[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 13 KB, 266x209, networkhowardbeale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1209284 No.1209284 [Reply] [Original]

This is probably going to make Lit mad as fucking hell, but I want to learn philosophy more in depth, but is there any actual point to reading all those books and trying to make sense of them, or should I just spend my time reading summations of the main points and critical analysis of the authors

I mean, reading "classic" novels like the Illiad need to be read to be appreciated, but after reading Machivelli and Aquanias, I'm all "wow I wish I would of coles notes those fuckers, and saved myself 3 weeks"

Am I going to get any deep appreciation by reading ALL these books, or should I just find one philosopher that I really like (Kant would be my pick), read his works and then read criticisms of the rest or will I be missing out. I noticed alot of them just wrote critiques of each other anyway

Pic related, thats how mad this question will probably make some of you

>> No.1209286
File: 37 KB, 479x591, colonline.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1209286

>novels like the Illiad

>> No.1209289

>>1209286

FUCK

EPIC POEM

sorry, lets forget I said that and not derail the fucking thread

>> No.1209292

>but after reading Machivelli and Aquanias, I'm all "wow I wish I would of coles notes those fuckers, and saved myself 3 weeks"

Then do it.

>> No.1209298

The bible is good, read that.

>> No.1209299

>>1209292

Well, I don't want to miss out, but so far, I've noticed most philosophers are terrible writers eg. Aquanias is terrible at making points, and writes in big blocky chunks with no flow.

I'm just wondering if anyone else has read these books and wish they hadn't, because that's alot of shit to read. To read all of them, and digest it properly would probably be a good two years.

>> No.1209322

Philosophy isn't just... and I can't seem to avoid capitalizing it here... Ideas. Just as much as its made of abstract, rationalized postulates, it's made up of attitudes- towards life, towards morality, towards other humans, towards the natural world. Attitudes give rise to ideas and ideas, fully internalized, give rise to attitudes. You're not going to get the full shock-charge of the philosopher if you just read a summary. You need them. You might understand them, but you won't "get" them.

You're right a lot of them wrote critiques of each other; it's a quite common metaphor to say the whole cultural history of the world is one "great conversation." To extend that, do you really get the gist of a conversation your friends had if someone is retelling it to you?

Summaries are fine for completion, getting a sense of people you're not interested in but who are important, or who you want to see if you're interested in them. But if you really want to get someone, read them, in a good translation. I haven't read Aquinas, but I remember the translation of Machiavelli I read was really shitty prose. I didn't like him very much, and I think part (but not all of that) was how bad the translation read. Maybe he wrote that bad. I don't know. Anyway, you get the point.

>> No.1209329

>>1209299
Heh, we both addressed writing even though I hadn't read this post when I started writing mine.

I've found most of the great philosophers I've read are pretty good writers, but I've got an affinity for walls of text.

What do you mean by "all of them?" All philosophers (which will take a lot longer than two years) or all of a philosopher's works (which isn't really necessary, unless they're someone you feel you need everything from, that you have a real devotion to)?

>> No.1209343

>>1209329

The major works of the most often discussed ones.

>> No.1209375
File: 75 KB, 296x448, h1 (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1209375

If you proceed to read only summaries and synopses, then you will acquire an extraordinarily shallow understanding of philosophy.

>> No.1209396

I actually have a question similar to the OP's: I understand that one misses out by simply reading summaries of philosophical works, but what if we read translations that are updated to a more accessible and recognizable form of English(example: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/findlay1.htm#m090)?

>> No.1209406

>>1209396

>translations

Findlay's analysis of Hegel's Phenomenology isn't an updated translation. It's simply a paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Miller's translation.

As for actual translations, some certainly have more value than others, but in general it's more advisable to at least start with the translation you find most accessible.

Something to remember, frankly, is that difficult philosophers (and, in a very real sense, what philosopher worthy of the name isn't difficult?) are supposed to be difficult. By that, I don't mean that they're all obscurantists (although many philosophers worth reading are), but that reading a work of philosophy is kind of like learning a new language. You have to learn how to read whatever it is that you want to read. Sometimes it takes many attempts. If you think you understand everything immediately, you're probably overlooking a lot.

>> No.1209412

Machiavelli is relatively easy to read. I finished it in an afternoon.

>> No.1209429

ya, you should just read summaries and synopses, it saves you time and allow you to read more different philosophers.

>> No.1209782

My problem with philosophy is that I can't find them in e-book format ANYWHERE. And the /lit/ recommends for philosophy is a fucking garbled pile of shit.

What are some good ones to start with or try to find online?

>> No.1209792

>>1209782
Most of it's public domain. Have you tried Project Gutenberg? I think that's where I got Leviathan, The Prince and Nicomachean Ethics.

>> No.1209794

>>1209792
Ok see, that doesn't help me. Get off the 'I assume you know everything about Philosophy and I will act as such" horse and just assume I have no fucking clue what the fucking niggerdick you are talking about.

Where do I *start*

>> No.1209795

>>1209782
Lucretius is a fun guy. :)

>> No.1209797

>>1209284
The basics of a given philosophy can be understood from a quick perusal of the wikipedia page. What you won't get from that reading is the philosopher's defences of his principles, or very complete information on the critiques he provided to other philosophies. That information is critical if you want more than to simply recognize the meaning of some philosophical terms. If you're looking at philosophy as a way of informing your worldview, there aren't many shortcuts.

>> No.1209801

>>1209794
>where do I *start*
Sorry. You get garbled answers because philosophy's not a unified discipline at all. Different philosophers studied wildly different things, and they often disagreed with one another. Unlike history, philosophy does not have a very coherent mainstream.
It would help if you could outline your interests. What about philosophy is interesting to you? Is it about ethics? Politics? The nature of reality? The nature of knowledge?

Also, Project Gutenberg is an ebook archive of books no longer covered by copyright. Just google it, there's tons of pretty cool stuff there.

>> No.1209803

The teaching company audio lectures on philosophy are an efficient way to get yourself a foundation. lots on the pirate bay, search TTC philosophy

>> No.1209805

>>1209782
>What are some good ones to start with or try to find online?

Betrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy" is an excellent place to start, though you should keep in mind that he's quick to write off philosophers he disagrees with.