/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3109394]

Hi /lit/
I need your opinion regarding philosophy books/authors. Although I've never read any philosophy books before, I carelessly bought 2 books from Nietzche.

So far I've enjoyed this book very much, but some folks tell me that If I am to read philosophy, I should start from the greeks and go forward through the timeline.

Do you think I should stop reading and start with greeks first? finish this book then go to greeks? I wouldn't like to leave this book half-read....

Opinions welcome

[Anonymous No.3109409]

Greeks are useful for history and a small amount of fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.3109414]

Don't start with Nietzche if you're getting into reading philosophy; he probably has the craziest shit of all time. I wouldn't say you need to start all the way back at ancient Rome though. I would start with something like Rousseau or Descartes and go forward from there. If you're into political philosophy start with Hobbes and/or Locke.

[Anonymous No.3109417]

>>3109414
So many typos; I hope /lit/ doesn't get mad at me.

[Anonymous No.3109420]

wtf is this on fit for

[Anonymous No.3109425]

>>3109420

the overman was pretty swole

[Anonymous No.3109431]

all you need is Plato

[Anonymous No.3109436]

>>3109414
>>3109409

I was planning getting some Descartes material, but i wanted to know if the Greeks were more important to start from, which authors would you suggest?

Given that Nietzche mentions Schopenhauer several times, I'm guessing I'll have o get something form him too. what do you mean by "craziest shit"?

[Anonymous No.3109450]

>>3109436
By "craziest shit", I mean that Nietzche has some of the wildest conceptions about questioning morality and what reality is and all that good stuff. If you're into more "what is real?" philosophy I would recommend Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Neitzche, and people in that sort of direction.

As far as Greeks go it's all about what you want to get out of your philosophy reading. Plato and Aristotle are the absolute staples if you're going to go into Greek work. Greeks have pretty interesting political work, but if you read their science its all gonna seem pretty stupid given what we know today.

[Anonymous No.3109463]

>>3109450

>Nietzche is weird, if you aren't into that read Nietzche

u wot m8

[Anonymous No.3109476]

I read the first two chapters. So far so good. If the ancients start to test your patience, give this a shot before you give up on philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3109486]

>>3109476
That's good for updating you on ethics and it's relationship to law. It's not philosophy in general though, and won't help with Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.3109512]

>>3109486
The book does ethics well. I recommended it because of the story involving the Navy Seals. Hopefully that wasn't the best part.

[Anonymous No.3112092]

>>3109414
I started with reading the bulk of everything Nietzsche ever wrote.

After being so thoroughly mindfucked I had to stop reading anything for a month and a half, I've cautiously started trying some Plato. So far so good.

[Anonymous No.3112099]

Just read whatever you feel like reading.

[Anonymous No.3112109]

>>3109394
You do not need to start with the Greeks but the answer to your question really rests on what you want to do with philosophy. If you want to read philosophy for its history and development, then yes, you should probably start with the Greeks. If you are interested in certain kinds of questions, for example, questions of language, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and such, then you should start with a introductory book on the topic of interest. I do not read philosophy as I do history, instead, I read philosophy to answer questions and ask more questions. So, it really comes down to what you want to gain from reading philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3112114]

get plato's the politics alan bloom translation

Aristotle political writings
nicomedian ethics

augistine

boethius consultation of philosophy

start there thats a lot all on its own

[Anonymous No.3112135]

>>3112114
>get plato's the politics alan bloom translation
>and not the republic

>Aristotle political writings, nicomedian ethics
>and not the metaphysics

[Anonymous No.3112158]

>>3112092
In other words, take Nietzsche a little later in smaller doses.

[Anonymous No.3112194]

>>3112135

He obviously meant the Republic since "Politics" was Aristotle and AFAIK Bloom only translated the former. Also...

>>3112114
>nicomedian

Nicomachean.

>augistine

Augustine.

>consultation of philosophy

Consolation, you serf. inb4 >lol i trol u

[Anonymous No.3112221]

If you don't start at the beginning, you won't understand philosophy. Case in point: the dilettantes of /lit/.

>From all that has here been suggested, it should be clear that one cannot read Nietzsche in a haphazard way; that each one of his writings has its own character and limits; and that the most important works and labors of his thought, which are contained in his posthumous writings, make demands to which we are not equal. It is advisable, therefore, that you postpone reading Nietzsche for the time being, and first study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years.

- Heidegger, "What Is Called Thinking?" p.73

[Anonymous No.3112310]

>>3112221
>It is advisable, therefore, that you postpone reading Nietzsche for the time being, and first study Aristotle for ten to fifteen years.

[Anonymous No.3112316]

>>3112310

You heard me.

[Anonymous No.3112344]

start wherever you want. the greeks will probably kill your interest

[Anonymous No.3114029]

Start with the greeks, then go with existentialism. You will hate the greeks. After, read structuralism and post structuralism, you will hte existentialism. Read the history of metaphysic to understand Derrida, see how Plato is awesome. Go back to the greeks, and consider everything else as shit. Read Platon, Aristotle, Plotinius to Medieval Philosophy. See that Medieval is shit, go read Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz. Read Hume and say : "aw man, such a party breaker" then read Kant to see that Modern philosophy before Kant is shit. Read Kant, Hegel and German Idealisme. Marxism. Think you should know a bit more about analytic (anglo-saxon) philosophy, take class, see that's shit, never do it again ever. Take a phenomelogy class to piss off scientist philosophy. Read Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, etc. to Heidegger. See that Heidegger is right, and phenomenology, scientist, and the rest of philosophy is shit exept maybe Plato and Aristotle and MAYBE Kant. Discover you only like philo about existence, go back with existantialism, but leave Sartre (he suck). Read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoievsky, Beckett, Camus. Read all Camus, exept myth of syssiphus (suck). Go to the pre-socratics, like them. Understand that the cultural and context is important after reading Gadamer and Hermeneutic. Reread marx, critical theory, structuralism and post-structuralism. See that Hegel is one of the most important philosopher of philosophy. Go back to Kant, love Kant. Understand the need of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. Read philosophy history. When you know all this, read Blanchot, Bataille (awesomme Bataille) and all of critique de la littérature. And finaly, never go back to analytic ever... NEVER

[Anonymous No.3114040]

>>3112316

Can someone tell me who this guy is supposed to be? I've been on /lit/ for over a year and I've never been able to figure it out. Is it Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.3114050]

>>3114040
its He-i-feel-degger

[Anonymous No.3114046]

>>3114029
Damn.
Is that from personal experience?

[Anonymous No.3114057]

>>3114029
You're the only person I've ever seen saying Hegel is good, everyone else I've spoken to hated him. And loved Heidegger, also contrary to you. wassap wit dat mang

[Anonymous No.3114060]

>>3114057
Lol I thought the same, haven't heard good words about Hegel in ages, if ever in fact.

[Anonymous No.3114063]

>>3114057
Wow, i never said i dont like Heidegger, he is one of my favorite thinker of all time. And people say Hegel suck because he is hard to read, but if you go really slowly, it will be the best feeling ever.

[Anonymous No.3114067]

>>3114057
>>3114060
>>3114063

Hegel's great and so is Heidegger

[Anonymous No.3114423]

>>3114029
Man, I imagined this a little journey through western thoughts and philosophies.

I did pretty much something like this, all though i skipped some of the 'steps'.

>tfw i will write this down and do it
>tfw i will never understand hegel though

[Anonymous No.3114459]

>Figure out what you like, what branch, which stances on each branch, etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

>Read a few philosophers that talk about this subject and who you think youll enjoy reading

>Read a few classics, start with Pre-socratics, then Plato

>Read a few more from your favorite subject

>Read more classics

>Repeat, Repeat, Repeat

[Anonymous No.3114479]

>>3114459
/thread

[Anonymous No.3116671]

>>3109394
If you start with the Greeks, remember to start with the pre-socratics and work your way down from there. Those tiny extracts make it much more digestible, and you'll know more on what the classical philosophers are talking about.

[Anonymous No.3116684]

>>3109394
Your first philosophy book was Nietzsche? What compelled you to start there? that was a terrible decisions. Developing chronologically is important to get the historical context and Nietszche was a big commentator so you probably won't get his depth until you understand Philosophical tradition. THe wuickest way into philosophy is starting with the greeks: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hellenistic-Philosophy-Introductory-Brad-Inwood/dp/0872203786/ref=sr_1_1?s=b
ooks&ie=UTF8&qid=1352055545&sr=1-1

and then perhaps a history of philosophy:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Western-Philosophy-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415325056/ref=sr_1_1?s=boo
ks&ie=UTF8&qid=1352055576&sr=1-1

[Anonymous No.3116712]

>>3116684
Umm... What if I started with Kung Tzu's Analects?

[Anonymous No.3116710]

I tried reading the greeks after some Nietzsche, Descartes, and other modern phil. The greeks are boring, they lay a foundation and they approach from a very specific perspective that many appreciate but some will not. Try reading something of Plato's that's been recommended. If it's boring then I really don't recommend trying to power through it; it just doesn't contribute much. Later philosophers present the same or modified concepts but in a more modernapproachable context.

Greeks are necessary for a complete knowledge and understanding of philosophy, but for someone who's just interested I don't think that they're a necessity.

[Anonymous No.3116747]

>>3114029
>no Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.3116768]

>>3114040

[Anonymous No.3116779]

>>3114029
>structuralism, post-structuralism
>"history of metaphysics"
>marxism
>analytic philosophy
>phenomenology
>pre-socratics
>critical theory
>Hegel

Can you please indicate a list of specific books one should read to understand each of the segments I listed?

For example,
>structuralism, post-structuralism
Structuralism for dummies by Faggot A, Introductory lessons on post-structuralism by Faggot B.

etc.

[Anonymous No.3116781]

>>3114029
>See that Medieval is shit

Scholasticism, maybe. But Christian Neoplatonism (and subschools like Rhineland mysticism) was squarely in the tradition of Plato and especially Plotinus/Porphyry.

[Franz !!8ZELb56UWUx No.3116786]

I recommend reading this so that you have a better sense of the context in which other stuff you read was written in.

[Anonymous No.3116792]

>>3116710
>The greeks are boring, they lay a foundation and they approach from a very specific perspective that many appreciate but some will not.

Plato and Aristotle present perspectives that are opposite in many important respects. Also, Aristotle may be boring as dick, but the Socratic dialogues are fun, if occasionally difficult.

[Anonymous No.3116803]

>>3116786
>A Short History of Philosophy
and why exactly should we read this and not Russel's A History of Western Philosophy, Durant's The Story of Philosophy or Sophie's World?

[Anonymous No.3116834]

>>3116803
Because people on /lit/ don't always know what they are talking about, ignore him and go with Russell, cross-reference his bit on Leibniz with a different overview, however, as recent scholars have disproved it.

[Anonymous No.3116842]

>>3116803
>durant

Good lord son, did you actually read that book?

[Anonymous No.3116852]

>>3116842
yes, why? 2deep4u bro?

[Anonymous No.3116858]

>>3116852
No, the opposite. Is analysis is terrible, as is his prose.

[Anonymous No.3116871]

>>3116803

Russell's book, at least, is a big, steaming pile of aspie shit.

[Anonymous No.3116921]

>>3116779
>>3116779
>>3116779
bump

[Anonymous No.3116930]

>>3116921

The "history of metaphysics" is the history of philosophy, bud.

[Anonymous No.3116945]

>>3116930
>The "history of metaphysics" is the history of philosophy, bud.

Scratch that, then.

[Anonymous No.3116999]

All this "you have to start with plato to understand Nietzsche" etc. bullshit is 100% lies. There's nothing difficult to understand in anything written before the 19th century (Hegel, etc. excluded). You had some philosophy course in high school, right? If not, read some history of philosophy. Not Russell's though, it's horribly biased and uninformative.

Reading about these might be useful before starting with Nietzsche:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonian_and_Dionysian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

Start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Don't read 'On the Genealogy of Morality' until much later, the language is quite technical.

[Anonymous No.3117023]

>>3116834
>>3116803
The book's a pile of shit. Have you even read it? It's just pointless trivia, Russell's inane ranting and misunderstandings.

[Anonymous No.3117049]

>>3117023
>When Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, the book was cited as one of those that won him the award.

>The book's a pile of shit.

[Anonymous No.3117053]

>>3117049
Yes, it's a pile of shit.

[Anonymous No.3117063]

>>3117053
"Yes, it's a pile of shit." - Anonymous of /lit/, 11/04/12

[Anonymous No.3117073]

>>3116803
Russell and Durant's book should be avoided. They are terrible books written 60 years ago in a period when historical scholarship was pretty weak in english speaking countries.

For example Russell clearly does not understand Nietzsche and is very biased in his reading of philosophy.

Durant dedicates an excessive amount of pages to philosophers that are not that important today (like Ortega y Gasset) and his understanding of Hegel is really a wreck.

Terrible books, avoid them at all costs.

[Anonymous No.3117078]

>>3117073
Your forgot to recommend a book that is better than those 2.

[Anonymous No.3117087]

>>3117078
I think that reading the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is better.

The whole history of philosophy is such a daunting task that no single author manages to do it without distortions or errors.

You need a collection of authors. So you either get a college text book on the history of philosophy. Or you read an encyclopedia.

Than you find what interests you and you look for good books on those arguments.

Like for example, if you want to learn about hegel, read the article on the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and then read some of Pippin's books.

[Anonymous No.3117095]

>>3117087
>Like for example, if you want to learn about hegel, read the article on the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and then read some of Pippin's books.

That's rather confusing. When should one read Hegel then? 10 years after reading books ON Hegel?

[Anonymous No.3117144]

>>3117095
Well not 10 years, but I would advise to read at least 5 or 10 books on Hegel and German Idealism.

Unless you have a good critical apparatus to approach the text, knowing who he is talking to and why he is using a certain term and not another is essential to make sense of him.

The same is true for most philosophers. Some more some less. Hume is more approachable than Kant. But Aquinas is less approachable than Descartes.

But still it's always good to know what was the background they were working in. What their purpose was, who they were arguing against, how their ideas changed.
Even if descartes is one of the most accessible philosophers, his cogito is one of the most misunderstood arguments (exactly because of this apparent simplicity).

So yeah, you want to read philosophy, first read a lot of books about those philosophers.

[Anonymous No.3117159]

>>3117073
Historical scholarship =/= conceptual understanding.

To be fair, understanding nietzsche is hard and interpretations are varied, but I don't think he does much that would lead a reader in the wrong direction. Furthermore, he expresses opinions but doesn't dogmatise, and there is little reason to take that much further. I think you're missing the point, it is fundamentally a starting point for further investigation and, despite some nuances between him and the philosophers, he is genuinely very accurate.

>>3117087
The SEP is amazing, however, and I strongly advise everyone join the society of friends of the SEP if you are serious about your philosophy (https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/))

[Anonymous No.3117161]

>>3117144
Kant is easily approachable in his ethics, even with a limited understanding of philosophy he makes a lot of sense

[Anonymous No.3117172]

>>3117159
Historical work is necessary in conceptual understanding of the thought of a philosopher.
His expressions depend on his own time. on his advarsaries and his friends.
You cannot really understand nietzsche without understanding wagner and the french psychologists.

And informations on this things were very few back then.

[Anonymous No.3117250]

>>3117172
>2012
>historicism

[Anonymous No.3117261]

>>3117250
I don't claim that it's a privileged access.
I claim that it is necessary among other forms of interpretation.

Seriously I wonder how you would understand Hegel's "the night in which all the cattle is black" without knowing schelling's concept of the absolute.

[Anonymous No.3117265]

>>3117261
>I don't claim that it's a privileged access.
Oh, ok. You sounded more condescending than that.

[Anonymous No.3117278]

Why do people start philosophy with Nietzsche ?

>HURR, I don't know anything about philosophy, let's start by that autor who constantly comment the other philosophers I don't know anything about.

The question was rhetorical

[Anonymous No.3117787]

>>3116779
>>3114046
>>3116779

What i meant by my big text of philosophy is that you cant enter in philosophy by historical order; we read the greek from our perspective 2500 years older, with chirtianism, modern, etc heritage. And even if you enter, you'll quickly see that every century of philosophy, every school, etc is a negative response to the one before. You will like Plato, hate plato like plato, etc.
The text was a fiction, i didnt read all i wrote, just to tell you cant enter philo by chronological order, you must know the overall story before understand clearly the story (like a book).

What i can tell you is Plato and Descartes are the best way to enter, because both are working on a new way to think, and the tabula rasa is essential in philo.