/lit/ - Literature

Good luck on reading Socrates...

Plato's not particularly easy, since he's all about demonstration, not about plainly telling. Be prepared to formyour own opinions and to challenge what's presented. Allen Bloom wrote a good intro to the Replubic that's always useful to read too. Very Short introduction doesn't hurt either.

>>2406746

>Good luck on reading Socrates...

You know what I meant man.

But do you think Plato is the way to continue? There's a bunch of other guys.

>>2406754
Sure, why not. It's all good stuff. It sounds like you need to start forming your own ideas anyway.

>>2406760

Yes yes! thank you.

Bump for more suggestions ore mockery.

>>2406763

>ore mockery

Look at this shit man. Hahaha, fucking green? Copper isn't green! What the hell are you doing?

Start with The Republic and The Last Days Of Socrates, both are excellent books.

>>2406768

You meany.

>>2406742
>be in college
>doing social sciences
>do a credit in philosophy
Worse subject ever

If you're interested in literature read plato.
if you're interested in why we think what we think today read the british philosophers.
if you're interested in why people thought what they thought back then read aristoteles.
if you're interested in epistemology or metaphysics or ethics, study cognitive science.
if you're going to be a decent thinker learn logic and read philosophy of science.
if you're interested in bullshit read continental philosopy (especially french) then an hero.
if you're stupid study philosophy.

>>2406775
>bio major

>>2406793

>if you're interested in epistemology or metaphysics or ethics, study cognitive science.
>if you're going to be a decent thinker learn logic and read philosophy of science.

Could you elaborate on these two? Also:

>if you're stupid study philosophy.

So stupid it is! I'm glad this settled my inner debate.

bump

"if you're interested in bullshit read continental philosopy (especially french) then an hero."

I laugh so hard here.

>>2406793
You forgot
>If you wanna have your head completely fucked, read Kant.

COULD ANYONE PLEASE ELABORATE. WORDS ARE FREE AND YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO.

dumb people posting in a dumb thread...

... business as usual on /lit/, i see

>>2406972
>>2406972
>>2406972

WHY?

COULD YOU EXPLAIN YOUR INSULTS?

>>2406742

Just read whatever the fuck you feel like, dependent upon your interests.

>>2406982

I'm interested in a lot of things and I only have one life. I'm not immortal so ordering the way I will read a subject seems pretty wise to me.

>>2406989

Start with Epistemology and Logic if you've only read presocratics so far, maybe skip Plato/Socrates for Aristotle because, well, he's better.

You should have a basic grasp of logic before getting deep into some philosophy, just truth tables and things like that.

>>2406989

Oh and also, you should probably read through 'Think' by Simon Blackburn. It's pretty much philosophy for dummies but it gives you a good grounding for going on and reading anything else.

Who was your favourite presocratic OP?

>>2407001
>>2407001

Yes YES. Thank you. Any tip on where to get this basic grasp on logic.

The thing is, I've read a lot of philosophy in no order whatsoever and I'm trying to order a bunch of things now.

>>2407005

Heraclitus, he sounded like a cool man. I'm tempted to pick a book about him when I go to the library tomorrow.

>>2407011

>Heraclitus

MY FUCKING NIGGAAAAA.

Okay, I'll help you out as much as I can. Give me a minute or two.

>>2407014

Yay!

Heidegger's book on him might be cool.

>>2407011

Okay well... http://www.mediafire.com/?n5kwv36uxuj5m4b That has in it 4 word article that I got in the first year of uni on logic, it pretty much covers the basics. Password is heraclitus

Also I don't know if you can access these dependent on country but here are a bunch of decent lectures of theories of knowledge and other things: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gq1fk/episodes/player

But yeah, get Think and you should be good to go from there.

If you're interested in Stoicism, Tad Brennan's The Stoic Life: Emotions, Duties and Fate is a brilliant introduction to the main areas of the philosophy (epistemology, ethics, and views on fate), while providing insight into the logic and metaphysics that hold it together. It also has a further reading section for each area, pointing out both modern and contemporary writings.

In terms of surviving contemporary works, they are mostly very ethically focussed with Seneca's Moral Letters to Lucilius being the most practical and accessible (although arguably 'soft' Stoicism at some points). Letter titles include "On philosophy and friendship" and "On festivals and fasting". Epictetus's Discourses provides lengthier and more rigorous insight on a plethora of issues, from Providence, to what is truly under our power, to advice to one who "became unduly excited at the theatre". A far shorter distillation of the Discourses survives in the form of the Enchiridion. I have less experience with Marcus Aurelius's Meditations, but it too is held in high regard. From my limited encounters with it, it appears to be more abstract and metaphysical at points.

Afterwards, you might like to look into some of Cicero's works such as De Oficiis and De Finibus, or explore some of Seneca's other essays like De Providentia. Fragments and lectures of Musonius Rufus (Epictetus' teacher) also survive, although are harder to get your hands on in physical form.

>>2407021

Saved! It seems highly interesting. Thanks bro, may Heraclitus be with you.

>>2407023

I only know the basics of Stoicism so I will definitely pick that one up. I have heard good things about Aurelius too,

>>2407045

(unfinished)

why is stoicism relevant? Do you have preferences for that line of thought?

>>2407021
Thanks for that, gonna check it out.

bump for the eveningfags.

bump

final frump

Started reading philosophy today, with The Last Days of Socrates to start, and found this thread useful. So have another bump.

Hopefully this will also come in useful in my Philosophy&Ethics A-level.

Oh, and if anyone's interested in having a dedicated philosophy board, send moot an email. I pitched it to him in an email yesterday but backup would be cool.

>>2407603
here

Gonna read Metaphysics by Aristotle next. Is that a good idea?

>>2407667

Turns out Metaphysics is actually quite a difficult and confusing read. Can anyone suggest something else to read once I'm done with Last Days of Socrates, which I'm finding pretty awesome?

bump! because this thread shouldn't die.

Let's bring in that nightly advice. tomorrow is library day!

bump

no philosofags around?

>>2408957

I recommend Alan Bloom's translation of The Republic

shiggy diggy>>2408962

>NOT ANSWERING THIS THREAD BEFORE I GO TO SLEEP

there isn't that much pre-socratic stuff.

Better hit the dialectics. Probably in the order in which Plato wrote them. Apology and Republic are probably the most famous. Symposium if you are a hipster.

If I assume you are starting from square one, then you don't know. Socrates never wrote anything. Plato, a student of Socrates wrote a lot of things. Most of it was about Socrates. His early writings are believed to be more of Socrates teachings while the later writing (Republic, Laws, etc.) are thought to be more Plato's thoughts added to Socrates.

Aristotle came afterwards but he was more of a teacher. Most of his writings are actually interpretations of lecture notes. Large chunks are missing and things were added by the Romans as well. Not as reliable *or good to read) but still very good.

Diogenes, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius

bump

also, email moot if you think a dedicated philosophy board is a good ide

also, how is 'the republic', by plato? new to philosophy here, thinking of reading it once I finish the last days of socrates (apology, crito, phaedo)

>>2410273
It's a fucking stupid idea.

And you can read the Republic, but it's not for beginners. It's a book you have to come back to several times. Same with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, another commonly asked after one.

>>2410275

Which is a better book to move onto?

>>2410278
If you just want middle dialogues, Protagoras is a nice companion to Apology. I would recommend reading Allan Bloom's intro to Republic too. Just take Republic gradually and read around it a lot, the pitfall most fall into is assuming it's straightforward when it really isn't.

>>2410288

Not necessarily middle dialogues, no. I'm new to this so I've no idea really what I'm after. Are you saying that I should then read Republic soon, but gradually?

>>2406742
Get into the Cynics, Stoics and Epicureans. Action philosophy. Perhaps a bit of Sceptics. It will serve you better than Plato and Aristoteles I think. It will won't bore
you as much.

>>2410381
>will won't

Yeah.

Aristotle is mostly shit, only popular due to Christianity and his logic. Plato is a kinda cool guy but Heraclitus is the shit; the father of modern process philosophy.

>>2410406
>hasn't read any Aristotle

Don't we have a goddamn sticky for this?

Read some Jesus.

/thread

>>2410347
>Are you saying that I should then read Republic soon, but gradually?
More or less.

Well I could highjack this shit and ask:

I wanna read about Diogenes, what book should I get?

>>2410462

My man.

First the obvious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope
http://www.iep.utm.edu/diogsino/

Then perhaps Classical Cynicism by Luis E. Navia or Diogenes the Cynic by the same author. The latter would be more precisely satisfying in your needs I guess, but Cynicism as a whole is a very interesting movement.

I'm reading Cynics by William Desmond now and so far find it enjoyable. But I would start with Navia, he has a nice enthusiastic tone of writing without becoming too sensational.

>>2410490
Me again, these collections of anecdotes are great too:

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidquinn000/Diogenes%20Folder/Diogenes.html
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/DiogenesofSinope/

>>2410490
thanks, bro

I can't find a lot about this Navia guy, is he an unknown author? Because I'm not in the US and fuck I'd really like those books.

>>2410508
He's pretty unknown outside academic circles that are familiar with the subject and hard to find online. Don't you have some bogus throw away email adress?

>>2410517
always

>>2410527
I hooked you up, dog.

>>2410548
Anon, you're awesome.

>>2410556

Always happy to help someone out on the way to the virtuous life according to nature.

>>2410560
Bonus: http://www.cynicalreflections.net/

Blog of a guy who knows his Cynics. Has written a handful of books about them too.

Also gentlemen, Diogenes Laertius stuff on them is nice to read too:

http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/

>>2406793

>if you're interested in epistemology or metaphysics or ethics, study cognitive science.

Somebody has never studied metaphysics. You'd be better off just studying physics. I'm not sure how cognitive science is an adequate replacement for ethics either.

Of all the areas of philosophy that are made somewhat irrelevant by science, ethics is one of the few where I don't really see that being the case. Science simply can't provide a prescriptive ethics without turning into philosophy.

>>2410560

@picture: Diogenes -> the 1st troll of the history ;)

>>2410598
>implying Socrates wasn't nicknamed 'the gadfly' and trolled the whole of Athens so horribly that put him on trail where he tried to piss them off even harder which let to them making him kill himself

>>2410611

>>> implying that the rich-moralfag Socrates is a match for the living-his-theories-away-from-the-luxury-of-the-rich-people-who-used-the-philosophers-as-entertainer
s Diogenes

>>2410693

I would never. But where Socrates is often merely a troll, Diogenes is the real deal. Possibly the most sincere (albeit jesting) philosopher to have ever lived.

>>2410439
you know how I can tell someone is bullshitting? by saying they enjoy Aristotle

no one enjoys Aristotle, even secondary books about him apologize on his behalf

>>2410898
>Aristotle is not mostly shit
>saying they enjoy Aristotle
Not the same things bra. That said, easy read.

If Aristotle wasn't that boring Alexander might've become a philosopher and nothing of value would have been destroyed.

bampy

New guy here.
I am more interested in (philosophy)-fiction, like symposium for instance.
Any other good "entertaining" books from the classical era? Hopefully with some philosophy as well.

>>2414347
>I am more interested in (philosophy)-fiction, like symposium for instance.
>Any other good "entertaining" books from the classical era?
There are so many philsophical dialogues from that period, it was like the fashion at the time.

>>2414379
So, what are the ones I should read first?

>>2414433
Whatever you want surprise surprise

Original OP here. Surprised this is still around. Just as a report, I went to the library and got the following books.

-Socrates, the last days
-Plato's complete dialogues (I plan on reading the Republic, maybe some other lesser dialogues if I have the time)
-Plato's apology of Socrates
-Aristotle Categories

-The Golden Bough by Frazer (Somehow unrelated but related somehow)

Am I cool now?

>>2414437
Well that was the reason I asked. I dont know.
Any recommendations?

bump before I go to have lunch with my mother.

>>2414347
You should read Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius. It's very entertaining while it isn't fiction it is a nice bundle of stories.

>>2414484
>Am I cool now?

Mite b cool if you read up on the Hellenistic schools in general and pick the ones you like and study the fuck out of them.

>>2414484

Apology is actually in The Last Days of Socrates (written by Plato), so you don't really need the separate book. But looks good.

>>2414746

Really? It looks different.

Anyways, here's a bump.

bump, before Hades instils his darkness on our lonely garden of men.

>>2416376
>implying he can
>implying he wants to
>implying he isn't perfectly content chilling with the homies in his own cosmic garden
>implying you shouldn't stop worrying about the gods, buy a simple little house, share the rent with some friends, have frugally cooked but pleasant communal meals, talk philosophy, read some books and perhaps drink some unassuming table wine and shag a young dame if it doesn't cause any discontent in any way

>>2416432

>Implying I'm not worshipping far better deities.

There's a good TTC course on Greek philosophy.

Then you should read Plato, the Organon, some selections from any other Greeks you find interesting, Boethius, read up on Neoplatonism and its connection with early Christianity, read a short bio of St. Augustine, particularly his intellectual/religious development, then either read or read about his works as he's a founder of Catholicism, and pay particular attention to his feuds with rival sects and thinkers, then read about the Ecumenical Councils under Constantine, then Aquinas, read about the scholastics, Petrarch, Descartes, then skip to Enlightenment rationalism, humanism, and Kant, Hegel, then Schopenhauer, Dostoevsky, Stirner, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Freud, Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, Heidegger, Alasdair McIntyre. The entire time you should also be taking a course in European history.

THEN FILL IN THE BLANKS, FAGGOT

>>2416505

Couldn't you have thrown in a couple more random philosophers and told him to "read" them?

>>2416604
>random
>Greeks -> Christians -> Renaissance > Enlightenment -> Existentialism + Continental + Sample of Psychoanalysis

its not bad

Skip Plato, dude was a prick.

>>2416826
That is going to be hard to do when every other philosophers in western canon references him.

>>2410584
I'm not saying cognitive science replaces those fields but if you're really interested in this shit, your assumptions shouldn't be inconsistent with what we "know" about how our minds work. if you know most of our moral judgements are simple "reflexes", you wouldn't bother with many of those ethical theories.