/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2711007]

I'd like to start reading philosophy. Is it absolutely necessary that I start with the presocratics and work my way to the present? Or how exactly does one start with philosophy?

[Anonymous No.2711010]

I wonder if anyone who started with the presocratics actually made it to the present. That would be rather impressive.

[Anonymous No.2711011]

Start with Of Grammatology

[Anonymous No.2711012]

Start with A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Philosophy is dead.

[Anonymous No.2711014]

>>2711007
Presocratics are great, but a summary will do. Pay much attention to Parmenides and Heraclitus.

Then of course Plato and Aristotle, but I find them to be cunts mostly. Hellenistic philosophy is where it becomes interesting, although the sophists are cool too.

Cynicism, Cyrenaicism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Scepticism, that sort of thing. This is the type of stuff that can keep a man occupied for years.

[Anonymous No.2711019]

OP here,

if I wanted say, a survey of philosophy to get started, how would I do that? Are there some key texts I should start with? I know that many philosophers are responding to the philosophers that came before them so it just feels like I can't skip around, right?

[Anonymous No.2711027]

>>2711019
You should realise that saying you wish to start with philosophy is akin to saying you wish to start with religion. The subject is so vast that a starting point is hard to find. I'd say find some extensive scholarly work about the Greeks and Romans and go from there.

Stay away from Bertrand Russell and Anthony Kenny.

[Anonymous No.2711030]

A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell is a great place to start. Starts at early Hellenic philosophy all the way to beginning of 20th century. Currently reading it. It gets a bit wordy at places, but overall it's pretty easy to understand and provides a good summary of the ideas throughout these times.

After that, I would suggest picking and choosing whatever you like and also reading the people who are important to whoever you like to understand them better.

[Anonymous No.2711038]

>>2711027

Why stay away from Russell? His work is excellent. Honestly, there is little way for a novice to really interpret some of the early Greek stuff, it's very dense. You need to start with summaries.

[Anonymous No.2711045]

>>2711038
I always judge scholars by their interpretation of Nietzsche. According to those standards Russell should have died in the plane crash he so fondly quips about.

[Anonymous No.2711049]

Volume 1 of Copleston's History of Philosophy would be great, since a lot of the oldest of classical philosophy is really fucking boring on its own (reading the primary texts, i mean), especially the presocratics.
Plato is less a bore to read, though. Still, a book like Copleston's would be the best introduction.

[Anonymous No.2711058]

>>2711045

[Anonymous No.2711071]

>>2711045

I just read through a bit of the Nietzsche section, you're right, most of is crap although some of it is true (he does highly admire Heraclitus for example). Most of what Russell writes is correct though and you still get a decent idea of all of the philosophers which is nice because there are few works that have such an expansive scope of 2000 years.

I wouldn't be surprised though if Russell was a bit biased against Nietzsche. Russell was a humanist, Nietzsche is about the ubermensch. He isn't even an individualist (in "will to power" he even says "My philosophy aims at ordering of rank not at an individualistic morality,"). Wouldn't be surprised if Russell had a bias against him, which still doesn't justify misinterpreting him.

But I stand by what I said which is that it's a pretty good book for understanding just a little bit about a large amount of philosophers.