/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13462879]

Never read philosophy. I know, I know

>start with the greeks you might say

What if I dive directly into Nietzsche? Does it really matter? I'm going to start with Sartre and his existentialism and you can't stop me, fags.

[Anonymous No.13462891]

>>13462879
>Nietzsche
>Sartre
>Never read philosophy
No anon, you need to start with Hegel's Science of Logic, then Heidegger's Being and Time, and follow this with Proclus' Elements of Theology. If that's too much and you need something easier, try Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Easier still? Fine. Plato's Parmenides. Then and only then can you proceed towards Nietzsche and Sartre.

[Anonymous No.13462901]

>>13462879
>>13462891
loooooool
OP, I hope you know that he was being sarcastic....

Fuck it man, if you're gonna go that path though I'd recommend that you watch a video on whatever you're gonna be reading. Nietzsche can be easy to misinterpret

[Anonymous No.13462915]

let's read about this philologist of the greeks who can't stfu about the greeks and how un-greek our judeo-christian morals are for fifteen fucking minutes, but without knowing the first thing about the greeks!

[Anonymous No.13462945]

>>13462879
You're absolutely free to go, I even recommend getting into calculus without knowing arithmetic.

[Anonymous No.13462987]

>>13462879
>anime poster
Philosophy is not entertainment. You don't consume it to be amazed, you study it as a discipline and it is important that you do it in a historical fashion.

[Anonymous No.13462994]

Lets ignore kant and the greeks because sage advice that is always given should be completely ignored! Hooray! I think I'm better than everyone before! The shoulders of giants are for faggots!

[Anonymous No.13463020]

>>13462879
have fun

[Anonymous No.13463038]

all these faggots are jealous because I'll understand the minds and ideas of lowlifes like Nietzsche and Sartre. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FAGGOTS.

[Anonymous No.13463810]

>>13462994
>>13462987
>>13462945
>>13462915
I read philosophy in whatever order interests me at the time, and just google references to works I don't know. And there is NOTHING you purityspiral fags can do about it

[Anonymous No.13463910]

OP Tomorrow:
>HELLLLP ME /lit/ I CANT UNDERSTAND SARTRE ITS TOO HARD PLESE HELLLP ME
>AHHHH NOOO THIS CANT BE HAPPENING I THOUGHT I COULD UNDERSTAND NIETZSCHE WITHOUT STARTING WITH THE GREEKS

[Anonymous No.13463934]

>>13463810
>can do about it
Oh, but I do. I will laugh so hard at your gaps. Its probably the equivalent of lifting with bad ROM, you will fuck your brain up.

[Anonymous No.13463938]

>>13463810
If you were going to do that from the start, why start this bait-tier thread.

[Anonymous No.13463967]

On a serious note, I (not OP) actually want to get into philosophy and would aprreciate any tips on what to read and in what order. (I know I should start with the greeks, but I neither know where to go from beyond plato and aristotles nor even in which order I should read their dialogues)

[Anonymous No.13463973]

>>13462879
As Nietszsche said, the Greeks are more alien to us than we care to admit. Most philosophical texts are overwrought or largely nonsense. Sartre is a good example because his fiction and biography capture his philosophy much better than the hundreds of pages of non-fiction he wrote trying to explain it.

[Anonymous No.13463989]

You will read Greeks eventually.
My experience is if you read it earlier it gives you some building blocks or comparison.

[Anonymous No.13463991]

>>13463810
>>13463934
It's not as severe as that. Honstly, Op can do whatever he wants. Most people just recc the chronological order because it's a lil eaiser for some, But honestly fuck it.

[Anonymous No.13464165]

>>13463967
pls someone respond

[Anonymous No.13464185]

>>13463967
alright here's my recommended list -

read the story of philosophy by bryan magee, this will give you a good overview of the history of philosophy in a short 200ish pages, as well as basic philosophical concepts.

now whatever you do, start with plato and aristotle! from there you can branch out in a couple of ways, but I would absolutely recommend reading them first. that doesn't mean you have to read every single work by them like some people will try to recommend, but just the main ones (of course you can read the auxillary ones if you'd like, and I would if you are interested, but you absolutely do not HAVE to)

recommended list for plato (ones marked with asterisks are the main ones) -

Euthyphro*
Apology*
Crito*
Phaedo*
Cratylus
Theatetus*
Sophist
Statesman
Parmenides* (difficult!)
Symposium*
Phaedrus
Protagoras*
Gorgias
Meno*
Republic* (read as much as you can stand, its one of my least favourite plato texts but one of the most popular)
Timaeus*
Critias*
Laws

for aristotle -

Organon* (read at least the first three parts, its very dry as it is basically just intuition formalised but it is THE foundational text in logic)
Nicomachean Ethics*
Politics
Physics*
De anima (not extremely necessary but a good text on the soul)
Metaphysics* (foundational text on metaphysics! read even if you don't understand)

word to the wise, it doesn't matter if a lot of things don't make sense immediately, or you end up reading pages and pages without understanding anything. it's okay; philosophical concepts are difficult to work with if you haven't before, and even if you're not understanding things you are still improving! the more you read the better you'll get!

from here, you can go in a few different directions -

either you can read the stoics and epicureans which would be seneca, lucretius, marcus aurelius, and epicurus.

or you can go on to scholastic philosophy (i would skip the neoplatonists for a while, come back to them later), which would be st augustine, aquinas, boethius, duns scotus. if you want to read scholastic philosophy, I would recommend getting "Basic Issues in Medieval Philosophy" 2nd edition, by Bosley and Tweedale, it is a fantastic text regarding this era!

otherwise, you want to go straight to descartes

descartes > spinoza > leibniz

locke > berkeley > hume

then you're ready for kant and the german idealists!

once you get to kant though, you can really just jump around wherever you want. hopefully this has been helpful.

[Anonymous No.13464219]

>>13464185
It very much has, thank you for the reply.

[Anonymous No.13464240]

>>13463989
I went all over the place and I'm currently on my way back to the Greeks. Schiller has too much influence over me.

[Anonymous No.13464255]

>>13462879
>>13463038
>>13463810
>u fags cant stop me ahahahahahAHAHAHHAHA
Nobody cares what the fuck you end up doing, they don't know you, they're just going to laugh at you for acting like an insecure pseud.

[Anonymous No.13464280]

>>13464255
/thread

[Anonymous No.13464308]

>>13464185
This is nice but I think the skipping around can happen before reading a big bunch of these.
I'd recommend people to start with Euthyphro/Apology/Crito/Phaedo + Meno and excerpts of the Republic (at least books 1 and 2 in full). The rest of Plato is great but I'm not sure they need to read the Laws before reading Aristotle, Stoics, Epicureans, Descartes, Berkeley. People new to philosophy need a quick rundown of the basics of history first, not a completionist full knowledge of all of history. That's for people who want that. And they should want that but I don't get why people go in completionist successive order. You don't have to complete a vast number of works before reading pretty easy stuff like Descartes' Meditations.

[Anonymous No.13464336]

>>13462879
It doesn't matter where you enter philosophy, all that matters is that you keep reading. What is important more than anything initially is to develop a passion for it. Any philosopher you read is going to talk about other philosophers a lot, and in seeing the value in one's conversations you'll see how others contribute to it, encouraging the exploration of different perspectives.

[Anonymous No.13464346]

>>13462879
I just don't understand why you would even be interested in reading Nietzsche if you have no stake in or haven't formed your own opinion regarding his thoughts about prior philosophers. What is the actual point?