How do I into philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10180578]

I started reading two years ago. As a wagecuck with no life, I can do like 75 pages a day. Reading has become a hobby of mine, and I think now would be a good time to delve into philosophy.

I know I'm supposed to >start with the Greeks, but my question doesn't concern where to begin, but how to do so. I read World as Will and Representation and related to most of it on an intellectual and emotional level, but I found Witty's tractatus and Critique of Pure Reason much harder to get through, so I've shelved them for the time being.

Would you recommend studying philosophy via secondary literature? Or how do I go about actually understanding the canonical works of Western philosophy?

[Anonymous No.10180624]

here have this. I haven't read all of it but I think it's a good place to start

[Anonymous No.10180651]

>>10180624
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.10180659]

>>10180578
>start with the Greeks
You don't have to do that, that's a meme people post whenever someone says to start ever so slightly before where they actually are. What you want to avoid is the "how do I start reading [one author in isolation] /lit/?" meme. Reading some platonic dialogues is a good idea though.

>Or how do I go about actually understanding the canonical works of Western philosophy?
Depends. Are you more interested in analytic philosophy? Political/personal?

>I found Witty's tractatus
Start with Frege's puzzle:
suppose a=b (suppose we have observed something of the sort a-posteriori)
we can deduce a=a without supposing it (this is a-priori)
a-la the principle of compositionality (the meaning of a sentence is determined by the meanings of each term and the structure of the sentence), and the fact that a=b, one would think we could deduce that "a=b" and "a=a" are equivalent expressions, since they have identical structure and each term means the same thing. However, that's fucked up, because one is a-priori and the other is a-posteriori.

From there you go down a rabbit hole that has to do with people like russel trying to solve the puzzle, witty calling everyone retarded, carnap and co trying to take witty's work and go full bill-nye with it, Quine calling everyone except himself super-retarded, and then witty calling everyone including himself retarded. Nothing else is really important from there on out until you get up to kripke, who takes quine's idea [of the apriori/a posteriori + necessary/contingent + analytic/synthetic distinctions all being one and the same distinction via relying upon one another circularly in order to even be defined in the first place] and tries stiffing it by coming up with contingent apriori truths.

>and Critique of Pure Reason much harder to get through
I know fuck all about Kant

[Anonymous No.10180703]

When we say "start with the greeks" we don't mean Diogenes, Plato and Aristotle, we mean:

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Peter of Sebaste, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.

[Anonymous No.10180718]

don't start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.10180744]

>>10180578
>75 pages a day.
Do you have tiny books? because the best I can do is 10 pages

[Anonymous No.10180754]

>>10180624
>Fichte
>Schelling
>Boehme
>no Husserl
>no Frege
>no MARX
the fuck bro

[Anonymous No.10180785]

>>10180744
Stop sub-vocalizing.

[Anonymous No.10180803]

>>10180785
That is the only way I can comprehend and absorb information I read

[Anonymous No.10180818]

ignore this ignorant retard. >>10180659