/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15207957]

Books for kid on the left?

[Anonymous No.15207971]

>>15207957
Obviously Nietzsche, but you don't care because you don't read. You just want to trigger retards to argue about which one of those two is more "based".
Get the fuck off this board, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15207995]

Both the kids are cringe because both of them refuse to look at the world objectively. The edgy kid because of his bad experiences has developed a limiting worldview that prevents him from ever seeing things like they are and attempting change, seeking out beautiful things. He is in a state of mental block and negative emotions which he has no control over. The kid with the smile is sheltered and also is not interested in reality but rather his own personal bubble.
Both know nothing of the real world, and their disinterest in it is why they're both cringe.

[Anonymous No.15208002]

>>15207971
I don't think any sane person would argue over a meme. I was just too lazy to describe the type of books I feel like reading.
Can I get into Nietzsche without having read the other philosophers?
I have read The Republic, Apology and Parmenides by Plato. Nicomachean ethics by Aristotel (I should probably read Politics and Metaphysics). I was thinking of then going to Aquinas and Augustine and then reading whatever the hell I want.

[Anonymous No.15208015]

>>15207957
>Sheltered from reality by judeo-christian moralisation
The Bible talks explicitly about the suffering and vanity of the world. Indeed, it is through suffering that we become more Christ-like.

[Anonymous No.15208066]

>>15208002
>I have read The Republic, Apology and Parmenides by Plato. Nicomachean ethics by Aristotel (I should probably read Politics and Metaphysics). I was thinking of then going to Aquinas and Augustine and then reading whatever the hell I want.
That's... actually a pretty good background if you're young. I thought you were some faggot from /pol/ or baseddit trying to make some nihilistic debate.
Look, if you're going to read philosophy, you got to understand that you're taking part in a conversation that has taken place for millennia, that's why you're going to read a lot of people here saying "start with the greeks". Now, you actually did that, which makes you better read than most of nu/lit/, so good for you.
I would keep on going with both Politics and Metaphysics of Aristotle; maybe add also Plato's Phaedrus and the Symposium. If you want to keep on going with the greeks remember that stoicism and hedonism were two important currents on that period, and if you're going to read Nietzsche you need, at least, to be familiar with them. Now, from Saint Augustine to Saint Thomas you got a lot of philosophy which can be really interesting (Saint Anselm, John Scotus Eriugena, and please, don't miss Boethius' "The consolation of Philosophy"). Nevertheless, from this point you'll need to be a little familiar with the Bible too, even if you're not religious, because is going to be an important part of philosophy.
Then read the early moderns like Descartes, Hume, Kant, Locke. Then, at some point, you should also read Hegel. And then, maybe, you can understand a little better Nietzsche.

Good luck OP!

[Anonymous No.15208104]

>>15207995
This.

[Anonymous No.15208207]

>>15208066
Thanks, just turned 21 so I'm not that young. Never too late to learn. I have read Aurelius' Meditations and am reading Letters from a Stoic (which I find better and more vigorous). I perceive Seneca as a better embodiment of stoicism. I have been lurking this board for a couple of years now and think that I managed to cope with the fact that maybe I started too late with philosophy and would never read as much as some people on here. It's a shame how much /pol/ and other low-iq boards have infiltrated this place. Also after reading your recommendations I would LOVE to read Kierkegaard. I just know I'll find him the best as far as real life advice goes. I am kind of pessimistic going into Kant and the whole metaphysics, noumenon stuff (even though Plato is the one who started it). It's good mental exercise but perhaps we can't actually fully grasp those ideas yet. I feel like they just did a bunch of psychedelics or DMT and wrote thousands of pages about it but ultimately couldn't properly describe their beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15208254]

>>15208207
Nice to hear from your perspective. I personally made my on Phil crash course for myself, and I kind of understand how things eventually got to the point of Hegel and Kant. It’s just the fact that the very subject matter requires exact semantics due to it dealing with the very nature of things. I think Hegel said something along the lines of “philosophy is that which concerns the universal that necessarily contains its particular within it”.

So it’s inevitably going to get self referential and you got to separate the words from the ideas.

[Anonymous No.15208291]

>>15208207
I managed to cope with the fact that maybe I started too late with philosophy and would never read as much as some people on here
Well, you're wrong. A lot of people here don't actually read at all lately, they just read wikipedia articles and take what they say for a fact. Sadly, this is still better than boards like /his/ where literally nobody reads.
>Also after reading your recommendations I would LOVE to read Kierkegaard
Once you read medieval philosophy you'll notice where Kierkegaard took most of his ideas. Don't misunderstand me, he was probably one of the few really good philosophers we had on modernity, but he still falls short to someone like Augustine or Boethius.
>I am kind of pessimistic going into Kant and the whole metaphysics, noumenon stuff (even though Plato is the one who started it).
There's a difference with Plato's idealism and german idealism. You'll get it in time, but you are right at being suspicious of it.
If you want to get a little astray from the canon, read Vico's "The New Science". He was a contemporary of Descartes, and predicted how a lot of his ideas would end up gestating our current late modernity.

[Anonymous No.15208298]

>>15208207
>I managed to cope with the fact that maybe I started too late with philosophy and would never read as much as some people on here
Well, you're wrong. A lot of people here don't actually read at all lately, they just read wikipedia articles and take what they say for a fact. Sadly, this is still better than boards like /his/ where literally nobody reads.
>Also after reading your recommendations I would LOVE to read Kierkegaard
Once you read medieval philosophy you'll notice where Kierkegaard took most of his ideas. Don't misunderstand me, he was probably one of the few really good philosophers we had on modernity, but he still falls short to someone like Augustine or Boethius.
>I am kind of pessimistic going into Kant and the whole metaphysics, noumenon stuff (even though Plato is the one who started it).
There's a difference with Plato's idealism and german idealism. You'll get it in time, but you are right at being suspicious of it.
If you want to get a little astray from the canon, read Vico's "The New Science". He was a contemporary of Descartes, and predicted how a lot of his ideas would end up gestating our current late modernity.

[Anonymous No.15208320]

>>15208298
>>15208207
Just wondering, I could never get how people could come to pessimism rationally. I have not read schop, and only a little bit of Neizche, but the closest I could come to was neutrality or subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.15208381]

>>15208320
If you read the sophists you can get some pessimistic elements from their writing. The same thing applies to late stages of both latin and medieval philosophy.
Personally, i came to believe that the answer to this phenomenon is the philosophical notion of the eternal recurrence. Ideas seem to repeat themselves on categorical periods of time; Spengler expressed this idea very clearly on his Decline of the West.
Subjectivity appears in the later stage of an age, and it carries pessimism, nihilism, indifference, and these types of illnesses with her.
It's amazing how both the ancient Greeks and the Nordics, as far as we know in totally disconnected societies, expressed this idea with the same image: the serpent eating his tail (Ouroboros and Jörmungandr). Solomon too, in Ecclesiastes, seems to talk about this.

[Anonymous No.15208615]

>>15207995
ububububu muh dialectic
fuck you hegel

[Anonymous No.15209005]

>>15207995
Also, both are probably mediocre

[Anonymous No.15209130]

>>15207995
Now, look at that. THAT is a based reply.

[Anonymous No.15209165]

>>15207995
based GWFH (PBUH)