/lit/ - Literature

>>5465518
Show us tits Arrow.

Yep you're definitely a STEM fag

Read about the Logical Positivists and fap about how great science is and then read about it's demise and kill yourself.

>>5465518
just start reading the original texts cohorently with the explainations etc

>>5465518
I want you to feel inadequate. Start with Hegel's phenomenology of the mind/spirit.

Sorry about any trolls, a lot of us are pretty bitter because STEM is generally a lot more valued by the public in modern society. A lot of people might try to take out their frustration on you.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a fantastic resource with manageable yet relatively comprehensive chunks. If you find something you're interested in, though, nothing beats the original text. I also really like the Partially Examined Life, which is a podcast.

I'm not that familiar with scientism, unfortunately, so I can't help you there. I'd just look up some philosophers associated with it and dive in. You might want to familiarize yourself with philosophy in general however if you want to get into anything heavy. Bertrand Russel might be up your alley, maybe.

>>5465533
just in case you cant read the small font:
the first books are called a very short introduction to {philosophy(by edward craig);philosphy of science by samir okasha}

i suggest that you read everything consecutively really just dont be ignorant flip every rock etc

>>5465518
>I also heard about a philosophy called "scientism"
You don't want that, it's almost exclusively an expletive. Read Kuhn's Structure of Scientifc Revolution and Feyerabend's Against Method.

Otherwise, start by reading Wikipedia and Stanford articles on philosophers that sound interesting. Try Wittgenstein, Kant, Hegel, Stirner, Marx, Heidegger, Quine, or whatever else strikes your fancy. If the article sounds interesting, get a book called 'Introduction to X'.

I suggest you start with Aristotle/Plato and get a broad overview of their views. A lot of modern philosophies are essentially broadly neoplatonism, especially in Christian thinking. I don't recall who said it, but somebody said "all of philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Plato".

Aquinas + Augustine obviously for their arguments relating to God. Aquinas basically details the cosmological arguments in various ways, whereas Augustine's main feat was tackling the problem of evil with Augustinian theodicy among other things.

Make sure to read There is a God by Anthony Flew.

Don't bother with Neitzche till you have read a few books on philosophy. Also, get a study guide for him.

Descartes is pretty interesting, but I would not put a priority on reading him. His arguments are sound, but they are really for somebody with a stronger philosophical understanding.

I don't really know about scientism, but you may be talking about positivism. All in all, applying a scientific calculus to philosophical issues is usually a category mistake. You perhaps might be interested in epistemology or religious language--A.J Ayer.

>>5465561
I started with the Russell book, goes over everything pretty much: >>5465533

>>5465518
My recommended progression
Plato>Wikipedia Aristotle (I'm not joking)>Hume>Kant(this is where it starts becoming a chore)>hegel(you will probably understand about 1% on a first reading)>shöpenhaur>Nietzsche> kierkagaard (my personal favorite)>Wittgenstein>heidiger

>>5465518
WTF DID YOU DO TO PEPE`

>>5465518
Karl Popper if STEM philosophy is what you want to start with. Plenty of physicists have written on philosophy too

>>5465518
Ray Brassier and Quine might be up your alley. The line between philosophy and science is a line drawn in water with faith in the division of analytic and synthetic knowledge.

>>5465593
HE IS REBORN

>>5465518
>summary of the proven and accepted results

lol

>>5465593
evolution

>>5465518
>bait

Try to prove the existence of elementary sentences. Then you are the most famous philosopher of all time.

>philosophy
>proven and accepted results
HAHAHA

>>5465533
that infographic is shit. russel is too biased and durant is too outdated. read frederick copleston or anthony kenny's new history of western philosophy instead.

Philosophy isn't about finding facts, you autist
go play with blocks

>>5465544
Have you actually read philosphy m8?
Remember fuckin Socrates? Why would philosophers give a shit about what is "valued by the public in modern society"? more valuable is the shit I just flushed

>STEM
>wants to read philosophy

Atlas Shrugged.
Most your ilk seem to dig that. Lazy commies ( read: niggers ) are to blame for all.

>>5465533

>starting with Rustlin' Russell's Hard-Hittin' Knock-Down Continent-Demolishin' History of Western Philosophy Except for the 19th Century
For what purpose? It's not a bad book, but it is very biased - I say this as someone who himself despises Continental philosophy.

Anyways, OP, if you're not just b8, I'd recommend getting a gist for the earlier periods of Western philosophy with the No Gaps History of Philosophy Podcast - unfortunately, it's still a WIP, and will remain so for years, so you can't take it all the way through. After that, I'd recommend reading, first, Kenny's History, as someone already mentioned here, and then Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy. This should give you a nice cross-section of Western philosophy by both time-period and subject matter, so you can then delve into whatever area of that cross-section seems the most interesting to you. And for the record: scientism is not a good thing - indeed, it is perhaps the primary thing that has plagued Analytic philosophy thoughout its lifespan, and whoever told you about it, if indeed he said only what you paraphrased, was obviously leaving out some more controversial parts of the scientismic doctrine to try and make it sound stronger to one of the uninitiated. What scientism really is is an attempt to say that one can have NO KNOWLEDGE beyond what is given to you by the scientific method, which is plainly absurd, at least in my opinion (and in the opinion of most - though far from all - professional philosophers). The main problem, of course, is qualia. Your knowledge of the inherent redness of an apple isn't something you've gathered through use of the scientific method, and yet there you are, with the KNOWLEDGE that a given apple is red. This cannot be scientifically deduced. Again, I suspect you're just b8ing, but if you're not: Good luck!

>>5465569

That's absolutely horrendous. Do nothing of what this man says. DO NOT start with Plato. DO NOT proceed directly from Plato to Aristotle. DO NOT ignore the Continental Rationalists. DO NOT proceed directly from Kant to Hegel (especially without a reader) - in fact, I'd prefer that you not try and read Hegel at all, since he's a huge waste of time, but do what you gotta do. DO NOT read Schopenhauer at all. His "thought" is basically just angst and unpleasantness made "profound" through verbiage. DO NOT read Kierkegaard AFTER Nietzche (he was actually before Nietzsche). And lastly, DO NOT bother with ANYTHING related to either Wittgenstein or Heidegger until you've already read a fair amount of easier stuff. In fact, you may not want to bother with Heidegger at all - maybe just read some Dreyfus, and in particular his What Computers Can't Do/What Computers Still Can't Do. It's an intriguing challenge to that scientismic position you were so impressed by.

>>5466876
Excuse me Sir, did you just say do not read Schopenhauer.

>>5466880

Yes. He's useless and vague even by Continental standards.

i hate this board

>>5466884
That's your problem, holding Schopenhauer who is a God-tier philosopher to shitty standards.

Not for another millenia will the effect of his World as Will and Representation be truly felt by the entire human species.

>>5466886
This board hates you.
#shotsfired

>Caring that the errors were corrected later
The history of knowledge is the history of mistakes, OP. STEMfags can't accept that and that's why they're a problem.

>>5466876
>implying plato and Aristotle are hard to understand
>implying the order you read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche matter
>implying you can fully understand Nietzsche without Shöpenhaur
>implying the founder of modern dialectics is "useless"
>implying Wittgenstein isn't GOAT