Why should I start with Greeks?

[Anonymous No.22632932]

Doesn't it make more sense to start from the latest philosophers instead?
They debunk what came before them and essentially present the most robust philosophy by learning from mistakes of their ancestors, or am I wrong about that?

So why shouldn't I just read a textbook to understand the jargon of philosophers and then move onto the 21st century philosophy?

Anyone before them seems like a waste of time unless I am missing something.

[Anonymous No.22632940]

Good parody of an an*lytic, now do a real human

[Anonymous No.22632948]

>>22632932
start wherever you like,
most people who tell you start in a specific timeframe or with a specific group of people are saying this because either;
A.) that's where they began and believe everyone should follow their discovery-footsteps
or
B.) are parroting what is considered "the right way"
there is not "right way" to self discovery when it comes to reading. you start with what interests you and find your own path from there. most paths will cross with many other readers/students/researchers but everyone walks their own path even in the midst of others walking the same

[Anonymous No.22632949]

>>22632932
> the latest philosophers
All shit btw

[Anonymous No.22633088]

>>22632932
Start with the chinks. They began by philosophically dismantling technical/technological thinking

[Anonymous No.22633636]

>>22632932
I know that cat mate.

You should start with the Greek Plays. They're amusing or tragic and get you working in the mode of thought. Then you should do the epics, with Odysseus first even though its chick lit.

Finally you can start on Plato.

[Anonymous No.22633647]

>>22632932
You didn't miss anything just go ahead and read the 21st century ones.

[Anonymous No.22633696]

>>22632932
I started with the Greeks. I fell for the meme so hard I studied Classics at university. I now can't imagine not having studied it, each text is seared into my brain and I can't help but think in terms of the Greeks. I see their stamp in everything, nothing I have read avoids merely repeating them. But, that applies to whatever first project of genuine difficulty you encounter in your life. If you started with rock climbing you would always think in terms of rock climbing. It is good to start with the Greeks because many others have started with the Greeks throughout history, you'll be able to see things from their perspective. But it doesn't matter, the only important thing is getting off your ass and doing something with your mind.

[Anonymous No.22633714]

>>22632932
Starting with le greeks is a /lit/ meme to send newfags running an impossible gauntlet of reading through all literature chronologically and turn reading into an autistic chore. Some actually fall for it and waste their intellectually fertile years stuffing themselves with useless boring texts.
tldr read what seems interesting

[Anonymous No.22633738]

>>22632932
Try Plato’s Republic. It’s the textbook all the textbooks are talking about.

[Anonymous No.22633825]

>>22632932
You are correct. Here you go.

[Anonymous No.22633957]

>>22632932
its good to have at least a basic foundation for some philosophy. i read the blue greek chart, it will give you some insight into their culture and history, which is useful

[Anonymous No.22633964]

[Anonymous No.22633991]

>debunk

[Anonymous No.22634083]

>>22632932
Read Plato because he's a much better better writer than >99% of philosophers since, even if you don't buy his arguments at least he isn't painful. Also his influence is everywhere, it will help you read later philosophers because they are all heavily influenced by him.

I wouldn't read Aristotle because he's dull as dirt and most of his "scientific" philosophizing is wrong. With him (as with most philosophers) it's better to read a modern book about his philosophy, a distillation of his main points is what you want. Most philosophers can't write for shit and that's a lot of their "difficulty", they are working with difficult ideas to begin with but they are also explaining themselves very poorly, often intentionally writing in an obscure way to make themselves seem "deeper" or more like physics/mathematics (wordcel inferiority complex), and this is something that has only gotten worse in modern philosophy. Nietzsche is a good writer Kierkegaard is a good writer, Russell is a good writer ... and I think that's everyone (ok, there's a few more).

[Anonymous No.22634086]

>>22632932
Here. Read all of this essay, please. If you don’t get it you can’t be helped.

https://cooperative-individualism.org/hutchins-robert_a-letter-to-the-reader-1952.pdf

>Except for Homer the authors of great books who came later into the course of the Great Conversation enter into it themselves as a result of reading the earlier authors. Thus, Plato is a reader of the Homeric poems and the tragedies and comedies; and Aristotle is a reader of all of these and Plato too. Dante and Montaigne are readers of most of the Greek and Roman books; not only the poetry and history but the science and philosophy as well. John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, William James and Sigmund Freud are readers of almost all the books in this set.


If you want to understand literature and how it progressed you HAVE TO read the earlier works and then you can fully understand how they build on on another.

[Anonymous No.22634131]

>>22632932
Read Spengler's Decline of the West for the series recap. It will explain all the developments in philosophy

[Anonymous No.22634464]

>>22632932
You can start anywhere you like, but eventually you'll have to go to the Greeks. Its easier to start there.

[Anonymous No.22634488]

>>22632932
Plato is the height of Greek philosophy, I don't think anyone else is really worth reading besides him, and then Xenophon. Some Epictetus is good, too.