/lit/ - Literature

Stefan Molyneux ;^)

>>6935659
School of Life's not bad (written by Alain de Botton) but you have to supplement it with actual reading

>>6935659

What kind of philosophy? Rigorous philosophy? Or more like I want to watch a short synopsis on a thinker while I eat popcorn philosophy?

>>6935664
>Stefan Molyneux
>Muh libertarian 'anarcho-capitalist' ideology

>>6935665

normie reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>6935665
That's what i kinda thought. I've watched some of their videos, with assisted reading to get a fuller understanding of the philosophers ideas. Right now, i'm reading about socialism(Marxism) & existentialism. The points made in the School of Life video i've watched on we're pretty accurate with Karl Marx book i read on Marx's theories.

>>6935665

>>6935659
http://historyofphilosophy.net/

>>6935667
The former.

>>6935716

I would recommend a podcast if you are looking for a somewhat more rigorous setting than most youtube presentations of philosophy.

https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/

>>6935680
>>6935705

>The popularity of a source lessens the quality of the knowledge it conveys

Never change /lit/

>>6935716
>>6935729

Also, forgot, http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

Is actually really decent imo. Quality shit to listen to man.

>>6935753
Thanks.

>>6935761

Np anon, have a good time philosophizing.

Forgive me for slightly hijacking the thread, but to what extent are essays needed for the understanding of certain philosophers? And should they he read before or after reading the primary source? I understand that for thinkers like Kant or Heidegger I'll need quite abit of secondary aid, but what about for Plato or Schopenhauer? Btw I will/do read intros for each thinker (normally the ones of stanford encyc. or in the books).

>>6935781

It is contextual. For Plato and Schopenhauer, I would say it is much easier to jump into Plato than Schopenhauer; given that Schopenhauer is mostly responding to and recapitulating certain Kantian claims. Is there a philosopher you are specifically interested in?

>>6935797
Cheers for the reply. I would say there are certain philosophers I'm interested in such as Plato, Epicurus, Hume, Hegel, Schopey etcetera; but I plan on reading through philosophy the semi-chronological way. I don't plan on doing this because /lit/ told me do; it's just I enjoy the history of thought and I'm fascinated by what most of them had to say and thought; I also don't plan on doing philosophy academically so I've got plenty of time to read through (I don't think I'll be done for years, which is a good thing imo)

>>6935714
After like fifty episodes this podcast NEEDS SOME GAPS. It's way too weighed down in uninteresting way.

>>6935818

Yeah, I would actually check out the podcasts I linked previously. The partially examined life is pretty decent, and the history of philosophy without gaps is a top tier historically based philosophy podcast. However, the latter podcast is still within the medieval period, so it is mostly theology, but you might enjoy that. Anyways, the point is that I would recommend somewhat superficially listening to a podcast about Plato, Hegel, Schopenhauer, or w.e., and orientating yourself to that philosopher and decide whether they are worth pursuing. But, if you want to do it semi-chronologically, I would start with the Pre-socratics, and would take a dabble with that second podcast I spoke about. You can find most of the pre-socratics online, and the concepts espoused in them are fairly straightforward, they mostly have to do with the greek concept of Arche, or first principles, so you get things like the first principles is air, or changing, becoming, being, etc.

After the pre-socratics, I would jump into the greeks and begin with Plato, and that should put you on your merry way to Aristotle, Stoics, Epicurus, and fast forward (if you want) to Modern philosophy beginning with Descartes and eventually ending with Hume-> Kant -> Schopey -> Hegel.

But yeah, I would just recommend perusing and seeing what you are interested in. I think that is easier than just beginning with the pre-socratics, but if you are hardcore about it, I would recommend it. Philosophical issues are not born out of thin air, but are structured and produced on the basis of a tradition, and so it is helpful to understand the tradition to come to bear with the stakes of later philosophers.

Cheers.

>>6935831
You just don't like philosophy or history. :(

>>6935659

S A D L E R
A
D
L
E
R

>>6935839
Cheers for the reply :) I'm actually reading the Pre-Socs right now, they're very interesting and I've enjoyed learning about the doxography on them and how people over time (may) have misinterpreted them such as Aristotle or the early Christians. But anyway thanks for the reply man, ill be sure to check some of the podcasts out

>>6935848
sadler is a champion, seconding this. his half hour hegel series is particularly worth it

>>6935860

GL anon.

>>6935863
>>6935848
Sadler is a boss for that Hegel series.

>>6935671
Anyone has yet to refute Stefan.

>>6935874

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc

>>6935874
>>6935874
nah man, thunderf00t refuted him ages ago

Stanford Encyclopedia any good? What about Cambridge companions?