Brainlet question

[Anonymous No.12232521]

Is there any point to reading translated philosophy? you could just read a wikipedia article and get the same knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12232551]

>>12232521
Hindus have the best religious art.

[Anonymous No.12232562]

>>12232551
A bit too colorful usually.

[Anonymous No.12232573]

>baphometpleasedwithhisdailypootribute.webm

[Anonymous No.12232576]

>>12232573
cringe

[Anonymous No.12232638]

>>12232576
At least stand over a loo if you're getting ready to pinch one off.

[Anonymous No.12232643]

>>12232521
As someone who has read a lot of translated Hindu philosophy I can say from experience that the wikipedia summaries on those topics are often awful, make huge and inaccurate generalizations, leave out important points, etc. It's almost impossible to understand a subtle philosophical concept just through relying on wikipedia, you'll only end up with a rough approximation.

[Anonymous No.12232644]

>>12232638
You're not funny.

[Anonymous No.12232654]

You get a lot more details out of a +500pg translation of The Phenomenology of Spirit or the Critique of Pure Reason which argues exactly for what the original author stated, using equivalent words for their own terms, and replicating their entire structure and all than you would by reading a Wikipedia summary which just vaguely covers the bases of what the original might say (and even then, it's much more likely for the Wikipedia article to be based off a translation than off the original work).

[Anonymous No.12232660]

>>12232644
But at least I have a toilet.

[Anonymous No.12232661]

>>12232521
Ok I see this attitude spring up from time to time and it seems like people legitimately don't get this.

When you read a wikipedia page or watch a 10 minute video on YouTube you are hearing the "point" that the philosopher is making. When you read the 700 page book you are getting the rationale for that point. You will never be convinced by the point alone and if you were there would be no need for the book.

Obviously read the books.

[Anonymous No.12232671]

>>12232661
What if I happened to agree with and follow that point before I'd heard of the philosopher?

[Anonymous No.12232720]

>>12232671
If you did, you wouldn't know how they argue for that. Many times, it's possible to come across something you might agree with generally, but that you might disagree with in terms of the arguments used to support those ideas' validity, or vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.12232741]

>>12232720
Would their reasoning really make a shit? Justifiable means or no, ends are ends.

[Anonymous No.12232894]

>>12232654
>>12232661

This. OP is a complete retard.

[Anonymous No.12232970]

>>12232661
This pretty much sums up the current political climate. Both sides can only parrot talking points, but neither of them are capable of communicating how those points are valid. Nobody reads anymore.