LEARNING PHILOSOPHY WITH UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

[Anonymous No.22031146]

Is following a university program a good way to learn philosophy?

[Anonymous No.22031204]

>>22031146
>Is following a university program a good way to learn
nope

[Anonymous No.22031211]

>>22031146
Read Plato, Cicero, Descartes, and Spinoza. in a few months you will understand philosophy better than anyone who has a bachelor's degree.

[Anonymous No.22031215]

>>22031204

Why do you say so? I can follow uni programs from non-US universities

[Anonymous No.22031226]

>>22031211

Is that the path you picked? Did you choose these authors for some reason in particular

[Anonymous No.22031235]

>>22031226
yes, I chose them because they are relatively easy and enjoyable to read, and because they are all very influential and give you a broad overview of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22031246]

>>22031215
>non-US
oh nevermind, carry on

[Anonymous No.22031248]

>>22031146
Not since they allowed women in. The western university died in the 60s.

[Anonymous No.22031401]

>>22031235

Ill look em up

[Anonymous No.22031411]

>>22031248
>>22031246

I was thinking of following the program of some german university

[Anonymous No.22031418]

'companion' books to philosophers are pretty good
go with that

[Anonymous No.22031424]

>>22031211
>he didn't start with the presocratics
never gmi

[Anonymous No.22031526]

>>22031418

What do you say about books on thehistory of philosophy? I've heard the best is a collection by cambridge

[Anonymous No.22031572]

>>22031411
My advice: focus on one philosopher who has a system that addresses every philosophical question- Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, or Hegel. Master that system and then compare to other systems in light of your chosen system. You’ll learn a lot this way and be able to form your own system which you can then use to practice irl and not depend on the authority of others. Sapere Aude.

[Anonymous No.22031640]

>>22031572

Also, Would it be better to study a more contemporary recent philosopher with a complete system? So in certain way his philosophy would already had taking into account the previous ones

[Anonymous No.22031700]

>>22031640
What you will learn is that time is irrelevant when it comes to eternal truths. But due to cultural barriers caused by space and time you will find authors who wrote in your native language closer to your time easier to understand, at the beginning anyway. Otherwise, with good translations you can start with any system. I started with Kant in English translation. IMO Kant is the best because his time was not too distant from our own, and he addresses all the problems. I recommend starting with his lectures on logic then moving on to Critique of Pure Reason. The key is to stick with it. You won’t understand in days, weeks, months; real progress may take years.

[Anonymous No.22031765]

>>22031700

Do you think that for really appreciate literature you need a background in philosophy?

[Anonymous No.22031789]

>>22031211
You read these men, many more and introductions to varieties of logic in your first year of philosophy at any normal university, anon.

[Anonymous No.22031792]

>>22031789
yes i'm sure you do "read" them

[Anonymous No.22031798]

>>22031765
No.

[Anonymous No.22031823]

Only if it’s a good one with respected philosophers in their fields teaching the courses. If you go to a state school or, even worse, an analytic school you will be taught interpretations of interpretations of interpretations. Most philo grads, especially adjunct professors, don’t have the time to read over complex philosophical works again to refresh their readings from it. At best you will be receiving the interpretation that was fed to them in grad school as good as they can remember it though the weed-fog and alcohol rot.

[Anonymous No.22031832]

>>22031792
How difficult do you think it is to "read" Descartes correctly?

[Anonymous No.22031837]

>>22031572
I just developed mine from addendums to theirs

[Anonymous No.22031880]

>>22031823

Can you recommend one to find the program?

[Anonymous No.22031887]

>>22031211
Then after you have read them, read them while standing up.

[Anonymous No.22031899]

>>22031248
When you have learned to learn, then learn. You won't want to go to universities, universities will come to you.

[Anonymous No.22031906]

>>22031572
Quote from an introduction to a side-by-side of Dante's Inferno:

>Is translation really possible? The answer must be 'no'.

[Anonymous No.22031927]

>>22031906
True. But the advice still stands. “Translations” have their place in the beginning.

[Anonymous No.22031941]

>>22031899
I agree with you, but with the caveat that what you mean by “university” is an invisible college.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_College?wprov=sfti1

[Anonymous No.22031987]

>>22031572
Doing this with Hegel rn. It's gonna take a long time but I'm making progress. My thought is that if I can fully understand (if that is even possible) the system of a man who tried to systematize, rationalize, and in general uncover everything through the manipulation of concepts, then I can see over the peak of the mountain of reason, deconstruct it, then find other paths.

[Anonymous No.22031997]

>>22031765
No. You just have to be receptive to art and sincere in this reception. The reductionist and the ironic attentionlet will never get anything out of literature. To see why literature is one of the most important human cultural activities, you have to believe it to be such, and be receptive to this possibility, without trying to constantly remove yourself from it.

[Anonymous No.22032008]

>>22031823
>an analytic school
>interpretations of interpretations of interpretations
Is this true? This seems very opposed to the general analytic style of philosophy. Every analytic paper I read, and most historical analytics I've read, addressed their peers, but did so with very clear citation and often give well-established terminology to the position of their peers and themselves, all the while still focusing on the actual problems at hand. Obviously this might not reflect in the actual schooling, but from my experience, in general, it seems to me that Continental philosophy typically suffers from the problem of self-reference way more.

[Anonymous No.22032027]

>>22031997
>attentionlet
Kek

[Anonymous No.22032072]

>>22031997

What do you mean with being receptive and sincere?

[Anonymous No.22032650]

>>22031146

it can, it depends on what focus you want and the quality of the uni and the professors. my school's pretty good and our philosophy club has a lot of really knowledgable people. the professor who runs the club is really excellent and really knows his stuff, especially focused on logic.

most ppl who responded no here are brainlets who went to Nig U where they learned only CRT and black "philosophers" who talked only about cuckholding white people.

or they were too poor to go to uni and instead tab between /lit/ and wikipediaing stuff to look knowledgeable w.o. having to actually read or discuss the material with people who kno more than them :)

[Anonymous No.22032667]

>>22031211
you deserve to get banned

[Anonymous No.22032760]

>>22032650

I mean following the program and syllabus of a univeraity without enrolling to it. Like the MIT opencourseware

[Anonymous No.22033787]

>>22031146
No, you'll have to write essays parroting your professor's opinion instead of just having your own.

[Anonymous No.22033808]

>>22031146
The only right way to learn philosophy is to never read anything at all ever

[Anonymous No.22033821]

>>22031572
I don’t get why you’d need your own system if you’ve already learned aquinas

[Anonymous No.22033830]

>>22031572
what did you call a "system" ?

[Anonymous No.22033857]

remember, philosophy is not science

[Anonymous No.22033870]

My advice: start with The Logic of Scientific Discovery

[Anonymous No.22034499]

>>22032072
I'm getting into really subjective terms so it's gonna sound vague. But you have to accept the piece on its own terms. If a book is pitching itself as a manic thriller with a twisted narrator, you can't constantly look at the prose and say "this is just an author trying to sound crazy." Obviously if it is blatantly terrible, then this can help you decide its not worth reading. BUT to a certain extent, you have to allow what you think the author is attempting to do to take over you, and enchant or hypnotize you in a certain sense.

[Anonymous No.22034605]

>>22032667
Why ?

[Anonymous No.22034719]

>>22034499

What do i do if the author involves a philosophy or the work of another author? Are we supposed to stop and look up for the information, or should we continue reading without paying attentiin?

[Anonymous No.22035741]

>>22033857
>t. doesn’t know

[Anonymous No.22035833]

>>22031146
did one year at one of the highest rated universities in my country
as you would expect, most of the professors were leftist and most of them ere marxist as well, and were outspoken too, even during lectures

half the program was good stuff but that was it. Most classes did incorporate the Greeks, but there was only one class that focussed on them completely. Medieval philosophy was probably the best. Basically the classes focussing on stuff from before the 1800s were good, but that was only half the classes. With the other half I was studying the works of communist pedophiles

Nietzsche was discussed in 3 classes and one of them was my own choice because it had a free subject to choose for an essay, while Marx and Freud were in half of them

It did deepen my knowledge and understanding of certain philosophersand broaden my range of ones that I know, and that did make the other half worth taking, but I would not recommend taking it because that understanding I could have gotten in other ways

[Anonymous No.22035879]

>>22035833
also Logic is the most retarded class
you'll be learning some meme mathmatic language to put propositions into formulas. L1 and L2 are absolutely useless and the course does not belong in philosophy but in retarded-academia-meme-shitosophy