Too much Philosophy

[Anonymous No.12097635]

Have any of you guys actually read the most of the history of philosophy? It seems like too much.
Do I actually have to read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard before reading contemporary philosophy?
Its too much and mostly doesn't make any sense. How does anyone even retain all this nonsense?

[Anonymous No.12097659]

>>12097635
start with Buddhism, after that you can start with the Greeks. focus on Nagarjuna and Vasubhandu

[Anonymous No.12097851]

There's less than 200 years' worth of contemporary philosophy, and much of it is just rehashes of previous philosophers.
Since there's so much stuff being written these days by experts for other experts, it becomes increasingly hard to ever find anything anywhere near original.
Besides, you probably won't be spending the same amount of time with every single one of these men. You'll probably end up enjoying some of the stuff along the way much more than the stuff at the end. I, for example, don't care too much for contemporary philosophers like Badiou or Derrida, but I absolutely loved Plato and St. Augustine, and felt thoroughly convinced by both Locke and Kant.

[Anonymous No.12097865]

At what point does philosophy become unintelligible masturbation? I had to read Sloterdijk for university and I fucking hated it with every atom of my being.

[Anonymous No.12097872]

>>12097635
You don't HAVE to read anything you dolt. But if you're going to develop a system of philosophy and write it down in a book for others to read for centuries to come you better do your homework.

[Anonymous No.12097943]

>>12097635
If you studied natural sciences, would you read all the writings by Pythagoras, Euklid, Plato, Demokrit, Epikur, Aristotle, Archimedes, Newton, Descartes, Leibniz, Darwin, Humboldt (both), Gauss, Euler, Hilbert, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Einstein, Goedel, Röntgen, Lorentz, Curie (both), Becquerel, Tesla, Marconi, de Broglie, Dirac, Fermi, Pauli, Born, Turing, Higgs, Perelman, Strickland...
or would you look for a theme you're interested in and start from that interest by reading articles in encyclopaedias about it, than reading the sources of said articles, than reading the sources of those sources and so on?

Also >>12097851
is right. Most of contemporary philosophy isn't worth reading. At least as long as you don't know exactly what you're looking for.

[Anonymous No.12097962]

The point of philosophy is to teach you how to think and question reality around you. You can read 1 philosophy book and extract something amazing from it, or read hundreds and still be a dumb fucker.

[Anonymous No.12097966]

>>12097635
philosophy is rather shallow and pedantic. i prefer theology

[Anonymous No.12097968]

Isn't reading philosophy books in detail kind of against the point of philosophy, you could have appreciation and get the surface of each teaching, but shouldn't the rest of your exploration be from your own philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12097971]

>>12097962
how do you extract it?

[Anonymous No.12097982]

>>12097968
iunno mate lemme just ring up confucius, thales, gautama and just ask em what the point of philosophy is real quick

[Anonymous No.12097987]

>>12097865
Gilles Deleuze
I sometimes write nonsensical posts when people ask about him, and when they're confused, I'll find something from anti-oedipus to backup my nonsense. In reality, I think he is full of shit, and not only are his writings devoid of value, but have a negative value to them, by virtue of time and human effort wasted in reading and understanding them.

[Anonymous No.12097991]

>>12097966
based

[Anonymous No.12097996]

>>12097982
Sweet let me know what they say, oh while you call them give them my soundcloud, Leninrocks23.

[Anonymous No.12097999]

i never understand these threads where people go “i wanna get into philosophy but i dont wanna, like, read”

[Anonymous No.12098002]

>>12097968
Yes and no.
Cunt for example said, you can teach the history of philosophy but you can't teach how to philosophize.
Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with reading someones writings in detail, as long as it helps you to question and elaborate your own thoughts.

[Anonymous No.12098006]

>>12097971
Reagent-grade intellect

[Anonymous No.12098034]

>>12097987
I'm reading Anti-Oedipus right now and it's pretty fun. I just assume I'm supposed to be the one giving the meaning to the words im reading

[Anonymous No.12098037]

You absolutely do not have to study philosophy.

[Anonymous No.12098041]

>>12098002
Yeah good instructions for being a teacher on the matter, but didn't mean it as being bad just always thought philosophy books were counter productive for the philosophy side rather reading it for the historic aspect.

[Anonymous No.12098046]

If you want to have a good grasp of something you need to invest 20,000 hours into it.

[Anonymous No.12098067]

>>12097635
>philosophy STILL has made no progress explaining what consciousness is, the only thing it is really useful for anyway
wew

[Anonymous No.12098070]

>>12098046
explains why your mom's so good at sucking dick

[Anonymous No.12098076]

>>12098070
Damn I gotta feel that

[Anonymous No.12098368]

>>12097851
>philosopher
Oh-my-oh-me-oh-my there isn't a more pretentious word in existence. The proper term is philosophist!

[Anonymous No.12098397]

>>12097635
>Do I actually have to read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard before reading contemporary philosophy?
yes

[Anonymous No.12098506]

philosophy is gay, read stirner

[Anonymous No.12098517]

>>12097635
of course you don't have to read full works by all of those authors. but it would be good to read excerpts, especially those regarding the particular area of inquiry in which you're interested. are you working with a guiding text? could I recommend Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12098544]

>>12097943
Archimedes is unironically fascinating