/lit/ - Literature

>>5135477
Shit, that pic is accurate as fuck. I really enjoyed it.

because you want to understand computers you don't start with sand

>>5135493

Yes, you start with the history of computers instead.
Also bad example - the C family, which is the basis for all basically all programming languages that currently exist, was created in 1972 and is generally the first thing programmers learn about.

Anyone?

>>5135477
>What would be wrong with that?
it all depends on what you want to get out of your experience reading philosophy.

do you want to be super well-versed in philosophy in general? do you want to be able to contribute to any random philosophical conversation? then there's nothing wrong with that at all; start from the beginning and learn it all. it's how things are done frequently in academic tradition and is intuitive enough to be valuable and effective, particularly with guidance (like a syllabus, for example).

so if you like the intellectual stimulation of it all, do it that way. my reason for reading philosophy is oriented more personally: i love the feeling of reading something that articulates a notion of life so precisely that a new part of existence has been illuminated. i also sometimes like reading things that i can very deeply, convincingly, and passionately disagree with – this can be very life-affirming as well (shoutout to the stirner threads). so do you want to feel smart and knowledgeable? that's not a trolling question, because that's an authentic way of living, i think. if so, start with the greeks. do you want to read things that are written by people who have thought about things you've probably thought about and tried to articulate their thoughts or conclusions? if so, you don't have to start with the greeks, unless you want to, then go for it.

my own recommendation draws an analogy with the way people (i.e.: me lol) get into music: first you intuitively like something, but don't necessarily know why. as you start to listen to what you like with more intent, you might end up listening to something someone mentioned they were influenced by, or maybe a contemporary they are linked with frequently, and your exposure/comprehension of music expands organically... basically, i didn't start listening to gregorian chanting first or classical music first or chuck berry first or the beatles first (or whoever resolves this analogy best), but with time i circled back to the foundations in much more pointed and thoughtful ways. there are obvious flaws to this analogy, but in essence, do it the way you want and reassess your progress/process as you go. of course, if you try to read some greek texts and find yourself agreeing or understanding or at least finding value in the process of reading the text, then maybe chronology is best. do you

>>5135566
> do you

deep af nigga

>>5135566
>inb4 start with the blues becomes /mu/ meme

>>5135566
This is why I still come to /lit/

>>5135578
for common knowledge?

>>5135477
I'd you wanted to go chronologically, wouldn't you start with the Chinese?

>>5135497
Because C language is still relevant. Hell, 95% of my kernel is written in C.

>>5135573
You realize that blues is a very recent development concerning both art and folk music, right?

Why not start with Seikilos epitaph?

>>5135600
>Why not start with Seikilos epitaph?
Because that's a bullshit fragment. The true /mu/ calling is 'start with the monks' because /mu/ basically starts with scholasticism.

>>5135580
No, for someone who's sincere about what they study and who, through a short anecdote, reveals a passion and love for the arts. Rather than an insecure shitflinger, which is the majority of /lit/

>>5135477
>>5135566

There's nothing wrong with it, but like this guy said, it depends on your interests. I start with the Greeks because I need context. Without understanding the part in relation to the whole, I feel lost in the vacuum. Also, I always thought Plato was eh until I learned some ancient history and read about the Pre-Socratics. Then you realize how revolutionary Plato was.

>>5135477
holy shit that pic is accurate

>>5135477
It's only terrible to the people who say "HEY HOW I PHILOSOPHY?" and then realise they actually have to make an effort.

Because it's unnecessary and alienating to people who are looking for an introduction to philosophy.

Knowing the Greeks and understanding the historical context of Western philosophy is *good*. Don't get me wrong. It's really valuable and adds a much deeper understanding of later philosophers. But it's not *necessary*. You can still get something out of Kant or Nietzsche, even if it is not an understanding with the same depth or rigor that it would have if you understood the arguments Kant or Nietzsche is responding to. And you don't have to start out with the perfect. It's okay to start out with the good. It's useful to know about the Greeks but it's not a requirement. It's a good way but not the only way.

And second, it's alienating. Philosophy is hard especially if you're a beginner. And if your motivation to get into philosophy is an interest in a specific thinker, or a specific topic, being told that you have to slog through 1900 years of dense, often alienating philosophy can be, you know, a real boner killer. And that's a bad thing. And I would say it's better, in the abstract, to start people thinking about philosophy and learning what they can about whatever parts of philosophy interest them, and then deepening and widening and digging out from there, than it is to demand perfection from them on a rigorous course.

>>5135477
>Don't you faggots realize that Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein refuted all this stuff in the 1920s. The entire canon of philosophy before then was all useless bullshit

Most accurate panel

>>5135477
>>5135817
how did they refute Nietzsche's ethical observations?

>>5135949
an accurate picture of /lit/ not an accurate picture of accuracy

without reading "the greeks", latin literature etc. it's impossible to understand anything harder than DFW. so basically those who didn't start with the greeks are the same who complain "omfg this book makes no sense and is pretentious bullshit!"

>>5135477
It's not bad advice to start with the Greeks.

Its just obvious advice, so it has become a maymay around here. It's a kind of facile response to anybody interested in literature.

Taste aside, Plato is a very good place to start reading philosophy... and the Greeks are a good place to start for drama and poetry.

P.S. always ignore aspies on ego trips who write posts like these. >>5135685

>>5135967
PLEASE don't troll this serious thread...

>>5136059
sorry for not talking about maymays or having pictures of christian bale

>>5136059
there's nothing about that post that implies an ego trip lol, it's helpful advice

The backbone of philosophy:

Plato
Aristotle
Then skip all the way to Descartes
Hume
Kant
Nietzsche
Wittgenstein

Have a good general understanding of all of these and then you can branch off to wherever you want.

>>5136129
you should have some experience with medieval philosophy tho

abriged summa theologica is fine for beginners

>>5136087
>>5136092
Way to defend your own post twice.

I see you used a lack of punctuation to emulate the tone of a poster other than yourself. Good technique.

>>5136142
damn, bateman meme + samefag accusations. nice! are you a /mu/ refugee?

>>5135477
Start with who you want

>>5135477
If you are even asking, clearly you didn't start with the Greeks. Enjoy being forever ignorant OP.

>>5136149
>accuses me of coming to /lit/ from /mu/
>uses small caps

I'll give you a 6/10 since I responded.

>>5136259
Not him but fuck yourself. Go back to wherever.

>>5136259
>thinks hitting shift every now and then makes him not-retarded

>>5135666
>>5135685

>>5136324
Philosophy requires effort and commitment no matter what. It's not like reading 19th century philosophers is particularly easy. It's not a question of effort, it's a question of what people are interested in and what they care about.

Or you could just go Greeks, romanticism, existentialism, modern.

The others are just optional filler.

>>5135477
>>5136059
Pretty much this, though some people tend to mistake obvious advice for bad advice.

>>5136359

>stoicism
>optional filler

>>5136444
>roman stoicism
>only 1 good thinker
pick 2, also even he was practically a greek

>>5136444

I mean, it's not essential to understanding a number of the fundamental demarcation problems philosophy tackles, but as far as a living philosophy goes I consider it essential.

>>5136444
>stoicism
>roman

All the worthwhile Stoics were Greek except Seneca.

inb4 pleb emperor diary adventures

>>5135566
>the beatles

>>5136129
>skipping Aquinas

'no'

>Nietzsche

I'd argue, but yeah maybe. Also, Heidegger should be included IMO

>>5135493
You should see Carl Sagan's recipe for apple pie.

>>5135477
>move on to the skeptics, then the stoics

But those are part of 'the Greeks'.

>>5136129
>Wittgenstein
>but no Hegel

u serious nigga ?

>>5136141
It's already implied you've read the Bible and thus you can branh out from it.

>>5135497
>you start with the history of computers
Nope, you don't, you start with programming.

>C family, which is the basis for all basically all programming languages that currently exist
Not true and also LISP predates C but even MIT doesn't start with LISP any more. The appeal of C clearly isn't its historical value.

>[C is] generally the first thing programmers learn about
Nope again, the majority of CS programs start students off with a GC'd language

>>5139256
He's probably an analytic naturalist. That would explain his boner on Hume and Nietzsche.

>>5136129
terrible list