/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2802425]

As an atheist, is it worth reading western philosophy from St Augistine to the modern era, dominated as it is by christianity?

Also as an aside, can you recommend Eastern philosophy?

[Anonymous No.2802429]

[Anonymous No.2802436]

>>2802429
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.2802445]

>>2802425
>As a woman, is it worth reading any literature from Homer to the modern era, dominated as it is by males?

[Anonymous No.2802448]

>>2802425
Your religious leanings should not influence your decision on whether to read some of the cornerstones of western thought.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.2802454]

Edith Stein argues that St. Thomas wrote his Summa from Aristotelian ground, and though you might take some of his theses as "hypotheses" these ends don't negate the means until the point of faith. Does that make sense? Most Christian philosophers were only theologians once they entered the clouds, though "sed haec sunt contra fidem" is taken as gospel where you may take it at face value.

As for Eastern philosophy I've herd Naruto is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.2802459]

>>2802454
>>2802448

OP here. As far as I knew Aristotle was the favoured greek philosopher of the christian canon, but I just fear that I'll sit down to over a thousand years' worth of fundies

[Anonymous No.2802460]

If you want into Zen, read 'Zen Flesh, Zen Bones' by Paul Reps.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.2802461]

>>2802445
no

[Anonymous No.2802466]

Yeah, Scholasticism (medieval philosophy) is a bit shit. It didn't have much of an impact on the further development of philosophy either.

[Anonymous No.2802471]

>>2802454
>as for Eastern philosophy I've herd Naruto is pretty good.

Lost it. Wanna get married?

[Anonymous No.2802473]

>>2802459
No, that was Plato.

[Anonymous No.2802477]

>>2802473
I was studying a fair bit of logic recently and a few texts explained the lack of a mathematical approach until much later, even after Leibniz etc. as being down to the christian philosophers paying more attention to aristotle who had little truck with mathematics and found it a bit dull.

[Anonymous No.2802481]

>>2802473
Much of Christian doctrine is a form of Platonism, yes.
Aristotle was basically a god though to every thinker in the Middle Ages. So much so that for centuries, it was believed that flies had four legs, simply because Aristotle said so, and nobody ever bothered to check.

[Anonymous No.2802482]

>>2802429
No Maimonides? No Plotinus? No Al-Ghazali? No Taoism?

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.2802499]

>>2802459
At that point it's just a question of what you're reading for. A serious Christian philosophy pretty much died around the Enlightenment, and at that point you're better off learning about existentialism and leaps of faith and the like to understand the "post-Freudian psychological condition." If you're studying for a broad history, stick with reformers like Luther and Calvin, they give you a lot more gun for your powder imo. Round it out with some of the early AD desert fathers, they're an easy enough ladder into mystic thought.

>>2802466
As it says in the Book, "They want a drug dealer not a scholar / Some girls barely speak but always askin for a dolla "

[Anonymous No.2802688]

>>2802459
OP, you realize that your are being a fundamentalist about your beliefs right.

[Anonymous No.2802691]

>>2802459
OP, your behavior is that of a christian fundamentalist who is afraid to read the God Delusion.

Carry on

[Anonymous No.2802710]

Yes it is not because you want to adhere to their philosophy but to understand them better and to see what has grown from those times and minds.

I'm not a classical religious so I don't have a any reason to read a Aeneid but since it has influence other works I can read it to understand better the mind of the people back then and to see how it has shaped other great literary works such as a Dante's Divine Comedy.

[Anonymous No.2802714]

>>2802466
>Aquinas
>Abelard
>Ockham
>Condemnation of 1277

[Anonymous No.2802732]

OP, I think you are confusing things up, no offense.

When you get to read a philosopher that lived and breathed christianity and God, even if he is not talking about the subject, you'll see the word "God" pop out here and there. What you have to understand is that this word doesn't mean the God that we talk about today (regardless if we are theists or atheists). The word "God" can mean anything and it is used many times as a synonymous of nature, of a personality of the universe, a collection of natural laws between the lines, morals, etc. You have to dive into this specific context and try to understand what that word implies. It's not about existing or not existing, it is about finding the context for that word.

Religion is a human thing. Christianity, just as well as every other religion, had many facets, many perspectives. Trust the fact that these philosophers that were immortalized in history had a point of view on christianity that is at the very least intelligent.

On Plato and Aristotle, I think both were twisted along with the history of religion. Plato looks like a mystic and Aristotle was essential to christianity. But if you look at it in another way, Plato can be seen as a thinker of semiotics and Aristotle a man of science. This is my modern and somewhat anachronic point of view though.

[Anonymous No.2802788]

>>2802691


Absolutely correct. No one is expecting you to believe OP, but if you are willing to reject an author who has been a cornerstone of western thought simply because you find his belief distasteful your understanding will be immeasurably poorer for it. Don't be one of those atheists that thinks they've suddenly stumbled onto this great revelation in a total vacuum and their personal moral code is somehow entirely autonomous rather than decided for them by 2 millennia of social evolution within a heavily Christian society. The same people that scoff at the Nicene creed will usually sprout some surprisingly Christian ideals when you ask them where their fundamental values lay. Read St. Augustine, see first hand the philosophical continuity between the pre-Christian classical and Christian medieval worlds and gain the sense of excitement that untold generations before have experienced when encountering truly phenomenal work.

[Anonymous No.2802822]

>>2802691

I don't see how OP implies that he is afraid. Seems to me he's just worried it will be a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.2802995]

OP here, I'm back.

I can accept that I should probably at least try some christian philosophy. I think I'll go for the main works and maybe that'll soften the blow for every other philosopher referring to a god.

Seriously, why do people feel such a strong need to fill the void of what we don't (yet) know with a god though?

[Nicolas Cage !!zG/artNQGzj No.2803022]

>>2802425
>As a person who writes using a computer, is it worth reading books written before the invention of computers?

[Anonymous No.2803024]

As a vegetarian, is it worth reading western philosophy from the Classical to modern era, dominated as it is by meat-eaters?

[MrThrills !aAnvD.FqpM No.2803026]

>>2802788
Listen to this fine man, OP - he really knows good places to get his dick wet.

Excluding religion entirely makes the entire development of western civilization seem senseless and incomprehensible.

[Anonymous No.2803032]

>>2802995
Well, because there is no void really, or you could also say that there ever will.

Those who are theists don't believe they added God to the universe, the think he is integral part of it. That's what you have to put in mind when reading any theist. That is your job as an atheist and I'm an atheist too.The difference is simply that the atheist uses other words for the same things that theist will call God. Think about that.

The problem is that, today, as we got all these cross-references, opinions clashing, 500 tv channels saying shit, priests of all sorts, huge libraries everywhere... We need to find a way to combine all the conflicting messages. So some people cling to something and deny all else, that is, it is exactly because we discovered so many things through science or that other religions are just as present in modern life, that you'll see some religious nuts sleeping and hugging the Bible or even worse, having a fundamentalist, materialist, utilitarian perspective on religion.

I'd say the common man, today, is not prepared for all these knowledge and so there is a constant misconception. Don't confuse the debate we see everyday of theists vs atheists (and the "agnostics") with the writings of philosophers from the past. Don't let this petty debate based on dogmas from both sides affect the way you read them. This debate, as we see it, is new, whereas the question on God was approached in a completely different way throughout time, and that, is old.

[Nicolas Cage !!zG/artNQGzj No.2803040]

As a human, is it worth reading fossils from the Mesozoic era, dominated as it was by dinosaurs?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2803048]

>>2802466
> Scholasticism (medieval philosophy) is a bit shit. It didn't have much of an impact on the further development of philosophy either.
....
>Albertus Magnus
?William of Ockham
>St. Anselm
>St. Thomas
>Adelard
>Vazquez
>Mastrius
>Banez
>didn't have much of an impact on the further development of philosophy

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2803054]

>>2802481
eeeeeehhhhh. That is a bit controversial. More likely referring to flies as having four legs was a marker of being conversant with Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.2803061]

>>2803022
>>2803040

I seriously hope you're trying to troll or something and don't actually think these are apt analogies at all.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2803060]

>>2802499
>A serious Christian philosophy pretty much died around the Enlightenment
You meant to say
>A Christian philosophy largely accepted by secular scholars..etc.
Right?

[Anonymous No.2803063]

>>2802425
>As an atheist, is it worth reading western philosophy from St Augistine to the modern era, dominated as it is by christianity?

No. Start with Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.2803064]

Which online store should I buy my e-books?

ANy small plucky ones that aren't big corporations?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2803066]

>>2802995
>Seriously, why do people feel such a strong need to fill the void of what we don't (yet) know with a god though?

So - you don't know any devoutly religious people well enough to ask them about their beliefs?

[Anonymous No.2803068]

OP, it is worth studying everything. Obviously you should keep in mind what religion is and what it has become, but study fairly and as objectively as possible. Keep in mind that most of our culture was developed either through religion or by extremely religious men, and that the Bible is the cornerstone of Western literature and culture. Take care not to be dismissive.

[Anonymous No.2803079]

>As an atheist, is it worth reading western philosophy from St Augistine to the modern era, dominated as it is by christianity?
No, as a self-proclaimed atheist, you have nothing left to learn. After all, why should you believe something or even seriously consider its implications just because it was written in an old book that people used to like a lot.

[Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz No.2803107]

>>2803060

nah man liberation theology is just a bunch of socialist propaganda; I am a white person and I've read a lot so I would know.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2803111]

>>2803107
OK, I LOL'ed
>I am obviously referring to Thomism and Neo-Thomism

[Anonymous No.2803122]

Heh, very little of western philosophy is dominated towards religion, hell, look at Scotus and Ockham, spend more time discussing language and the problem of universals than God.

[Anonymous No.2803229]

>>2803079
as long as you are dominated by primal western metaphysics, you might as well learn the dichotomy of it. if you want to move away from the whole western metaphysics background, look for buddhism/taoism/advaita(somewhat VERY similar to buddhism)