/lit/ - Literature

Bump.

>>22909234
Start with the Niggers

>>22909280
Fuck off.

>>22909234
Copelstone's history and picrel.

>>22909234
>What book can I read for a general introduction to philosophy?
>Is it worth starting with Kant if I'm going down the dogmatic path?

Well which is it, do you want an intro or do you want to read Kant? If you want an intro maybe check Russell's The history of western philosophy.
If you want to read Kant I think you should read Hume first, Leibniz, Descartes (maybe?) but if you need further reading just study what Kant did.

>>22909326
An intro. But Kant and German Idealism is a field of interest. Thank you, anon.

>>22909319
Thank you.

>>22909357
>Kant and German Idealism is a field of interest
Beiser's for long and thorough, Pinkard for one and done.

>>22909234
Plato (and by extension Soctates), Xenophon, Confucious, John Locke, and Lao Tzu "solved" everything. Really no sense reading any other Philosophers than these 5 imho family.

>>22909385
OP, your first mistake, other than not even trying, would be listening to advice like the comment above mine. Statements of this type, while sometimes said in jest, usually hold absolutely no weight and are either a typical unoriginal lit troll or expressing merely a personal opinion of the commenter, which, when questioned, is either lazily defended or they ignore you. I would suggest not letting characters like these impinge on your philosophical study because, after all, the greatest danger to philosophy is the acceptance of mere opinion.

>>22909503
The worst part is that I've been thinking, and you're right. There's no escaping it. I've heard many economists laugh when they mention something called 'pink' in Marx's study. I'm not interested in Marx, but I know it's an endless circle jerk about commentators, and people end up not reading what the old man wrote. But tell me, why do you consider these five the most important? And what about German idealism? I'm also interested in contemporary philosophy.

>>22909234
Why this dude look like Werner Herzog lol

>>22909741
Strong german blood.

>>22909234
If you say you have a sense of each important philosopher throughout this large, then I don't think you need any other introduction. Reading Russell's or Durant's histories of philosophy should be more than enough for you to get a general overview, and then you should just pick a philosopher that interests you. From then you can "go down" the path of other philosophers (in the case their works are very interrelated), or simply dismiss whatever is not interesting to you, and move one, it may become interesting in the future, but not for now.

There is no way around reading the authors. You either read them directly and do the work of reflecting on what they say, or read a regurgitated interpretation of someone else. Just ask yourself, ¿What could be the difference between him reading the author and you reading the author?

Figure out what area of philosophy interests you (epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, phenomenology, etc.) and then grab a Routledge Contemporary Introduction To... or one of the Oxford Very Short Introductions to. Most of these are pretty good.

These give you a lay of the land and the major theories and writers in each area. Chronological slogs are simply not a good way to learn philosophy. You might got 100+ pages between topical areas, you don't get a good feel for the actual dialogue in specific areas. Routledge and Oxford also do really good readers full of key excerpts for these areas. Kenney at least tries to do topical treatments with his huge survey but it still doesn't work.

>>22909794
I'm not OP, but how could he find this kind of area? Seems nebulous the concept of "epistemology". What book someone can find this? A dictionary?

>>22909280
Is this name of the author or book title?

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

>>22909503
>>22909523
Are you the same redditor who linked to r/askphilosophy and had a meltdown over people recommending an anon to read Aristotle rather than read your favorite beginner's guide to metaphysics book? I sure hope you're not. Either way, stop samefagging.

>>22909234
Try Donald Palmer’s books:

Looking At Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter (Mayfield Publications, 1988)

Does the Center Hold? An Introduction to Western Philosophy (Mayfield Publications, 1991)

Visions of Human Nature: An Introduction (Mayfield Publications, 2000)

Why It's Hard to Be Good: An Introduction to Ethical Theory (McGraw-Hill, Summer 2005)

>>22909234
If you've read the Greeks just take an Early odern phil class, and maybe a medieval phil class, and then read some Hegel and Marx + maybe some Schelling and Freud and dive into everything modern.

>>22909280
lmao lost my sides

>>22909839
The area of study. Niggerology of Spirit.

>>22909873
Thank you so much, anon. And all of anons that are trying to help.

>>22909856
I'm not a ledditor, my friend. But you took off your mask there, lmao.