/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2670917]

I know you guys probably don't love questions like this, but I need some philosophy advice..

I've not read much at all, and I'm a bit clueless on where to go, I don't wanna jump into something that's way too advanced.. So far I've only read
Plato's republic, zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, the consolations of philosophy - alain design botton, selected essays - Michel de montaigne, and meditations - Marcus aurelius..

I thought the consolations of philosophy was great, that's why I picked up montaigne, and I was intrigued about the chapters on nietzche and schopenhauer, but I get the feeling they're not GREAT to start with..

I wouldnt mind something depressing, but any suggestions are appreciated..

[Anonymous No.2670918]

Alain de botton*, stupid auto-correct..

Would nietzche and schopenhauer be too advanced? Or am I getting the wrong impression based solely on discussion I see on /lit/?

[Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.2670974]

There are generally 4 approaches to getting into philosophy. They overlap somewhat.

1) Historical approach. Start with the oldest and read on. One can also read secondary literature e.g. Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, or some more impartial one like The Great Conversation by Norman Melchert.

2) Topical approach. Read about stuff that interests you. A good idea is using Wikipedia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), and various papers on the subject, or lastly, entire books.

3) Textbook approach. Find a general introduction to philosophy textbook. E.g. Quine et al’s The Web of Belief or Russell’s Problems of Philosophy.

4) Book/philosopher approach. Start with some large book written by a particular philosopher that the person recommending likes.

I think the first approach is immensely boring and tend to just make people quit. Unfortunately, many people here recommend it with the predictable results. This is the approach I used back when I started.

The second approach that people generally recommend is the 4th which is by far the worst idea. No one should ever start philosophy with reading e.g. Kant’s Critique of whatever. Pretty much no one should ever read Hegel or the likes. It also has the same results as the 1st approach because the recommender typically picks some book that is very badly written and long.

As for the 2nd and 3rd approaches. I don’t know what is the best. They both have some advantages and disadvantages. One problem with the topical approach is that one might focus on the wrong things and thus miss things one should have learned about, e.g. critical thinking and logic, or language philosophy. However, one risks boring the reader as they might not care about some of the things in the book. The topical approach has the advantage of being about things that the reader cares about.

[Anonymous No.2670984]

I will get shouted at for saying this, but.. Harvard has filmed the lectures to entire philosophy modules, and they are available for free. As has Stanford and quite a few other uni's.

If you happen to pick one on say moral philosophy, they start you off with Locke and Bentham, explain concepts like utilitarianism, and build you up to someone like Kant. Couple this with your own research and read the areas that interest you most.

[Anonymous No.2670988]

>>2670917
OP's picture is Christian in the sense that it seeks to determine a persons worth by taking on some makeshift, artificial external position, while in reality a person really is everything to himself, since he himself is what makes the world exist. Therefore everyone is enormously significant from ones actual perspective.

[Anonymous No.2671016]

>>2670984
Thanks, that's a great idea..

[Anonymous No.2671028]

>>2670984
>>2671016
I'd be really annoyed if I had paid hundreds of thousands to study philosophy at Harvard, only to find them filming all of my lectures and putting them online for free.

[Anonymous No.2671043]

>>2671028
>I'd be really annoyed if I had paid hundreds of thousands to study philosophy at Harvard
full stop.

[Anonymous No.2671120]

>>2670988
>this african american right here, good job
>>2670974
This is a fantastic post. It should be sticky'd.
Go ahead with Nietzsche if you want, he is infact what a number people I know started with. Support it with other resources/interpretations if you feel unsure of your understanding.

[Anonymous No.2671149]

Start with Sophie's world, + some texbook introduction that covers the most central philosophers in a chronological order.

Then you could go "topcal" through a historical appreach. Ie: Choose the ones that interests you, as well as those knows for their cultural impact - but go through them at a historical appreach.

I don't see why you would take any other approach.

[Anonymous No.2671345]

Read Max Stirner.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own