/lit/ - Literature

>>3126875
I suppose it depends whether you're interested in the history of philosophy or just the particular topics.

History of philosophy is where you start learning philosophy

I've heard many differing opinions on this. My undergrad professor maintained that chronological examination is best for thorough understanding of basic philosophical texts. Gives you a foundation to build on.
However, my current professor couldn't disagree more and thinks that the texts you study should be determined by the issue you're interested in...

>>3126882
True enough. I don't think there's any specific downside to learning chronologically.

Enjoy getting to Wittgenstein by the time you're 80.

>>3126885
Would it really be that slow? I mean, I imagine you can still be somewhat selective about the things you read even if you are progressing chronologically. If you only go through the major writings, you could get to the 20th century in a reasonable amount of time.

>>3126885
You don't have to read every single thing ever written in order, dude.

It can get tiring pretty quickly, and you don't want to feel like you're reading what you 'should' read instead of what you want to.

This is a pretty interesting chart of philosophical influence which might give you some ideas for possible routes:
http://drunks-and-lampposts.com/2012/06/13/graphing-the-history-of-philosophy/

I doubt you'll enjoy reading every philosopher in the canon. Why not read something you enjoy instead?

>>3126875
No, you just have to be selective. Try looking into some history of philosophy course to get a rough grasp of what they teach perhaps.

Also, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu/) is your friend. You can get a pretty decent grasp of the ancients by reading secondary texts and perhaps a few original bits to get a feel for the general style.

Start with some stuff about the presocratics, move on to Socrates, Plato and Aristoteles, the Hellenic schools, quick look into a few Abrahamic guys from medieval times, ten up through the Renaissance into early modernity and once you get to guys like Descartes and Spinoza you have reached open waters so to speak.

Also, don't be afraid to get sidetracked. That's the fun part. I myself for example have a basic (but I think sufficient) grasps of the Greeks, but I got fascinated with Cynicism so I made that an area of expertise. It's these times when you dive in and truly engage yourself with a subject that the whole endeavour is most rewarding.

>>3126885
>Enjoy getting to Wittgenstein by the time you're 80.

/lit/ in a nutshell

transparent trolling by ignorant and yet somehow arrogant, clueless teenagers.

>>3126978

How is that trolling? If OP reads philosophy chronologically, that IS roughly how long it will take him to get to the 20th century, at which point he will realise how worthless everything he's read is.

>>3126981
>at which point he will realise how worthless everything he's read is.

Well I wouldn't say the Tractatus is THAT good.

>>3126893
BLASPHEMY! REMOVE THE HEATHEN

>>3126981
Chronologically simply means arranged in order of their occurrence in time. It doesn't mean read everything ever written.

Yes. It has been around long enough to develop its own canon. Start with a core and then branch out, it is not linear.

I suggest Plato, Descartes and Wiggystein.

>>3127011
>dat subjective core

Decentralised 4 lyfe,

Are there any good chronological lists of the essential figures of philosophy?

>>3127061
bump, interested in this too.

>>3127061
This is all I got. Anyone who shouldn't be here?

>>3127011

This is a real quote from Descartes right ?

>>3127155
Well Daykart said "Cogito ergo givus dickus" But that's a near enough translation.

>>3127151
Who is the last one?

>>3127061

>>3127187
Habermas

>>3127151
The boisterous laughter provoked by Nietzsche's satirical figure caused my bowels to rage into anal explosions.

>>3127061
I remember seeing a flowchart of something like this, maybe someone has it.

>>3127279

Not a bad idea, but sure as hell an absolute must if you want to understand philosophy. Otherwise, you'll look like a fool.

It's the only good idea. If you don't know your shit from the beginning, you are a dilettante. It's silly to read Nietzsche without understanding Aristotle, Heidegger without knowing your Plotinus, Aquinas without knowing Augustine and Muslim peripatetics, and anyone without knowing Plato.

>>3127151

This is a silly list, and whoever put Ibn Sina after Aquinas is retarded.

>>3127190

... Is an absolutely shit book.

It's impossible.

>>3127481

Yep. Avoid at all costs unless you want to catch his autism.

>>3126993
>Tractatus
>good
>implying he isn't refering to later Wittgenstein, thus 'worthless'

Gee, Tim, at least give it your best.

>>3127481
>>3127484
Fuck. Why? I was just about to get into it.

>>3127530
Haven't read it myself (and not one of those you replied too of course) but I've seen /lit/ trash enough times to know it's supposedly biased.

>>3127481

>can't into open-mindedness

Only if you are able understand its context. Not read something from thousands of years ago and think "this is ridiculous, garbage, how could anyone believe this, this is unreadable"

>>3128123
Please don't say shit like that without having indulged in what you're criticizing. For all you know, they could very well be wrong.

And, of course, what author doesn't have his bias?

>>3127530

Don't listen to him: of course it's impossible to see the history of philosophy without any form of bias or lense. The closest thing you could get is to read all of the works yourself, but even then it's going to be your interpretation. Don't be afraid to read someone else's interpretation of the history of philosophy, but rather look into many interpretations! Berntrand Russell was a brilliant mind and his History will give you a good lens. If you are particularly struck by a philosopher, pick up one of their books and read for yourself.

Everyone speaks of "bias" as if it were the devil. Bias in its simplest form is the basis of a perspective or interpretation. But beware true bias, which is a presupposed aim and agendized passages. Berntrand's aim is to represent the history of western philosophy, pure and simple. Of course he is going to knock Hegel and so on, Russell's project was an analytic philosophy. Whatever. Just read, enjoy many perspectives or "biases", just don't buy into ideas blindly.

>>3128575

Exactly.

>>3127530

It's not nearly as bad as /lit/ makes it out to be. It has its faults, but if you're aware of them and just using it to get a very basic grounding before pursuing the subject further on your own then I don't see a problem.

With regard to the faults, wiki has this to say:
>Roger Scruton writes that the book is elegantly written and witty, but faults it for its concentration on pre-Cartesian philosophy, lack of understanding of Immanuel Kant, and over-generalization and omissions

>>3128585

>Bertrand

>>3127011
wittgenstein I or II?


I'd suggest Hume, Popper, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. But I guess everyone's gonna suggest something else..

>>3128585

I can't quite agree with this. Your argument seems to be that all biases/perspectives/whatever are equally valid and the right thing to do is to read loads of things so it all balances out in the end. I'm not sure if this is the best way to help someone new get into philosophy. It might hold when it comes to philosophical works -- read everything and decide which views suit you best, that sort of thing. I'm fine with that, but the problem here is that History isn't a philosophical work, it's a work of social history, designed for people new to philosophy. For that reaosn, its blatant "bias", or whatever you want to call it, is far more difficult to tolerate. Russell conveniently ignores/forgets parts of philosophical history that he didn't particularly like/understand, or slags them off unjustifiably (Hegel), and he spends a ridiculously too long on the Greeks.

The best way to study philosophy, in my opnion at least, is not to aim for an overview of any sorts -- just pick a central debate or branch of philosophy and get your nose stuck into one of the seminal works with a secondary text nearby. What you uncover will lead you conveniently onto other things, and if you have the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and the SEP alongside you, you'll be just fine. Personally I'd recommend reading Descartes's Meditations, then follow it up with some Hume and Berkeley, and then expand wherever your fancy takes you, but you can do whatever interests you.

>>3128575
I was trying to make it very clear that that wasn't my personal opinion, but the primary criticism that was found on /lit/. I only replied because in 4 hours the guy didn't get a reply, so I tried to help out with what was most likely the reason for their bashing.

>>3128600
Russell is an incredibly pretentious person whose writing on anything outside his specialization (phil of math/ set theory) is utterly misinformed, ridden with childish mistakes, lacking more than a superficial understanding of his subject matter, and overall blatantly stupid. It should be mentioned that ever since the end of WW1 Russell kept on rambling about how mankind needs to mend its ways or it will annihilate itself within the next 20-30 years - which he kept on repeating decades after the 20-30 years have run out.

His History doesn´t make the slightest effort to understand the philosophers he is dealing with. Russell starts from the premise that he alone has figured everything out and proceeds to classify thinkers of the past according to whether they can be understood as his forerunners or not. For his "forerunners" this means a semi-decent laudatio, for the less fortunate (and we are speaking here about thinkers like Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, or Nietzsche) it means a cringeworthy misinterpretation topped by thinly-veiled (in fact painfully obvious) moralizing condemnation.

Seriously, banging your head against a wall is time better spent than reading Russell.

>>3128686
Read poorly, my bad.

>>3128657

Yeah, but it's fucking Bertrand Russell, I suggest to OP that he just read Russell's wikipedia page and dive in.

OP, use these websites:
http://www.philosophos.com/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
http://www.friesian.com/
& understand these concepts:

"Problem of Universals"
"Theory of the Forms" (Plato)
"a priori/a posteriori" (Kant)
"analytic/synthetic" (again)
wikipedia around Metaphysics

A couple of other concepts to understand
"Problem of Knowledge" (Descartes)
"Skepticism" (Hume, but read the entire Enquiry)

Then take off in examining the Form of the Good / ethix as you see fit: wikipedia is your friend.
"Nicomachean & Eudemian ethics and Magna Moralia" (Aristotle)
Your ethical journey is important and your own.

Short, and there is much more to read about, but look around, check out those websites first, and dive into some reading.

Don't be fooled by contemporaries who think that you don't need to read classics in philosophy in order to understand what it means to be a philosopher.

>>3128885

The final statement was not in affiliation with anyone in this thread, but rather just a silly perspective I have encountered in my days at the university.

>>3128694
saved

start with heideggar, and end with descartes

ANYONE WHO DOESN'T READ MY BOOK IS HITLER

>>3126875
Depends on your motives to read philosophy in the first place. If it is just bragging rights and to look smart (don't worry a lot of us are like this), then I would say yes. If it is because you are interested in a certain area and a certain field of questions, then no. That would be like trying to learn mathematics starting with Euclid and working your way through to modern abstract algebra.

I was introduced to philosophy via competetive debate and our entry point is post-structuralism. Generally I think working backwards turned out alright, but there are times where it's really evident that texts would be much easier chronologically.

>>3128694
>Russell kept on rambling about how mankind needs to mend its ways or it will annihilate itself within the next 20-30 years
he was right on this though. Unfortunately he was just a litle ahead of his time.

fixed

>>3129394

descartes needs to have something involving giving the dick.

Read differance first. That should cure your desire to investigate the history of Western Metaphysics.

>>3127158
"Ea verpam da"

Heidegger said something about studying 10-15 years of Aristotle before starting Nietzsche, the point of which I think is that there are some philosophers who are in a dialogue with the ancients (or what have you). But if you're new at philosophy in general, it's probably better to have a more general understanding of someone you're interested in rather than specialized knowledge of something you don't really care about.

>>3129383
My point was the height of his presumption: he kept on repeating it despite having been repeatedly proven wrong by experience.

>>3130057
So what? That didn't really prevent it from happening in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

That said, I liked a history of western philosophy a lot, and I think that it had a great information/ time spent ratio. I also liked his writing / humor.