/lit/ - Literature

>dry and trivial

Time for you to read some Plato.

Fuck off if you can't be bothered to lurk for two hours.

Most recently I tried reading some Wittgenstein but didn't really care for it. Maybe I am a simpleton

>>3463287
>implying philosophy cannot be expressed through fiction
>never read Ayn Rand
>never read Daniel Quinn
>never read Camus or Sartre
>never read like 50 other authors

Look up 'false dichotomy', OP, for this is the fallacy you have committed in suggesting that fiction and philosophy are mutually exclusive categories of literature.

>>3463290
>>3463386
This, you're clearly not very well exposed to culture in general.

Get Durant's Story of Philosophy. It covers the basic history of philosophy, describing the different characters and periods in a readable and interesting way.

If you're too pleb you can get the teen version: Sophie's World.

>>3463386
>recommending Sartre to anyone

Oh God why, might as well just throw Schopenhauer and a pack of razor blades in there while you're at it.

>>3463396
>this

I also like Russell's History of Western Philosophy as a starter.

>>3463418
What the fuck?

Sartre was the only commendable one in that bunch.

>trivial

It makes sense that you would think this, since often Philosophers spend a lot of time refuting or dwelling on things which were huge issues in the history of philosophy.

For example: Heidegger seems to be stating the most common sense shit ever unless you're familiar with a lot of the history of dualism and skepticism.

Wittgenstein seems to be stating really obvious stuff unless you're familiar with the quests prior to identify what the general form of the proposition is [i.e. Frege, Russell, Whitehead, early Wittgenstein.]

>>3463427
>existentialist anti-philosophy
>commendable

not sure if serious

personally the only non-fiction work i've read so far is Walden, and I'd like to keep it up...
basically, while i'm here i'd like to ask /lit/ where to start?

>>3463453
see
>>3463418
>>3463396

I prefer Russell's, because it's his traditional blend of genius-level scholarship and thought with a thread of dry humor to keep the book from getting pompous like most philosophical histoires tend to be.

>>3463453
The 'Great Classic Introduction to Philosophy' is Russell's History of Western Philosophy.

But it's a bit too much of a history book and less of a philosophy book, in my opinion. I'd recommend Anthony Kenny's "New History of Western Philosophy."
It's split into historically organized sections, each of which has a sub-chapter on metaphysics, one on God, one on ethics and so on.

Also Kenny is more than willing to tie the earlier stuff together with the later stuff, so he brings in Wittgenstein in an understandable way when talking about the Socratic method. (Kenny himself was a student of Wittgenstein.)

This will take you through the history of philosophy up to the late 80s. If you then want to continue you should know which areas of philosophy you are interested in after reading, (or you can just go on to an anthology of the modern stuff like Scruton's 'Modern Philosophy.)

>>3463471
>>3463481
Appreciated.

>>3463481
>Wittgenstein

Never much cared for that guy, always seemed like Schopenhauer's doom 'n gloom in fancy clothes. But then I guess being a gay Jew in Europe in his time would probably lend to a pessimistic worldview.

Always good to see how the other side thinks, though.

Here is a link (pdf file) to Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Enjoy, anon!

>http://www.mediafire.com/?kktiaw2md

>>3463496
He's not pessimistic, he's just autistic. But still a must read if you're into philosophy.

>>3463504
>>3463505
>>3463496

Are you three new to the board? New to 4chan?

Honest question, you're the first new tripcodes I've seen in a while.

>>3463505

Absolutely, even if only for the mental exercise of "let's not decide whether this is true or false, but rather try to understand how it could seem true to this guy."

After all, our own mental models of the Universe are probably hilarious to most other people now, and certainly will be to everyone in a few hundred years.

>>3463504
Thank you mister!

>>3463518
>New to 4chan?

Oh Lord no.

I pop in here now and then to troll victims of critical theory and pick up recommendations for interesting reads.

>>3463504

You, sir, are a quality poster and a true gentleman.

>>3463520
>try to understand how it could seem true to this guy.

I appreciate a lot of philosophy that I think is invalid if only for the sense of beauty it invokes.

Love George Berkeley, though I think we've grown well past forgiving his sort of idealism.

>>3463518

I've been lurking for years (mostly /hr/, /mu/, and /lit/), but only post when I can help someone out.

>>3463527

Thanks, friend

Hey, anon, all four volumes of A New History of Western Philosophy are on #bookz under bot "ps2" if you want those too.

are there any works that build a bridge between aesthetics (i find this beautiful/compelling), and normative thought (i find this good or bad).