[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 49 KB, 459x600, THINKTHINKTHINKASS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1736353 No.1736353 [Reply] [Original]

sup /lit/erature

What would you consider a good entry-level philosophy book? So far I've been reading Nietzche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "Ecce Homo", not sure if those are good books to start with.

I've been meaning to get into philosophy since I'm interested in it and I'll need it in uni in autumn.

>> No.1736358

If I where you i'd first get an encyclopedia on philosophy and then find what I would most likely enjoy reading. There's tons on this subject and you don't want to waste your time.

>> No.1736363

I have Plato's The Republic to read once i'm done with Crime and Punishment. I plan on buying Descartes "meditations" once this weekend and bank holiday monday is over with.

>> No.1736373
File: 41 KB, 379x475, 31814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1736373

>> No.1736403

I don't know why 1 out of 2 people asking for entry-level philosophy mentions Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche is not an entry-level philosopher and TSZ isn't even the place to begin with his works. I'd say you've chosen the worst book to get into philosophy. Try reading some book on the history of philosophy (that is not Russell's History of Western Philosophy) and philo in general.

>> No.1736409

think: a compelling introduction to philosophy by simon blackburn is pretty good

>> No.1736422

think of philosophy as a centuries long conversation. You gotta start from the beginning to have any context on what's being said today. That being said, there's a fuckton of philosophy out there, so find a branch you really want to study (metaphysics, logic, ethics, politics/law, etc)

>> No.1736433

Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is always a good start. It's short and pretty easy to understand; I don't agree with a lot of his reasoning but it pretty much invented modern philosophy.

>> No.1736464

Why not start with Chinese philosophy first?
You'll distinguish yourself from the other pretentious faggots.
Read I Ching and Analects of Confucious
with the commentaries

>> No.1736481

>>1736403

>Nietzsche is not an entry-level philosopher
>Nietzsche
>not entry-level

Eh...

>>1736464

>Why not start with Chinese philosophy first? You'll distinguish yourself from the other pretentious faggots.

That's a joke, right?

>> No.1736501

>>1736464

I read Zhuangzi & it has not kept me from being a douchebag.

>> No.1736505

Why not start with Arabic Philosophy first?
You'll distinguish yourself from the other pretentiois faggots.
Read فتوحات مکیہ اردو ترجمہ and the ārā ahl al-madīna al-fāḍila

>> No.1736507

why doesn't everybody know the fucking answer to this yet? it's the fucking republic. that being said, if you're not going the pure western philosophy route, zhuangzi as mentioned above is a good choice.

>> No.1736522

>>1736403
Russell's History of Western Philosophy. This times infinity.

>> No.1736529

>>1736464
>>1736501
The thing is though, Chinese philosophy is a dead end. You wouldn't want to pursue western philosophy afterwards. You'd want to spend your life meditating as a sage.
So maybe western first, eastern later.

>> No.1736532
File: 188 KB, 1206x1400, gettingintophil2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1736532

You're welcome OP.
Also, do not believe anyone who tells you to start with either Plato or Bertrand Russel they are trolling you do not fall for it

>> No.1736541

>>1736532
5/10

>> No.1736547

>>1736532
Ah, how pretty atheist recomendations. I didn't know you where this charming and atheistic D&E..

>> No.1736552

>>1736529

Why not just skip straight to Eastern philosophy?

>> No.1736555

>>1736552
this could work too

>> No.1736603

>>1736505

فتوحات مکیہ اردو ترجمہ

>mfw this was cut and pasted as a joke
>mfw nobody on /lit/ has read Shaykh Ibn 'Arabi's Futuhat
>or Fusus al-Hikam
>or Imam al-Ghazali's Tahafut or his Ihya
>or even stuff by Westerners like Lings

>mfw they probably assume that nothing can be gained from Muslim/Sufic thought and would rather read postmodern wankery instead

Oh well. I'd start with Plato's Republic, OP.

>> No.1736608

>>1736532
On what tier would you put Russell's History of Western Philosophy?

>> No.1736610

>>1736603
Arabs are fucking annoying. Get over it.

>> No.1736613

>>1736610

Scintillating retort.

>> No.1736634

>>1736409
seconding this anon. this is a good introduction to philosophy

>> No.1736644

>>1736603
>mfw
Where is it th...
oh wait, images are haram under shariah law

>> No.1736646

The fall by Albert camus. Sit and think about it about it for a while when finished reading, than take 1 blotter acid.

Slightly greater understanding of philosophy

>> No.1736667

>>1736644

There's ikhtilaf over a number of issues pertaining to what can be depicted as well how and in which contexts. Not sure why you'd bring it up, though.

>> No.1736687

>>1736644
>implying any science or technology isn't illegal under eastern secterianistical Sharia.

Heck even archeology is illegal in saudiarabia..

>> No.1736708

>>1736687

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia

>> No.1736720

>>1736708
This is my source, you don't need to yell :(

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8303805/Google-Earth-finds-Saudi-Arabias-forbidden-arch
aeological-secrets.html

>But few archaeologists have been given access to Saudi Arabia, which has long been hostile to the discipline. Hardline clerics in the kingdom fear that it might focus attention on the civilisations which flourished there before the rise of Islam – and thus, in the long term, undermine the state religion.

>> No.1736727

>>1736687
>Insinuates gODs
...what?
>google "sectarianistical"
no results
>earlier used "religionisticalists"
two results on Google - from /lit/

This guy's English...

>> No.1736731

>>1736720

>The Telegraph

I don't doubt that the Saudis give archaeologists a hard time (because they're assholes and give most people seeking entry a hard time), but the line about "evidence of flourishing civilizations" and "undermining the state religion" seems purely speculative and indicative of bias.

>> No.1736741

>>1736731
Well, maybe. But they have given much worse sentences for much less. Banning some western scientists is soft play for them.

>> No.1736751

i think my first philosophy book was aristotle's nicomachean ethics
its a good begining
also platos republic
maybe some adam smith in there,
then you can start to go nietzhe id think