/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18575715]

I now know more about philosophy than 99% of you.

[Anonymous No.18575736]

>>18575715
I doubt (is it good?).

[Anonymous No.18575748]

oh yea? name 5 conceptions of the Good Life

[Anonymous No.18575760]

>>18575715
Name all philosophers.

[Anonymous No.18575823]

>>18575760
Alphabetically, chronologically and autobiographically in the same list

[Anonymous No.18575843]

>>18575715
>brief
No you don't

[Anonymous No.18575861]

>>18575748
Exhibit A:
https://youtu.be/oDiili2Gs-0

[Anonymous No.18575865]

Nah, I have 20 pages left in this and definitely know more than you

[Anonymous No.18575916]

>>18575865
That silhouette, those shorts, that haughty tone of idiot's contentment belong with Russell, the pastiest, most wan, revenge-driven, English-minded "philosopher" ever produced by bastard Great Britain

[Anonymous No.18575954]

>>18575736

I've read it before and it largely lives up to its title, emphasis on it being a history. Kenny focuses more on the historical aspect than the ideas themselves, and there are parts where the book suffers because of this. It neglects much of 20th century philosophy outside of Russel along with intense focus on Wittgenstein. It also doesn't include American philosophy. It's still an okay, reasonably objective, mildly humorous, and concise history of Western philosophy. For someone whose new to philosophy it'd work as a foundation before studying Western thought.

Although I'd recommend you use another work as a cornerstone that fills in gaps. I'd suggest A Short History of Modern Philosophy by Scruton. It's far more elegant, accessible, and clear albeit it starts with Descartes, so it's nearly not as comprehensive. It still would be a very good companion to Kenny's work and overall I'd say it's of better quality.

[Anonymous No.18575991]

>>18575865
Reading a LITERAL cuck-philosopher...
No wonder he was a pacifist.

[Anonymous No.18576014]

>illustrated
>brief

[Anonymous No.18576019]

>>18575865
You chose wrong

[Anonymous No.18576040]

>>18576014
Yeah! Pictures make it better :)

[Anonymous No.18576057]

>>18575954
Putting it on my list, thanks!

[Anonymous No.18576079]

>>18576019
Nah, it’s a great work of history that explains the development of ideas over time. I don’t think it was ever intended as a means to fully understanding each of the philosophers and movements discussed. The only way to understand Kant is to study Kant. The book is useful for understanding where Kant fits in the history of philosophy, which is as the man who reconciled empiricist and rationalist thought

[Anonymous No.18576132]

>>18576040

[Anonymous No.18576383]

>>18576132
You don't enjoy art? What's wrong with you

[Anonymous No.18576389]

>>18576079
Spoken like a true cuck

[Anonymous No.18576416]

>>18575715
Most philosophical discussions on /lit/ are just arguments about what a philosopher meant.
As soon as you start to argue the actual subject, people will become extremely superficial. This is specially the case with Marxists. They will spend hours arguing about what Marx meant, and how you're misunderstanding him, and whatnot, but as soon as you frame your question in such a way that it does not depend on any particular interpretation of Marx, but rather on some interpretation of facts, their mental retardation is suddenly revealed and you realize those people have never studied economics, know little history other than what Chomsky/Foucault/Hobsbawm/whomever told them, and have absolutely no knowledge of other intellectual traditions except for YouTube strawmen (even easy thinkers like Sowell are an enigma to them).

[Anonymous No.18576418]

for me it's hegel's history of philosophy

[Anonymous No.18576518]

>>18575954
>Western thought
i.e. Philosophy

[Anonymous No.18576525]

>>18576416
This sums up 99% of people on the planet.

[Anonymous No.18576663]

For me, it's F C Copleston's 'A History of Philosophy'

[Anonymous No.18576821]

>>18576416
Do you really expect people to have original takes on philosophical matters?
And if you do, do you really think that these takes will be worth anything compared to well founded and respected philosophers that have previously discussed them?

[Anonymous No.18576824]

>>18576525
True.
But I think it's a serious educational problem. People have a natural tendency to look for father figures, leaders etc. so they focus too much on the philosopher, and too little on the actual ideas and facts.
In the end, they treat philosophy like a substitute for religion.

[Anonymous No.18576859]

>>18576821
>original takes

Who even talked about originality?
I am talking about been updated on the facts of the discussion.

[Anonymous No.18576862]

>>18575715
Who designed this cover? I'm not mad, I just wanna talk.

[Anonymous No.18577395]

>>18576824
Most people are dumbs faggot (probably myself included). Democracy, igualitarism and trying to educate the dumb people are the biggest mistakes in western history.
But the most stupid thing one can do is to try to argue with neurotypical. It's like using a treadmill, you waste your time, get tired and don't get anywhere

[Anonymous No.18577399]

>>18576859
What facts are you talking about if not a particular interpretation of a thinker, eg. Marx

[Anonymous No.18577414]

Thoughts? Found it at the thrift store and grabbed it. I've never read philosophy so I thought I'd read this then start reading the philosophers themselves.

[Anonymous No.18577450]

>>18576079
shut up you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.18577456]

>>18577414
Ortega y Gasset is an absolute charlatan, Julian Marias is his disciple. I had this book from long time, i think you are good to go on most of it, just watch out with the word "life", fishy word...

[Anonymous No.18577459]

>>18575823
>>18575760
In one post

[Anonymous No.18577467]

>>18576824
Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned it. I noticed that in my mandatory (liberal arts) classes back in uni. They literally just taught what other people said, and then students argue about what the guy meant. Any actual discussion of the topic at hand is extremely limited in depth and breadth.
They dont actually learn anything, it just seems like a way for retards to pass on their belief to other retards through an effigy.

[Anonymous No.18577471]

>>18575865
Nah, Kenney's is definitely the better survey, having read both.

[Anonymous No.18577484]

>>18577471
This one, IDK about the illustrated one.

Better organized and better coverage. On the down side a good deal longer and Russel's is already long, but it's organized into volumes.

[Anonymous No.18578155]

>>18575715
What's a good book for an introduction to the philosophy of science?

[Anonymous No.18578438]

>>18576040
holy KEK
americunts did it again

[Anonymous No.18578801]

>>18575715
>>18576040
Thanks
I'll rec this book to my 7 year old sister

[Anonymous No.18579289]

>>18578438
Actually kind of a based idea if the book is full of period art that is symbolic of thought at the time, a cool quick reference.

His massive tomb summarizing philosophy is the best summary I've read and I've read Russel and Durant (Durant, as usual, has the best prose, but he doesn't even attempt a full survey and skips around at random.)

I absolutely love my digital copy of Kenney's desk reference because it does philosophy chronologically and by topic. Thus, if you're looking for sources to pursue just on logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. you can read through those chapters for the different eras and get overviews and page # references for different ideas you want to reference.

It is on the one hand the best entry level survey for its breadth and brevity (ok, it's like 1,600 pages, but for the subject it is brief), but at the same time way better as a deal reference for graduate students and professionals than other competitors.

Kenney will go down as THE intro survey in the future I'm pretty sure.

[Anonymous No.18579308]

>>18579289
To back that up, many professionals already put him in their top recs and the book has only been out for 10 years.

Particularly, it covers Medieval philosophy far better than other similar volumes (Durant skips from Aristotle to Bacon, then to Kant).

[Anonymous No.18580172]

why?

[Anonymous No.18580182]

>>18580172
Because most anons don't read and don't ask. Considering that some anon learned what Kant was about in some 'rap battle Kant vs. Rand', I don't think he is overreacting.

[Anonymous No.18580195]

>>18575715
What good is that knowledge if you're spending time bragging about it on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.18580610]

>>18575865
in all my years of browsing this board this is the first time ive ever seen someone take a pic of their book outside on the sidewalk. you win and it's time for me to retire

[Anonymous No.18580630]

>>18575865
>Frederick Copleston you fucking plebs

[Anonymous No.18580634]

>>18580195
This is the only place where it’s actually useful lol

[Anonymous No.18580648]

>>18575865
That silhouette, the bald head, the cargo shorts, the skinny fat body, the choice of book. Everything in this picture is perfect it could be a new meme

[Anonymous No.18580652]

>>18580648
Don’t forget the chewed down nails from anxiety

[Anonymous No.18580807]

>>18577414
Yeah it's good. Has a better account of continental philosophy or rather it's predecessors than Kenny let alone Russell

[Anonymous No.18580823]

>>18575715
nice but that's the abridged version, anon.
read the full one, it's great.

[Anonymous No.18580830]

>>18575865
this one's smaller AND retardeder.

[Anonymous No.18580888]

>>18576040
If our world had any worth every book would look like an illuminated manuscript.

[Anonymous No.18580892]

>>18575916
I'm British and I hate Russell. Some of his summaries are decent but by george are they dull, emotionless upper class drivel. I'd rather listen to a local drunks understanding of any philosophy hes been reading than Russel.

[Anonymous No.18580893]

>>18576416
the interpretational side is what continental phil excels at, the dialogical side is what analytic phil excels at.

[Anonymous No.18580904]

>>18575715
Working on my graduate degree in philosophy, but you read a book. So good on you.

[Anonymous No.18580905]

>>18576663
this is too long for most people (it's around five times as long as Kenny, and almost seven times as long as <<<Russell>>>)
it also isn't possible to find in ebook format (except some very low quality PDFs, but even these don't cover his full nine volumes)

[Anonymous No.18580946]

>>18580648
I have a full head of hair, don’t own a single pair of cargo shorts, and am 15% body fat and lift 4 times a week
You are projecting. Nigger

[Anonymous No.18580951]

>>18580946
really? your legs shouldn't have a divet at the knee if you're lifting regularly.
do you ever work out your legs?
you look black.