/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15630141]

I can't even fucking understand this book. Should I just give up on attempting to understand philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15630177]

>>15630141
Yes,

[Anonymous No.15630178]

>>15630141
Unironically yes. If you can't handle this then you've got no chance. Read more and maybe try again in a few months.

[Anonymous No.15630192]

>>15630141
>understand philosophy?
philosophy is just a bunch of glorified spookers, some retarded dudes seething about normies and creating mental gymnastics about what people should do and don't

[Anonymous No.15630215]

>>15630141
You are probably reading it like fiction. Philosophy is different, anon. You have to think about it and study it, things usually depend on one another. So when you don't understand something it might be better to stop and understand it, than just skipping it. You might skip too, and see if you can get a grasp looking at the "big picture".

[Anonymous No.15630218]

Go get Sophie's World from the young adults section, read that. Congrats you are now more informed on the history of philosophy than most of /lit/. If you really want to go over the edge, you can read the rest of the YA books from the author, and you'll be better at discussing philosophy than most of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.15630228]

>>15630141
A lot of the concepts here are difficult and were discussed by intelligent people who dedicated their life to these ideas. Also, this book only gives summaries of ideas that are usually fleshed out in larger books or some of them are not even in existence today. Be patient and kind to yourself. If it's your first go around philosophy, you will only get better at it with time and perseverance.

[Anonymous No.15630237]

>>15630141
>I can't even fucking understand this book.

Are you enjoying it though? Is it making you think deeper thoughts?

[Anonymous No.15630259]

>>15630218
facts, Sophie's World is YA but very informative. t. read it 3 times.

[Anonymous No.15630264]

>>15630218
Decent book the meta plot is kinda cringe though

[Anonymous No.15630269]

>>15630259
Why? Thought that this was like programming for people who aren't really doing it. You just learn think about whatever and don't mind it. Are you a teacher?

[Anonymous No.15630282]

>>15630269
Sophie's World gives a very brief and general overview of most important philosophers from history, starting from the beginning through Nietzsche. If you are having a hard time grasping OP then I would suggest Sophie's World. It's told through the story of a girl receiving a course in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15630338]

>>15630282
I see. But you are probably right, I have to memorize this bs. The whole point is to pass the test, doesn't make sense if I don't pass. And it is not that hard either.

[Anonymous No.15630351]

>>15630141
Presocratics and Sophists are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15630436]

>>15630192
The disparity is probably due to the fact that men in general commit suicide at a rate 5 times more than women in general

[Anonymous No.15630459]

[Anonymous No.15630473]

>>15630459
Aint that the truth

[Anonymous No.15630519]

>>15630264
Yeah but it's divided in two different fonts in case you're an adhd teenager.

[Anonymous No.15630525]

>>15630519
Do you know any textbook?

[Anonymous No.15631657]

>>15630141
This is probably an unpopular opinion but it's best you skim through books like these. You're going to go crazy trying to absorb every single thing philosophers say, especially if you're starting as early as pre-socratic philosophers. Learn how to effectively skim through books, noticing the fluff, and stopping at actual substance. It will save you a lot of time and you will end up retaining a lot more information after reading a book than you would if you took every sentence seriously, forgetting what the author said a few chapters earlier.

[Anonymous No.15632561]

>>15630141
i don't read philosophy usually, only few texts from philosophy books for uni, but maybe you're reading instead of studying it
-take notes
-read a lot of times

[Anonymous No.15632824]

>>15630141
Just read Bryan Magee instead.

[Anonymous No.15633351]

>>15631657
that's simply stupid, if you study the texts you cannot forget it easily. but if you're lazy then there is no hope...

[Anonymous No.15633444]

>>15630141

I'm two-thirds through it, and I'm reading literally everything, every note, every index point (well, skimming the bib stuff but enough to have a sense of the major commentators), Aristotle, Proclus etc). Having a pretty easy time with it. Please let me know what specifically you're having trouble with anon.

You must understand that because the material is very obscure (fragments and testimonia), the author/editor is presenting both the known history, as well as reasonable (but always qualified) historical and philosophical speculations. He also has to account for choices of translation. That's why it requires so much boilerplate, and that's why the boilerplate is important for a subject like this. That said, the first part (presocratics) can effectively be summarized as follows: dude air earth fire and water lmao

[Anonymous No.15633792]

>>15630141
If you have trouble with mathematics, you might have trouble with philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, just some people’s brains are programmed differently.

[Anonymous No.15633831]

>>15633792

Math grad here, the guy reading it. There's something deeply gratifying about knowing the actual fragment/testimony in which the eponymous theorem became attached to him. Also our boy fucking HATED beans (true of others as well, attributed, possibly, to favism), something amusing that I didn't know. The gnomonic representation of both even and odd numbers is also interesting.

[Anonymous No.15634201]

>>15630141
I have problems with understanding some of Aristotle's stuff, but even I could easily grasp "The First Philosophers". It's not even a hard book, do you really not understand it? What's confusing you?

[Anonymous No.15634229]

>>15630436
What about men that look like women?

[Anonymous No.15634453]

>>15634201

I would expect that the OP is just disoriented by a text which requires its reader to consider history, philosophy and presentation issues all at once. For my part I really would like to talk about Waterfield ITT and get a (You) or two doing it, I even made some OC the other day (pic related). I found some bits cross-referenced in my Barnes Aristotle and it's "fun"/useful to see the same thing in the various texts. The stuff about the Pythagorean tetractys was also interesting.

I myself tried reading a small volume of Kathleen Freeman's fragments cold-ish like two years ago, and closed it up pretty soon (it didn't have the helpful lead-in stuff that Waterfield does). Now that I have some sense of who these characters are I may try Freeman again at some point. It's also really useful to already know the conventions about Diels/Kranz (presocratics etc), Bekker(Aristotle) to decipher/look up the citations on command. One thing Waterfield might have done a bit better is to have given a full listing of the chapter-personalities mapped to each DK number, as well as a note on Bekker numbering (Stephanus is the comparable convention for Plato). This implies a note on minor personalities deemed unworthy of treatment in his text. He's well thorough (yet succinct) with the rest so it would have made sense IMO.

[Anonymous No.15634601]

>>15634453
Waterfield is not very good. For a more comprehensive and accurate volume, see
"The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy: The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics" by Daniel W. Graham. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.15634638]

>>15634601

Meh, we all have to start somewhere; if one spends too much time worrying about an edition then nothing ever gets done. Thanks for the (You) anyway.

[Anonymous No.15634646]

>>15634638
That's what I'm saying. Just use the Graham version. It's far more comprehensive and accurate.

[Anonymous No.15634689]

>>15634646

Not to pick a fight, but that (we all have to start somewhere) isn't what you were saying. Rather, you're saying "read this not that", which is appreciated but beside the point since I indicated I'm mostly through the first thing anyway. I am sure you know what you're talking about, but let me seethe a moment that my precious clepsydra is not given its due in that footnote (perhaps it is elsewhere, of course).

[Anonymous No.15634703]

>>15632824
Based
>>/lit/thread/S15086744#p15090772

[Anonymous No.15634711]

>>15634689
I mean, it's a pipette.

[Anonymous No.15634721]

>>15630141
If you haven't read a history of philosphy yet then do that first. I'd recommend reading this book slowly. Try first reading the fragments, then the commentary and then reread the fragments for each chapter. Don't get discouraged if you don't understand everything, there is a reason why for example Heraclitus was called "the obscure" even in ancient times. Additional information from the stanford encyclopedia or the first episodes of the HOPWAG podcast are also useful.

[Anonymous No.15634723]

>>15630141
No, you can just read continentals instead.

[Anonymous No.15634744]

>>15630351
Hegel said there wasn't one aspect of Heraclitus' philosophy that he didn't incorporate into his own. Why post if you have nothing intelligent to say?

[Anonymous No.15634758]

>>15630282
>most important philosophers from history
>doesn't even have Frege, Russell or Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.15634761]

>>15634723
Lol, good one.

[Anonymous No.15634770]

>>15630141
Honestly OP I would challenge anyone in this thread giving you shit to find me one philosophical text that can be understood in one reading. You're gonna struggle with it, but that's philosophy. If it's too much honestly the only two who you really need to focus on for their effects on the broader history of philosophy are Heraclitus and Parmenides. The most you'll get out of the rest is a slightly more informed reading of Plato.

[Anonymous No.15634778]

>>15634744
>Hegel said there wasn't one aspect of Heraclitus' philosophy that he didn't incorporate into his own.
Typical charlatan bullshit. None of Heraclitus' writings survived antiquity.

[Anonymous No.15634790]

>>15634770
Retarded advice.

[Anonymous No.15634826]

>>15634711

The thing described /really/ isn't, as far as I've discerned, although this exchange does further motivate me to check out journal articles on the contraption which might BTFO me. In modern usage, "pipette" carries a very precise meaning: a small syringe-like device used by scientists/doctors to suck up fluid from one spot and transport it to another. Although this basic function is the same as our ancient clepsydra, the differing size(?), shape, and historical context of the latter deserve some expansion (which I found in another source, buttressing Waterfield). The ancient clepsydra (not the water clock) suggests instead (to me) a children's bath toy to learn displacement of fluid, notions of pressure, basic physical notions, which the thinkers put to their various physical theories.

It's an isolated/anecdotal/autistic case but I like the one footnote over the other. Maybe I check libraries later about Graham.

Pic unrelated: the Pythagorean tetractys (they seem to have liked the device, in my own poor reading, for multiple reasons: suggestion of four tiers (four elements?), sum to ten, a nice round number. Waterfield reproduces some pseudo-Pythagorean or similar who produces an amusing numerlogical account of the numbers one through nine.

[Anonymous No.15634995]

>>15630141
Working through this as well OP, just take it slow, take notes, reread where needed. Someone else in the thread mentioned it but the Stanford encyclopedia is a good supplementary resource. Also simple visuals on Wikipedia can be useful because often the explanations in the fragments and testimonia can hard to parse
Godspeed

[Anonymous No.15635217]

>>15634229
>implying they pass

[Anonymous No.15635234]

>>15630141
More then half the shit in that book is schizo bullshit (especially the Milesians) that no takes seriously or has been debunked by later philosophy/science. Just read Heraclitus, Parmenides and the Sophists.

[Anonymous No.15635238]

>>15630228
This. Philosophy is by no means an easy venture, it just takes time, and then it gets marginally easier. Eventually some ideas will be easy, but it's an incredibly complex field to get into at first.
>>15630237
Another good point; some people read philosophical works multiple times. You're not going to get everything the first time through. Just work on getting new thoughts.

[Anonymous No.15635458]

>>15630141
start with something easier like Candide.

[Anonymous No.15635465]

>>15635234
Kill yourself, pseud moron.

[Anonymous No.15635486]

>>15634778
How do you function on a daily basis if you're this mentally deficient?

[Anonymous No.15636607]

>>15635465
You're the pseud for thinking that the Milesians are anything more then droll ramblings to a modern audience.

[Anonymous No.15637312]

>>15635234
>schizo
You literally don't know what this word means. Stop posting, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15638380]

>>15632824
this is a great book

[Anonymous No.15638439]

This book fucking sucks to get a handle of the presocratics. Get Guthrie’s volumes of Greek philosophy instead.