/lit/ - Literature

Zhuangzi

>>5007762
start with the presocratics
then plato
then cicero
then augustine
then aquinas
then montaigne
then descartes
then spinoza
then kant
then hegel
then kierkegaard
the nietzsche
then heidegger
stop there and go back to those you haven't read that were before 1900

>>5007773
you might want to start with some history of philosophy

perhaps russell's

>>5007773
>no Aristotle

Sir I must ask you to reconsider.

>>5007782
alright

done

Sophie's World would be what you're looking for, OP.

>>5007763
How bout Wandering the Way?

Anything that has a title like "Basic Writings of..."

It's the basics and will likely include introductions and notes. You can also consult online sources for further explanation of shit you don't understand. Read around until you get used to reading philosophy (while also getting basic knowledge of various things quickly). Then, you can eventually read full works, etc.

>>5007773
The sad part is you probably haven't even read half the works by half the thinkers on that list.
>>5007762
OP, I would suggest finding out what topic in philosophy interests you. Is it philosophy of science? Maybe check out Kuhn and Feyrebrand and Popper. Is it philosophy of mathematics and logic? Check out Russel and Wittgenstein and Frege and Carnap. Is it philosophy of religion? Check out Eliade and James. Perhaps a specific religion? Buddhism? Christianity? Hinduism? Judaism? There are tons of philosophers of these traditions. Check 'em out! Shit, man, there's even atheist philosophers. From the Nietzsche to Dawkins and everywhere in between. Philosophy of politics? Check out Marx and Hobbes and Locke and Strauss. I wouldn't worry about the history too much. You could literally spend a lifetime just studying Plato (I know professors at my university who did!). If you need help understanding context, check out secondary literature. The main reason to study the history of philosophy is to learn the history of philosophy -- which is an interesting subject on its own, most certainly, but not the only reason to learn philosophy.

>>5007827
wanna bet

>>5007827
Existential philosophy my man.

Can you point me in the right direction?

>>5007830
no one cares

whats a good all round introduction

I'm currently reading the Meditations, it's my first philosophy book and I believe it's very much beginner tier, it's short and not hard to comprehend.

But, judging by the OP pic, you probably got onto that one yourself.

Where can I go from here? I want to read more philosophy, but I'm not sure what to read.

>>5007838
Sartre, though his romans and plays are superior to his philosophy

>>5007827
>if you want to learn about a subject you should learn just a portion of it

>>5007782
His list was more than complete without Aristotle.

>>5007877
ooooh burn

>>5007846
I didn't know Meditations was considered philosophy. It just seems more like a decent guide to living.

>>5007838
Camus, Kafka, Dosteovesky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Jaspers, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre.
>>5007860
Philosophy is a matter of fads. Historiography and hagiography go hand in hand in the subject. Ask someone what the "canon" is and you'll get different answers depending on their area of interest. Is Hegelianism dead or alive? What parts of Hegelianism are dead or alive?

>>5007773
>ended with the continentals
>not with Harris

>>5007924
no ur a loser

Can anyone recommend me a specific book?
I want to get more into ancient philosophy, but in most threads people seem to recommend authors rather than specific works.
If I, for example, wanted to read some Aristotle, I wouldn't be sure which of the things he wrote I should start with.

I want to start with the greeks but I don't know how to, please respond

>>5007794
yes, that would be appropriet

>>5007952
Skip Aristotle.

>>5007773
why aquinas

>>5007952
Read Aristotle's metaphyics and poetics.

Read Plato's early dialogs, perhaps the Euthyphro, the Apology, the Crito and the Phaedo first. Then try the Meno, the Timaeus, the Symposium and the Rival Lovers.

>>5007952
This is the book I used in my Ancient Greek Philosophy class:

http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Ancient-Greek-Philosophy-Aristotle/dp/1603844627/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1402696900&sr=8-2&keywords=ancient+greek+philosophy

>>5007964
To get an understanding of theology and medieval philosophy, and to get past Augustine, which was important to read to understand what became of Plato and Aristotle in a christian context and how a synthesis of early theology and philosophy was achieved.

>>5007962
Why do you hate Aristotle?
>>5007969
>>5007970
thanks for helping!

>>5007912
What authors are considered canon doesn't matter, but the major movements should be covered regardless of their relevance, which is why "start with the greeks" was parroted so often it became a meme

Anyone know how good this book is?

>>5007773
then read wittgenstein.
drop philosophy.
go find a job in a factory.

>>5007779
>Russell
Fuck off

>>5007912
>Dosteovesky
>philosopher

>>5007793
A thousand times this, disregard the other posts, just get this book, it'll make you less confused.

anything that celebrities talk about or gets featured on media for the masses.

best books are usually by philosophy savants who spend all their time laser focused on whatever the subject is, not people writing for money

>>5008680
He started the existential school of thought though. He did it through novels instead of directly speaking of it.

>>5008684
Not OP, but I just checked it out on wikipedia and it looks interesting as fuck.

>>5007773
I'm starting reading philosphy right now, going
>Aristotle
>Plato
>Nietzsche
any suggestions if i should restart that order

>>5008721
Replace Nietzsche with Kant and then we'll talk

>>5008707
It's a great book; not just because it delivers on being and introductory text for philosophy, but also because it's very good as a novel. Shame it's not given more use in schools.

>>5008724
He's just starting and you want him to pick up Kant? Come on.

I was interested in giving Schopenhauer a try, however I have read that his writing style is quite difficult.

Moreover his masterpiece "Representation ..." has III volumes. Are all three complementary? Are those revisions of the prior versions? Which one should I read?

>>5008747
I don't understand why so many people on this board seem to despise Kant.

>>5007762
(This is prewritten and not spellchecked)
First piece of advice would be to disregard any recommendations made by tripfags. Why? They care only for their image. Notice that they will probably be among the first posters. They must be to make sure enough people pay attention to them. They have no genuine interest in offering any useful advice. Dismiss it all.
Secondly, do not fall victim to the recommendation of beginning your journey through philosophy (or any field) with a history book or novelization (like Sophie's World or Confessions of a philosopher). These are entertaining, but offer very little actual data on the field, apart from some historic trivia and superficial explanaitions on some theories.
Thirdly, do not be afraid of textbooks! They are the best place to start. They might be dry and loaded, but worthed it.
Last piece of advice is to not jump blindly into primary sources. Do not read philosophy books until you've read secondary literature (textbooks, companions, guides) and have made an outline according to the data in those books.
It would be best to begin with the blackwell companion to philosophy. It elaborates, in an easy, but detailed manner on all the major fields of philosophy, its theories and issues and the major exponents in philosophy as a whole.
Here's a link: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=Blackwell+Companion+philosophy&open=0&view=simple&column=def

Should philosophy be read in chronological order or can you alternate between modern and ancient philosopher and still get a good understanding of philosophy?

Baudrillard Consumer Society, America

>>5008758
Because Kant's writing is extremely difficult

>>5007964
Because he's one of the most important Aristotelian thinkers of all-time and massively influential to western philosophy.

>inb4 fedoras who can't into the quinque viae trying to refute it and acting like that's the only thing aquinas ever wrote

>>5007782
To read aristotle all you have to do is take Plato, and make it all sound autistic and nothing like Plato.

>>5007762

Enjoy

https://archive.org/details/presocraticphilo033229mbp

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Philosophy_%28Bookshelf%29

>>5007793

This is a very good introduction to the matter.

Derrida and Hegel are generally considered the easiest philosophers for beginners to tackle.

>>5008763
thanks. can you expand on the secondary literature part? im a hs dropout so i'd like to get those things locked down now to be able to move further

>>5008885
Use the link i gave you to look for all the blackwell guides plus then some and here are the routledge ones, which are as good:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=The+Routledge+Companion+philosophy&open=0&view=simple&column=def
Also, anthologies and encyclopedias are great secondaries.
Standford's online one is the best: http://plato.stanford.edu

Why do you read original works? Quality synopsis is always better way to soak up the wisdom. Read Oxford History of Western Philosophy. It is too late in the day to absorb works piece by piece. Get an outline so you know what you wish.

Stirner is the end of philosophy.

>>5008721
Reading categories by Aristotle now. Guys I feel like I've broken the fourth wall

>>5008900
thank you based anon!
(>tfw i've already been reading stanford's for the past couple of days)

any final tips/words are welcome!

>>5008951
I heard some anons say Wittgenstein was the end, had "solved it all" How do we compare the two

(I- I think I've become a "Stirner-fag")

>>5009030
I don't think their comparable, either in their approach or in the areas of philosophy they dealt with.

>>5008951
Okay, but we should still all know the beginning as well, right?

>>5009030
We all make it there eventually, Papillon.

Embrace it.

>>5007762
the greeks

>>5009045
this stirnir was a hacking faud of a philosopher
wittgenstein on the other hand was/is the greatest philospher of all time

>>5007762
Philosophy is far too broad to make it worth trying to read in any sort of chronological order. It's better to read around what fields will be of interest to you and then dig a bit deeper. There's loads of good anthologies which will serve as introduction.

For what it's worth, I'd really recommend against 'starting with the Greeks', it'll probably bore you to death. Half of the texts on this guys list >>5007773 are really boring, and I didn't think they were worth my time.

Russell's 'A History of Western...' is a pretty clear introduction, though I think even that is fairly boring.

I've gone through academic philosophy to masters' level and I don't think there's anything of interest left bar existential texts e.g. Sartre, Nietzsche and so on.

>>5009030
In case anyone needed confirmation on your retard status.

>>5010857
>I don't think there's anything of interest left bar existential texts e.g. Sartre, Nietzsche and so on.

Existentialism is literature masked as philosophy

The first and only "philosophical" work I've read is Kierkegaard's Fear & Trembling and I had a lot of fun with it. I read the penguin edition, and the introduction helped me understand the work immensely. I just bought a collection of basic existential writings that i'm gonna try and read before I plunge any farther into philosophy.

>>5010917
>stole from Albert Camus
Also Heidegger

Russel's The Problems of Philosophy, I think, is a decent small start; as well as his History of Western Philosophy -- biased though it may be.

Or, you can start with the Greeks.

>>5010859
>Shitposting
Are you attempting to hurt my feelings?

>>5008781
>Kant
>difficult
kek no it's only boring


A difficult philosopher is one writing obscure shit like Heidegger or Hegel. It's impossible to not understand Kant if you read him while taking your time to try to understand everything.

>>5008951
lollllllllllllllll

Stirner is just Hegel brought to a whole new level of absurdity and abstraction; his very premise (let me care about myself if Humanity and Reason care about themselves) is based on hegelian teleology you fucking faggot he's not the end of philosophy in any way whatsoever you need to get this middleschool teacher's cock out of your nostrils.

>>5009030
You heard some anons say retarded shit. Wittgenstein never wrote any philosophy, he merely worked with bad philology.

>>5011094
>Stirner is just Hegel brought to a whole new level of absurdity and abstraction; his very premise (let me care about myself if Humanity and Reason care about themselves) is based on hegelian teleology you fucking faggot he's not the end of philosophy in any way whatsoever you need to get this middleschool teacher's cock out of your nostrils.
Stirner expressly rejects speculative philosophy, actually.

>>5008786
>and acting like that's the only thing aquinas ever wrote
He didn't write anything less meaningless, though.

>>5011267
Just like Hegel saying he refuses to base his philosophy on God, yeah, we've heard of these, and from reading your previous posts, you seem too clever to fall into such a massive and retarded claim, while his whole philosophy is only justified by the premise that the spooks themselves are egoistical. If the spooks don't exist, his philosophy is non-existent and his vast oeuvre of justification falls apart; the cognitive dissonance from not being socially and teleogically justified of being a total loser writing about spooks that are language games more than what Stirner considers them, this cognitive dissonance tears apart the brain of the fedora-wearing cunt, and his mom comes running down the stairs only to find him swimming in a pool of blood and skull fragments, a dildo in his ass and some school teacher's dick in his mouth.

>>5011310
No, his philosophy is based on the premise that spooks don't exist.

>>5011319
> "Should God take up the cause of truth if he were not himself truth?" He cares only for his cause, but, because he is all in all, therefore all is his cause! But we, we are not all in all, and our cause is altogether little and contemptible; therefore we must "serve a higher cause." -- Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well-pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is -- a purely egoistic cause.
How is it with mankind, whose cause we are to make our own? Is its cause that of another, and does mankind serve a higher cause? No, mankind looks only at itself, mankind will promote the interests of mankind only, mankind is its own cause. That it may develop, it causes nations and individuals to wear themselves out in its service, and, when they have accomplished what mankind needs, it throws them on the dung-heap of history in gratitude. Is not mankind's cause -- a purely egoistic cause?

>>5011332
That's a supplemental statement and idea, not the *basis* of his philosophy.

>>5007762

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b26BD5KjH0

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again

Can you picture what will be
So limitless and free
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand
In a...desperate land

>>5011340
It is the very basis of his whole philosophy and the vorwort of the whole book, because it is a cowardly act of self-justification, which explains the einzige as the result of hegelian dialectics; Stirner is just self-centered Hegel, without Hegel's genius and written with poor style. Stop the hype and move on to Nietzsche.

>>5007762
Le Petit Prince

get some existentialism in you in a quasi-children's book

>>5011359
No, the basis of his philosophy is metaphysical nihilism. Everything else is contingent upon that.

Oh, I have moved on to Nietzsche in reference to what I'm reading; Stirner's body of work is too small to stay mired in as far as the activity of reading and thought goes. And Nietzsche is beautiful. Nonetheless there is no way of "transcending" Stirner anymore than there is a way of "transcending" atheism; atheism can mean different things for different people, it can produce different outlooks, different observations, different passions; and you can still reading theistic works for pleasure; but it is silly to think of "going beyond atheism".

>>5012431
Stirner doesn't go beyond dialectics, though.

He should have said "my cause is footnotes to Hegel"

I fear that after reading Nietzsche's primary works, reading Schopenhauer would be like learning the rules of algebra after you have mastered calculus. Am I wrong?

If not Schopenhauer than what philosopher (after 1890s) should I read that continues with Nietzsche-like way of thinking?

>>5012478
Heidegger bby

>>5012438
That would only be true in the sense that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato.

>>5012478
Foucault

>>5012496
No, that's just absolutely false. Stirner doesn't get past hegelian dialectics, we've discussed this before (also you really should read Hegel before reading Stirner, if you haven't done so; you'll realize it's all hegelian discourse passing as new and free, while it isn't), Stirner really uses a hegelian discourse for the whole time, without getting past it, whereas Hegel contains Plato within his own system. Nietzsche takes his hat off and says "that's some nihilistic will you've got there, Willy."

>>5012538
Yes, well saying something uses Socratic method (which is actually akin to deconstruction) is not the same as saying, "It's just an extension of Plato".

>>5012585
"The socratic method" is just a fancy way of saying "pretending to be retarded".

>>5007762
Fred Coplestone's history

>>5007762
Dear OP,
Is it something that you want to have an applicable impact in your life or just general philosophy info?

(Usually we will run into people that have that "holier then thou" something that discounts your knowledge of the world and we want something neutral that allows you to hold your own in the random odd conversation where a hipster interjects something out of context.)

The.Best.Beginner.Tier.Philosophy book (Teaching about common sense) has to be Aesop's Fables.

Intro to intro:
Dostoevsky, Kierkegard, Nitzsche & Kafka by William Hubben

Philosophy 101:
Plato: Five Dialogs (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo) translated by G.M.A Grube

Community college philosophy 101:
Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sarte. Walter Kaufman

Eastern/Asian style:
I Ching
Confucius (ironic written in appro same time frame as Art Of War)
Various Zen writings

Christian "Philospophy"
C.s. Lewis - Mere Christianity
C.s. Lewis - the absolution of man

Fedora-Jedi tier, defeats all humans single handedly:
Book of the five rings

I recommend not reading anything until Aesop fables. Gutenberg website free reading archive should have it.

If you read the Aesop fables first, it is like gaining insight into any logic holes of other writers philosophies.

>>5012585
The "Socratic method" is nowhere near deconstruction as it supposes the pre-existence of knowledge in the subject, as well as Truth, which can be reached through discourse. You could however say that Augustines is just a christian Aristotles or that Diogenes is a mad Socrates.

>>5012592
Pretending to be retarded in other to reach The God.

>>5012611
>The "Socratic method" is nowhere near deconstruction as it supposes the pre-existence of knowledge in the subject, as well as Truth, which can be reached through discourse.

And what was the truth arrived at in Charmides?

>>5012623
The only truth ever reached (according to Socrates) through his dialogues is that asking questions is important; perhaps I was talking shit the whole time, even at my trial, but at least I asked myself questions and you should do the same. That's the whole moral of the story.

>>5012634
So the distinction you're making between Socratic method and deconstruction, is that Socratic method posits itself as important according to a value system, whereas deconstruction does not?

>>5011082
>>5011094
>>5011310
>>5011332
>>5011359
>>5012438
>>5012488
>>5012538
>>5012611
>>5012634
Have you ever even read a book

Jesus Christ you really don't know when you've lost, do you. I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with fucking Feminister in an argument.

Stop embarrassing yourself and drop trip/leave. Or, better yet, just kill yourself and enjoy your shitty Baroque music in hell.

>>5012651
>Or, better yet, just kill yourself and enjoy your shitty Baroque music in hell.
>Vivaldi's Spring on repeat

>>5012651
lolllllllllll

>>5012644
The distinction I'd make is that Socratic method is an almost religious one (the Meno) which is out there to seek objective Truth, a "spook" modernity has left behind, but the Socratic method does not seek to destroy what Socrates considers as untrue, as for him to say that all that opposes to his method is untrue, he would have to rely on some knowledge, which he has not. It's just looking for something.

brb

>>5012664
What is worse then a sore loser?
The sore winner.

memento mori

>>5012667
It seems to me that Socratic method is just getting foos to trip up and contradict themselves by asking strategic questions in a non-aggressive way so they aren't on guard.

>>5012681
Goddammit, who said that? I remember reading him, but I can't remember who it was.

>>5012699
Does it really matter?

Bread,food,water,shelter,good friends, getting laid > two wise men shouting at each other from 2 separate mountain tops, comparing...

Start with Of Grammatology by Derrida

>>5007838
>Existential philosophy
Isn't that for edgy teens? If not, why not?

>>5008674
Having read Russell's intro after finishing a large bulk of western philosophy's cannon, it's actually a fantastic summary. You're full of shit.

>>5012722
>Bread,food,water,shelter,good friends, getting laid > two wise men shouting at each other from 2 separate mountain tops, comparing...

>>5012805
Russell is an analytic hack who ruined British philosophy.

>>5007838
bwahahaahah. so misguided.

>>5012831
Are you just falling for the meme or do you actually have an opinion you can expound on?

>>5012814
I know man, I know, here we are just talking about the basics and these guys start pissing all over my rug man...

It really tied the room together.

>>5012683
Many of those foos may recognize you using Socratic questioning on them and resent you for that.

>>5008765
Please respond.

>>5007762
100 essential thinkers.
An incomplete education.
Introducing Nietzsche.


These three have got me through so many tight spots. They will allow you to bullshit masterfully while piquing your interest.

>>5010888
I don't think masked is the right word, but I see what you're getting at. That's what makes it more interesting, anyway. I think any 'meaningful' insight gained from literature is at least as valid as any philosophical argument. I just can't bring myself to give a fuck about whether or not there's a synthetic a priori.

Only other interesting stuff is the current 'cutting edge' of ethics e.g. medical ethics and so forth.

>>5008858
Oh just fuck off. The poor chap is trying to better himself and when he comes looking for advice you lead him in completely the wrong direction.

Don't think about going near Hegel or Derrida until you have a good grounding in philosophy OP.

>>5013191
Heaven forbid you might encounter something you don't understand and be cruelly forced to look it up and learn more.

>>5008765

Since philosophy is - at least for a good part of it - a dialogue, there are themes, that can be read independently from the chronological order.

For instance, sometimes you learn about an "old" idea, thanks to the critic of "modern" author, so as you read the critic, you tend to go to the reference text, and play the game of seeing if you spot the same weak points than the modern author saw.

Basically, you can have both approaches, some people will tell you the most important thing is to understand the Gordian knots of the matter, independently from history, some others will say the contrary, that history has an extremely important weight on the questions.

You could argue, that if the questions are absolutely universal, they are out of history, therefore, the first approach (to focus on key aspects as thought by many authors), is perfectly valid.

>>5013209

Ahh yes, because those suggestions were definitely made in the spirit of aiding intellectual inquiry and discovery.

>>5013234

Well, that is like traveling back and forth in time.

>>5007762
Worldly Wisdom: Great Books and the Meanings of Life by James Sloan Allen

Being and Time

Dhammapada

Mulamadhyamakakarika