/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18211139]

how do i start philosophy

[Anonymous No.18211147]

>>18211139
It already started a long time ago, nigger.

[Anonymous No.18211150]

>>18211139
Start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.18211171]

>>18211139
I'd recc the books:
Tao Te Ching
Hermetica
Damapada
Bhagavad Gita
First Philosophers [Greek Compilation Book]
Plato's Apology, Crito, and Phadeo.

[Anonymous No.18211177]

Read Plato or just start with the GOAT secondary source, Bertrand Russell

[Anonymous No.18211238]

>>18211177
>dead and dilapidated anglo-american road in the middle of nowhere
>Russell's history of phil
haha

[Anonymous No.18211240]

Watch Philosophy Tube and some lectures.
Before you read a text, reaserch it.
I personally hate the greeks, but read them if you want. I started with Camus, Stirner, Marx, and René Descartes.

[Anonymous No.18211244]

>>18211238
>Trash for the Twitter crowd
You sure proved him wrong, anon.

[Anonymous No.18211280]

>>18211139
Start with the Milesians.

[Anonymous No.18211301]

>>18211177
This is such a bad introductory text to Western philosophy.

>>18211171
This is better because at least these reads are primary, interesting and actually a bit of fun. They aren't dense.

>>18211240
Link us to whatever videos you are watching. "Some lectures", which ones are you watching?

>I started with Camus, Stirner, Marx, and René Descartes

4chan meme'd you good, bruh.

[Anonymous No.18211311]

>>18211177
If you start your philosophy with this book then you might as well kill yourself
>>18211301
The 4chan meme is to start with the greeks, someone else meme'd him

[Anonymous No.18211312]

>>18211139
Read the Sequences

https://www.readthesequences.com/

[Anonymous No.18211392]

>>18211244
>The oddest thing about histories of philosophy is that instead of praising the philosophical tradition they treat it mainly with disdain. They reduce its classics to a handful of hackneyed quotations and stereotyped arguments, and package them as expressions of pre-existing ‘positions’, ‘movements’ and ‘systems’ – ‘Rationalism’, ‘the Enlightenment’ or ‘Idealism’ for example – which are supposed to be self-explanatory. Individual idiosyncrasies are concealed behind post-hoc labels, and the great philosophers are commemorated not as creative pioneers but as cartoon characters endlessly re-enacting the parts assigned to them in the histories. Meanwhile readers rush through the canon like tourists on a tight schedule, looking out for the attractions mentioned in their guidebooks but ignoring everything else.
>There is not much room for that kind of thing in the traditional histories. One reason, it seems to me, is that they have always side-lined the question of linguistic difference. They are of course obliged, at a minimum, to cover works originally written in Greek and Latin, and French and German and English too; but they simplify their task by assuming that philosophical concepts slip easily between languages, like birds flying over borders. They ignore the fact that philosophy has always thrived on linguistic friction, and that it might never have come into existence without it: Greek rubbing against Egyptian; Latin and Arabic against Greek; dozens of modern languages against Greek and Latin and Arabic, against each other, and against the languages of logic and mathematics; and indeed each language against itself. (Intralingual translation is one of the elementary techniques of philosophy.)
>Most branches of culture – from poetry and prose to music, politics, law and unreflective forms of thought – are deeply imprinted with the distinctions, concepts, rhythms, strategies and styles of the language they inhabit. But philosophy is different. It stands in a refractory relationship “to all the languages in which it is practised, and it has always been linguistically promiscuous.

Any book that points out the problem of translating philosophical Greek and German into English does more of a favor to the discipline than delivering wikipedia-tier shit and misleading descriptions

If you want rigorous material on the history of philosophy then you read Heidegger

[Anonymous No.18211458]

>>18211240
Please don't watch philosophy tube. Watch the Carneades guy if you need quick answers, or refer to Stanford's encyclopedia. Read secondary sources and primary sources so you don't regurgitate opinions from a literal tranny.

[Anonymous No.18211478]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM

One of the few things of value /lit/ ever produced.

[Anonymous No.18211479]

>>18211177
Russell's understanding of most philosophers in this book is undergraduate level

[Anonymous No.18211501]

>>18211177

>not Copleston

[Anonymous No.18211526]

>>18211501
Fucking yes, this any day of the fucking week.

[Anonymous No.18211548]

>>18211139

[Anonymous No.18211589]

>>18211240
>Watch Philosophy Tube
>I personally hate the greeks
Major yikes.

[Anonymous No.18211611]

>>18211311
he was clearly meme'd by reddit

[Anonymous No.18211653]

>>18211548
Did you enjoy reading this book?

[Anonymous No.18211699]

>>18211139
The biggest concept to accept while learning philosophy is how much time you are about to waste.

This is not inherently a bad thing, I enjoy reading philosophy and hearing the ideas of others. Yet I acknowledge that 98% of the time, people will NEVER care about it.

Although, this can be applied to most literature as well, more people are are willing to discuss fiction that they have never read, than people are willing to think critically.

[Anonymous No.18211705]

>>18211240
Ahh this is the method to become and unbearable faggot thank you it all makes sense now.
You sir is a lighthouse that showed me the deadly rocks
>its the guy Making cringy thread so he can bait people into very homoerotic debates over god, best writer and why do people even like x.

[Anonymous No.18211706]

Start with the End.

[Anonymous No.18211732]

>>18211706
true

read Plato and Derrida together

>For the moment, myself, I tell you that I see Plato getting an erection in Socrates' back and see the insane hubris of his prick, an interminable, disproportionate erection traversing Paris's head like a single idea and then the copyist's chair, before slowly sliding, still warm, under Socrates' right leg, in harmony or symphony with the movement of this phallus sheaf, the points, plumes, pens, fingers, nails and grattoirs, the very pencil boxes which address themselves in the same direction. The di-rection, the dierection of this couple, these old nuts, these rascals on horseback, this is us, in any event, a priori (they arrive on us) we are lying on our backs in the belly of the mare as if in an enormous library, and it gallops, it gallops, from time to time I turn to your side, I lie on you and guessing, reconstituting it by all kinds of chance calculations and conjectures, I set up [dresse] within you the carte of their displacements, the ones they will have induced with the slightest movement of the pen, barely pulling on the reins. Then, without disengaging myself I resettle [redresse] myself again What is going on under Socrates' leg, do you recognize this object? It plunges under the waves made by the veils around the plump buttocks, you see the rounded double, improbable enough, it plunges straight down, rigid, like the nose of a stingray to electrocute the old man and analyze him under narcosis.

[Anonymous No.18211753]

>>18211706
i miss him so much bros

[Anonymous No.18211774]

>>18211653
Yeah, coming from almost no knowledge about philosophy the author did an amazing job puting almost every major western philosopher into the context of todays society. Full of citations and fairly unbiased (unless you're a communist).