major works
>Cydias - poet quoted in Charmides
>The six major Greek poets - quotes one in Parmenides
>The Sophists - hated them. Can be inferred he read all their works
>Aristophanes - poet/ comedian. Attended his plays or was at least familiar with them. source: The Apology

The idea that Socrates hated reading has basis in truth but the idea that he never read a thing is far off. He read and critiques virtually everything available to him.

>>21826341
I agree Socrates read books but you can't really cite the fact that Plato cites them to prove that he read anything in particular.

>>21821146
The entire Platonic corpus. Buy the single volume version from Hackett. Read them in the order listed in the book, all 36 of them.

All philosophy written after Plato either agrees with him, so is redundant, or disagrees with him, and is thus wrong, so not worth reading.

>>21827250
Buh-buh-based...

>>21821146
My diary desu

>>21824220
you started off strong but fucked up so god damn bad
holy fuck, try again.

>>21824275
the only one triggered itt is you, whiny bitch

>>21824220

>>21827250
>The entire Platonic corpus. Buy the single volume version from Hackett.
Based
>Read them in the order listed in the book
Not a good idea for a beginner, I tried the same and got filtered when I got to Theaetetus and I don't think Parmenides, Philebus, and Phaedrus are meant to be read before Republic. I'm currently reading through the Hackett edition and here's my ordering so far: Euthyphro to Cratylus, Charmides to Ion, Symposium and next I'm going to Republic, Timaeus, and Critias. From there, Phaedrus, Philebus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, closing out with Parmenides, Laws and the rest. Of course, this is just my two cents as someone currently going through Plato.

>>21827250
I prefer the old single volume Plato

>>21827506
That doesnt have the spurious works or the Letters.

>>21827494
Correct.

>>21827514
You can get them separately if you care so much about pseudo Platonic works. For those of us who care about reading Plato, and not spuria, this is the best version.

>>21827521
I actually agree. I prefer Jowett and LaRouchefoucauld for translators. I am reading through Hackett though because I want everything not just the core dialogues.

>>21827494
>>21827520
Thr Hackett order looks horrifyingly bad. Do NOT read in that order, it's very clear what the agenda is.

>>21827525
The Hackett order is the traditional Thrasyllusian order. Trial dialogues >>> forms dialogues >>> political stuff (Dion)

>>21827525
The one I posted was a different order from a portable reader edition

>>21827528
>>21827537
Okay, that's good.

>>21821146
The rhetoric discussion at the end of Phaedrus

>>21827544
True actually (dubs confirm)

>>21824220
>philosophy is bullshit and a waste of time
I'll be the judge of that

You should start with Homer

Start with the greeks

>>21827754
This again. Try the Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Very good ancient intro.

>>21821146
You start and end with Socrates.

>>21821146
Kybalion

>>21822191
>>21821146

Plato > Descartes > Kant > Hegel > Marx the end

>>21821146
With the Romana.

>>21821146
The Sophists, Stirner, Nietzsche. This will prevent you from actually believing in philosophy like the retards on this board.

>>21830629
Butterfly, put your trip back on.

>>21830667
I miss her bros.

Start with the Greeks, but don’t hold them as some ephemeral standard of rationality and correctness. Socrates (Plato), Aristotle, and a brief overlook on the rest will serve you as a good foundation. Then, you can sparsely read Roman and medieval philosophy although most of it is barely more than footnotes on Aristotle and all of it would be considered more theology than philosophy by today’s standards. These would be Seneca, Aquinas, Boethius, etc. Where things kick off again for real is the early modern period where you get thinkers like Descartes (incredibly important for understanding early modern philosophers), Hume (incredibly important for understanding Kant), Kant (literally the gateway from philosophy being a contentious realm of half-truths to a contentious realm of 3/4th-truths), Hegel (dark Germanic wizard casting ancient Grecian spells from his fortress in the Black Forest out of the last remaining copy of Aristotle’s esoteric writings), Marx (Hegel but an alcoholic and slightly more based), and Nietzsche (crazy horse guy). Once you get this far you won’t need anyone to recommend anything to you anymore because you’ll have plenty of works to read by people who inspired and were inspired by these thinkers. One of the biggest detriments of this board is its aversion to secondary-sources. Don’t be like that: if you can find a supplemental book on Kant before attempting to read his door-stoppers then do it.