/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10699783]

I am new to philosophy, can I start with this?

[Anonymous No.10699787]

>>10699783
Yeah that's a solid primer though I usually recommend Anti-Oedipus for first timers

[Anonymous No.10699788]

>>10699783
2/10, you'll get your rhythm in a bit, try /pol/ they're easier to fuck with

[Anonymous No.10699794]

>>10699788
Not bait. Nice meme tho
>>10699787
Ok. Is it a really difficult read? I've heard it can be but those people who told me that are not very smart desu.

[Anonymous No.10699800]

>>10699794
Nah I breezed through the audiobook

[Anonymous No.10699814]

>>10699787
You can readAnti Oedipus withput knowing much about philosophy though

[Anonymous No.10699815]

>>10699794
im going to be kind and pretend you're not a sociopath; Being and Time is one of the densest works of phil published in the last 200 years. You won't be able to grapple with it at all if you haven't read Hegel, Kant, Plato, Nietzsche. Anti-Oedipus is schizophrenic nonsense, its interesting, worth studying but has no applicability to philosophical study of any kind. A Thousand Plateaus and more importantly Difference and Repetition are where you want to start with Deleuze

but, please read Kant, Hegel and Plato first

[Anonymous No.10699825]

>>10699815
Yes I am not baiting, genuinely want to get into philosophy just don't have a clue where to start. Thanks for your help. What is the absolute first one I should read? Assuming I have literally never read a single philosophy work in my pleb life?

[Anonymous No.10699828]

>>10699783
Read Plato parmenides at least eight times before doing so

[Anonymous No.10699831]

>>10699825
The pre socratics

[Anonymous No.10699837]

>>10699825
see >>10699828 >>10699831 not meme'ing on you, you need to understand the basis of Ontology and Epistemology or you will not be capable of discoursing with the Enlightenment thinkers or the modernist niggers like Nietzsche and Heidegger

[Anonymous No.10699839]

>>10699828
You mean Sophist
>>10699783
In theory you can if you only want to grasp aspects of his ontology, but this is for recreation and the fun in Heidegger is seeing him break from phil history
Also its incredibly difficult

[Anonymous No.10699840]

I'm interested in the possibility of someone's introduction to philosophical discussion on metaphysics to come from Heidegger instead of Plato, but Being and Time seems like a tall order.

[Anonymous No.10699844]

Don't fall for the greek meme, OP.
Phenomenology of the Spirit is where you want to start, followed by the New Science.

[Anonymous No.10699860]

>>10699844
Why are the greeks a meme?
>>10699840
From what I am hearing in this thread, reading the book would be pointless as it would go completely over my head.
>>10699837
Never thought you were memeing me, perhaps I am oblivious.

[Anonymous No.10699886]

>>10699825
Plato:
>Five Dialogues
>Republic
>Symposium and Phaedrus

Aristotle:
>Nic. Ethics
>Metaphysics

Descartes:
>Meditations
>Principles of Philosophy

Locke:
>Essay concerning Human Understanding

Leibniz:
>Discourse on Metaphysics

Berkeley:
>Treatise
>Three Dialogues

Hume:
>Treatise

Kant:
>Critique of Pure Reason
>Groundwork

Hegel:
>Phenomenology

Kierkegaard:
>Concluding Unscientific Postscripts
>The Sickness Unto Death

Schoppy:
>World as Will and Representation

Nietzsche:
>Birth of Tragedy
>Geneaology
>BG&E

Dude, have fun. Mark your books in pencil, write in the margins. Philosophy's a hell of a drug.

[Anonymous No.10699896]

Okay here's what you want to do, OP.
1. Read the Enneads by Plotinus
2. Read some German medieval literature to get a sense of what German Idealism is based off of
3. Jump straight into Phenomenology of the Spirit (at this point you may want to learn an ancient language since a lot of it is used, preferably Gaelic)
4. Move onto the existentialist, Neitzche, Kierkegaard, Wolfe and Kant (read Cicero as a complementary text).
5. Now that you've mastered German Idealism move onto the big baddie Giambattista Vico, and when you've conquered him read Oswald Spengler
You now have introductory knowledge to philosophy. The Greek meme is shit /lit/ made up to waste newfags time, ignore them.

[Anonymous No.10699898]

>>10699886
>marking up your books with your pseud thoughts before you understood what you've looked at

[Anonymous No.10699906]

>>10699860
"
The central problem of Heidegger's philosophy is the "Problem of Being". In his early work the investigation of Being is inseparably tied to Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, though the differences between student and teacher were sufficient to cause uncomfortable friction between them. In his later work the problem of Being, although never openly theological, becomes increasingly tied to religious themes. It is the earlier work, particularly Being and Time, that influenced Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, etc. There, the investigation of Being begins with the study of "human Being" - "Da-sein," or "Being-in-the-world". Unlike Sartre, Heidegger does not begin his investigation with human consciousness, and the hyphenated "Being-in-the-world" is intended to warn us against "detaching" Da-sein from the world in which it finds itself. Neither does Heidegger have sympathy for the Cartesian Ego and the Cartesian separation of subject and object. The Ego, he argues, is “a merely formal indicator,” and the dualism of subject-object wrongly supposes that our “commerce” with the world is first of all to know it rather than to live in it.

Accordingly, the identity of each Casein (“the ‘who’ of Da-sein”) is to be found in a collective “they” (das Man) engaged in joint endeavors in the world rather than in the solipsistic Cartesian cogito. Da-sein consists of both its facticity (its being “thrown” into the world at this place at this tine) and Existenz (possibilities for personal choice). Da-sein can be 'authentic' insofar as it breaks away from the “they” to seek its own possibilities, of which the most necessary is death. In 'inauthenticity', Da-sein falls back to the “they,” identifies itself with its facticity and ignores the possibility of its own death. In inauthenticity or fallenness, the search for authentic understanding becomes mere curiosity; philosophical discourse, mere idle talk; thinking, mere calculation. Heidegger often insists that authenticity and inauthenticity are not ethical notions. (They are “ontological” or “descriptive”.) Yet Heidegger also insists that there is an intimate connection between how we describe ourselves (our ontology) and who we are (our ontic character). He say, for example, “Granted that we cannot do anything with philosophy, but might not philosophy . . . do something with us?’Heidegger has indeed avoided both ethical and political involvement, his apparent excursions into either as much a product of interpretation as intention.
"

[Anonymous No.10699907]

I'll be honest with you, OP. Don't bother with the continental tradition; you'll regret in the long run.

[Anonymous No.10699909]

>>10699898
>not actively engaging with the text
>marking in delible pencil
baka

[Anonymous No.10699912]

>>10699909
I have an inner space you mong I don't need to write everything down so it can be lost to time you insect

[Anonymous No.10699916]

>>10699912
>I have an inner space you mong I don't need to write everything down so it can be lost to time you insect

[Anonymous No.10699920]

>>10699912
>lost to time

Have not read Eco yet have you?

[Anonymous No.10699921]

[Anonymous No.10699944]

>>10699860
The greeks meme is based on oft-repeated phrase that to understand ______ you have to "start with the greeks". This based on the interpretation of western philosophy as a long unbroken chain of people responding to one another starting with (at least) Socrates. There is a grain of truth to that but it can oftentimes be annoying to see the same phrase over and over again, or really funny depending on the mood. It's useful as a way to poke fun, tell someone to fuck off, or to make a more nuanced point about the nature of the question.

Reading Heidegger might prove fruitless, but at the same time, the stakes are incredibly low.

I'm curious what drew you to that book as the initial entry point for philosophy.

If you're really as inexperienced as you say, maybe reading books or listening to lectures about philosophers might be more valuable before reading the primary sources proper.

I'm only saying this because I just recently read At the Existentialist Café and am a little excited about it. Maybe someone here with more of a background in pedagogy or the history of philosophy might have different thoughts.

>>10699921
>>10699906
Heideggerian language can be so poetic once you've drank the Kool-aid. There's something intoxicating about it. I'm never more aware of the shape and absolute presence of being than when it's snowing or when I've just read Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.10699967]

>>10699825
>want to get into philosophy just don't have a clue where to start
oh come on have you not even been here a week yet

[Anonymous No.10699994]

>>10699944
I've only skirted around Heidegger since I started reading philosophy, but he's always been on the backburner. Every now and then I'll read some interpreter's notes or "On _____" books. What's nice is going back to one of these after a long while and 'Existenz' suddenly makes way more sense

[Anonymous No.10699997]

>>10699944
>I'm curious what drew you to that book as the initial entry point for philosophy.
I love Terrence Malick movies and apparently he had his actors all read certain books before they shot the movies and one of them was Being and Time, along with Dostevsky and others.
Do you have any good lectures to listen recommend?
>>10699967
I used to come here a bit but I only read fiction
>Infinite Jest
>2666
>Book of The New Sun, Peace, 5th head of cerberus
>Master and Margarita
>Stoner
>The Stranger
>A Naked Singularity
>The Trial
This is a list of all the books I've read since I started reading on my own free will. I am a massive pleb I know. I am reading The Recognitions right now

[Anonymous No.10700004]

>>10699997
start with the greeks is /thememe™/ of this board, when it comes to philosophy you always start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.10700059]

>>10699997
For Heidegger, Hubert Dreyfuss is one of the most respected authorities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaIWz_87Kz0

The above is about a 30 hour lecture course so if you're looking for something more casual, I think the Philosophize This podcast by Stephen West is an excellent listen. I've played episodes for people in my family on road-trips and they were able to get into it.

[Anonymous No.10700159]

>>10699997
Don't worry about studying philosophy 'the right way'. It doesn't really matter when you're just studying in your free time. Just read, try to understand and read something new or read the same stuff again. You will have learned a lot in the end and that's all that matters. Could be useful to read into some online philosophy encyclopedias (SEP for instance) to have a general idea what the fuck you're reading before starting.

[Anonymous No.10700334]

Why would anyone start his ventures into philosophy by reading those dense, primary texts?

I would really urge you (or anyone else who wants to get into philosophy for that matter) to start with Hubert Dreyfus lecture series "Existentialism in Literature and Film". (Especially if you are a big Malick Fan and interested in Dostojewski)

[Anonymous No.10700341]

>>10700059
>>10700334
Look at these guys and their dreyfusses

[Anonymous No.10700361]

>>10699912
>inner space
looks like someone hasn't read Heidegger, then

[Anonymous No.10700367]

>>10700059
Op don't listen to this guy. Dreyfus is a dumb Anglo and is interpretation of Heidegger is considered nonsense by many.

[Anonymous No.10700394]

>>10700367
This is correct, although it's not quite nonsense. It's just bad.

[Anonymous No.10700399]

>>10699783
stupid bait

[Anonymous No.10700403]

>>10699815
>but, please read Kant, Hegel and Platon first
>not diving head first into SuZ
Why not live a little bit more dangerous?

Also. I corrected Platon for you. It's spelled Plato*n*. Not Plato(h).


>>10699907
>analytical meme tradition
>a concept pushed by the sour WW2 winner, the eternal anglo

[Anonymous No.10700484]

>>10699912
you're a failure

check your dunning kruger

[Anonymous No.10700548]

>>10700484
stop posting this shitty normie meme

[Anonymous No.10700659]

>>10699839
What if you could only read 10-15 pages an hour no matter the material. Would you still read?

[Anonymous No.10700735]

>>10700548
>normie meme

yeah ok, faggot

[Anonymous No.10702310]

>>10699783
start reading it in german, it almost reads itself even though you don't know the language

[Anonymous No.10702359]

>>10699825
theres tons of open source books out there just look, google "introduction to formal logic" and you get a virus free pdf

[Anonymous No.10702366]

>>10700735
it is a normalfag meme so is the other one

[Anonymous No.10702386]

>>10699783
I did and i think I’m better for it.

Seriously though, I took a third year philosophy class as an elective, telling the prof that all the symbolic logic and set theory I knew from being a math major justified my admittance.

First text was Being and Time. It was brutal, gruelling and I probably put in more work into that course than any of my others that semester but after that struggle session few texts stump me with their ‘difficultly’. Also, the second text for that course? A Thousand Plateaus.

[Anonymous No.10703226]

>>10702386
Literally how?

[Anonymous No.10703286]

>>10699783
Yeah, actually you can, but you need a really strong determination to do it. Expect rereading and rereading sections until your head hurts. It's like learning a new language without the help of translation. However once you enter Heidegger's language it will all start to make sense and reading will become much smoother.

[Anonymous No.10703468]

>>10699783
>>10703286
I should also mention that if you're going to read it in English you have the advantage of reading it in TWO different translations (Macquarrie and Robinson, as well as Stambaugh), so you can switch between them.